How do you define "Athesim"?

[idav]

:yes:

Two or three times a year we are treated to the Pet Rock definition of atheism: it's not a belief but the absence of a belief; I'm an atheist in much as my pet rock is an atheist. It's always amusing to see the zealous tenacity with which this absence is assiduously maintained.

If you ask the pet rock and it doesn't answer then the rock is agnostic/atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

If you ask the pet rock and it doesn't answer then the rock is agnostic/atheist.

If you ask someone who is sleeping whether he believes in God, he won't answer either. I guess that means theists are actually atheists when they are sleeping. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

I suppose I see what you are saying. Every conclusion has a system of beliefs supporting it. However, since everyone's system will be different, we really can't say that atheism is a specific system-- which is what people usually mean when they say that atheism is a system of beliefs. So it just creates confusion to say that it is a system of beliefs when you're really only talking about an individual's reasons for coming to that conclusion.

Well, the atheism belief system is a concept, so specific systems are overlooked in order to see the general idea.

 

[outhouse]

Oh, and without being a theist, one can still be agnostic you know

not if they are ignorant to it.

that only leaves the default position.


think about it, a remote tribe who doesnt hold any kind of theistic or agnostic beliefs, would be known as a atheist tribe. All due to their "lack of" theism

 

[Draka]

not if they are ignorant to it.

that only leaves the default position.


think about it, a remote tribe who doesnt hold any kind of theistic or agnostic beliefs, would be known as an atheist tribe. All due to their "lack of" theism

It's not the "default position" though. Ignorance is. Technically, one would consider them "ignostic/igtheistic", for they are ignorant of the concepts to describe or define any feeling or thought process about any feeling they may have one way or the other. It's not even on their radar to discuss about it. As I described earlier, it could be, that upon learning of the concept and definitions, that such a person might exclaim that they understand completely because they have always had such a feeling or internal knowledge but never knew exactly how to describe or put it into words. Such a person could not be considered an atheist, they would have to just be considered ignorant of the concepts, plain and simple.

 

[Willamena]

Not to belabour the point, but ignorance or "lacking" knowledge of a particular thing isn't a default position either--it indicates a comparison between the subject and someone else who has knowledge of that thing, where that comparison isn't necessary. The significant default position for any individual or group is knowing just what you know and believing just what you believe.

IMO

 

[idav]

Falvlun, may I just say, I knew that voicing my thoughts on this were going to land me in the hot seat, but I tip my hat to you.

I didn't want to get involved either and now look whats happened.:cover:

 

[idav]

How do you know that my perception of unicorn is the same as your perception of unicorn? Maybe my unicorns are pink and yours are white. The problems about the "ambiguity" of gods is no different than the ambiguity of anything else we talk about. I find it suspect that this is only a big deal when we are talking about gods.

Pretty simple. A horse with unihorn.

You're thinking too hard. If you are reading a novel, and the word "god" appears to describe a character, you know what it means, and you have been given knowledge about what sort of being this character is. You don't assume that it is referring specifically to Ra or Yahweh. You have various concepts associated with that word: Powerful, has control over some aspect, super/supra natural, etc. You know they aren't talking about a mouse or a rock or an alien. You understand what the word god means. I don't understand why people act as if they don't, even though they obviously do. It is not a nonsensical, jibberish word as your arguments would have us believe.

Also, it doesn't matter whether knowledge is possible about it or not. Knowledge isn't required for concepts. We have a concept of what a fairy is, and yet we can never obtain knowledge about fairies.

The word god isn't so easy. Perhaps there are major categories like a creation god vs. a lesser god. There are also those that prescribe to more of a impersonal type ultimate reality. The diversity and usage of various religions on just those three categories is pretty huge. A fairy is less ambiguous than that and I've at least seen drawings of them. I don't really see people confusing unicorns and fairies.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you ask the pet rock and it doesn't answer then the rock is agnostic/atheist.

Definitely a hard atheist.

 

[outhouse]

It's not the "default position" though. Ignorance is

no, that cannot be.

what would they be ignorant of ? if nothing is there, there is nothing to be ignorant about.


ignorance could only be used if something existed.



it is not a prerequisite of first knowing theism, to not being a theist

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you ask the pet rock and it doesn't answer then the rock is agnostic/atheist.

No, it's a rock with the limitations of a rock.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're thinking too hard. If you are reading a novel, and the word "god" appears to describe a character, you know what it means, and you have been given knowledge about what sort of being this character is. You don't assume that it is referring specifically to Ra or Yahweh. You have various concepts associated with that word: Powerful, has control over some aspect, super/supra natural, etc. You know they aren't talking about a mouse or a rock or an alien. You understand what the word god means. I don't understand why people act as if they don't, even though they obviously do. It is not a nonsensical, jibberish word as your arguments would have us believe.

It's not nonsensical, but it is vague, and IMO it's defined by the specific things we call "gods".

The characteristics you listed aren't exclusive to gods. Things like ghosts, angels and demons would probably qualify for all of them.

And if you get rid of "super/supra natural" (since I reject the idea of "supernaturality" as being completely meaningless), then heck... even I meet those criteria: "powerful" is relative, and I have control over a few aspects of reality. And I believe I exist.

I think there are major problems with trying to objectively define the word "god", so the only workable way to separate theists from atheists is to do it in terms of what the word "god" means for them specifically.

... which gets back to the whole "babies are atheists" thing because a person can't believe in a thing he has no concept of.

However, if you disagree and do think that "god" as a concept is meaningful and isn't simply defined by the set of gods human beings have, then please: tell us what "the concept of god" entails.

And this isn't me trying to somehow score points for atheism. It's not like I go around saying "hey - all those babies are on our team! We win!" I just recognize that they meet the requirements of the label, just as a baby meets the requirements of other labels like "non-smoker", "non-swimmer", "apolitical", "American", and "male"/"female". It doesn't do anything for me personally as an atheist, Canadian, non-smoking male to say "hey - that baby is an atheist, Canadian, non-smoking and male too"... it's just a matter of recognizing things as they are.

It's largely irrelevant to me, except in one respect: I sense from some of the people that bristle at the thought of babies being atheists that the reason why they dislike the label used that way is that they see babies as something positive and atheism as something negative. Beyond that, it's just a quibble over getting things right, because I can be pedantic like that sometimes. I mean, one of the comments on a report that crossed my desk the other day was that the consultant used the wrong units for a number in the report text ("passenger car equivalents per hour" instead of "vehicles per hour"). If I'm going to quibble about stuff like that, then the threshold before I nerd out and complain is pretty low.

 

[Orias]

I have two items to address with this... First, understanding the concept of a "god", does not indicate a belief, whether it is for or against. Do you "believe" in Zeus? or Ra?

Secondly, the large majority of doctrines, essays, and documents which exclaim a definitive "non-existence" are directed at specific gods which are defined in religious scriptures, not the overall concept of the possibility of a god at all. Although, I am certain there are some writings out there which do make this claim, I do think they are far less prevalent than the fore mentioned. But that does not mean that all atheists feel that way.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, anything involving God(s) is a belief. It doesn't matter if people believe in these beings or not, because anything concerned with them is all a matter of opinion and belief.

I'm not saying that understanding the concept a "God" is to believe in it, but that your understanding of the "God(s)" are what you believe. But this doesn't mean that these beliefs can't change or adapt, it just means that anything concerned with the metaphysical, philosophical, and abstract is subject to believing.

 

[Draka]

no, that cannot be.

what would they be ignorant of ? if nothing is there, there is nothing to be ignorant about.


ignorance could only be used if something existed.



it is not a prerequisite of first knowing theism, to not being a theist

They are ignorant of the concepts and ideas put forth concerning deity. That is not "nothing". The concepts exist. The ideas exist. Just because you may not personally agree with them does not mean the concepts do not exist. If they did not exist then we would not have religious and spiritual differences in the world now would we? The definitions and terms used to discuss such things are unknown, and thus unusable, to those ignorant of such things. Therefore, they could not use such words to discuss any ideas which may or may not be already in their heads. Much like a baby can see and recognize the color red long before they know to call it "red", it is possible to have knowledge of something before being able to label it.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not nonsensical, but it is vague, and IMO it's defined by the specific things we call "gods".

The characteristics you listed aren't exclusive to gods. Things like ghosts, angels and demons would probably qualify for all of them.

And if you get rid of "super/supra natural" (since I reject the idea of "supernaturality" as being completely meaningless), then heck... even I meet those criteria: "powerful" is relative, and I have control over a few aspects of reality. And I believe I exist.

I think there are major problems with trying to objectively define the word "god", so the only workable way to separate theists from atheists is to do it in terms of what the word "god" means for them specifically.

... which gets back to the whole "babies are atheists" thing because a person can't believe in a thing he has no concept of.

However, if you disagree and do think that "god" as a concept is meaningful and isn't simply defined by the set of gods human beings have, then please: tell us what "the concept of god" entails.

I go back to my previous example. If a character was described as a "god" in a novel you are reading, you understand what is meant. You know that they aren't describing a ghost or an angel or a human. The field is narrowed, both in regards to characteristics it does and doesn't have. You now know something about that character that you previously didn't, because you have a general concept of what a "god" is.

I believe there are roughly 3 major categories of gods. 1) monotheistic omnimax sort of God, 2) polytheistic, rulers-of-the-universe or some specific aspect of nature or human experience sort of gods and 3) pantheistic and panentheistic, everything-is-god/within-god sort of concepts. Deist conception is a subcategory of 1, with the split being between a God that is interested in humans and a God that is not.

I think most people have a pretty good understanding of the first two categories, and utilize both in their general concept of god. The third category is probably less well known, or well utilized, and often ignored.

Based upon context, you can pull up the correct general concept for the specific god being talked about, and add details as necessary. Just like we have the word "animal" and then subcategories, like "vertebrates", "mammals", "marsupials", "bivalves", etc, we can still talk about the group "animal" as a whole, and then drill down to specifics as the discussion progresses.

And this isn't me trying to somehow score points for atheism. It's not like I go around saying "hey - all those babies are on our team! We win!" I just recognize that they meet the requirements of the label, just as a baby meets the requirements of other labels like "non-smoker", "non-swimmer", "apolitical", "American", and "male"/"female". It doesn't do anything for me personally as an atheist, Canadian, non-smoking male to say "hey - that baby is an atheist, Canadian, non-smoking and male too"... it's just a matter of recognizing things as they are.

My bolding.

The label has been modified in order to fit the baby, imo. If babies are correctly labeled as "atheists", then the label is wrong, and in need of modification.

It is as unnecessary and meaningless as your assignation of "non-smoker" to the baby, and merely serves to water down the word.

It's largely irrelevant to me, except in one respect: I sense from some of the people that bristle at the thought of babies being atheists that the reason why they dislike the label used that way is that they see babies as something positive and atheism as something negative. Beyond that, it's just a quibble over getting things right, because I can be pedantic like that sometimes. I mean, one of the comments on a report that crossed my desk the other day was that the consultant used the wrong units for a number in the report text ("passenger car equivalents per hour" instead of "vehicles per hour"). If I'm going to quibble about stuff like that, then the threshold before I nerd out and complain is pretty low.

Right in what sense? It is not morally "right", imo. We shouldn't be assigning any sort of religious beliefs or non-beliefs to babies.

As far as "technically" right, it is meaningless, and furthermore, you don't really know for sure.

And as far as the redefining of the word atheist so that babies fit, I strongly oppose it as an incorrect definition.

 

[outhouse]

They are ignorant of the concepts and ideas put forth concerning deity. That is not "nothing". The concepts exist. The ideas exist. Just because you may not personally agree with them does not mean the concepts do not exist. If they did not exist then we would not have religious and spiritual differences in the world now would we? The definitions and terms used to discuss such things are unknown, and thus unusable, to those ignorant of such things. Therefore, they could not use such words to discuss any ideas which may or may not be already in their heads. Much like a baby can see and recognize the color red long before they know to call it "red", it is possible to have knowledge of something before being able to label it.

please answer this

it is not a prerequisite of first knowing theism, to not being a theist?

 

[Draka]

please answer this

it is not a prerequisite of first knowing theism, to not being a theist?

Upon receiving knowledge of what the concepts and stances are and what the terms are so as to make a choice would be the point someone would determine that they are an atheist, a theist, an agnostic, or so on. Until that point they are just ignorant and innocent, while they may or may not have ideas or feelings, they are as of yet undefined and so fall under no heading or label.

 

[outhouse]

so, um your answer would be yes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I go back to my previous example. If a character was described as a "god" in a novel you are reading, you understand what is meant. You know that they aren't describing a ghost or an angel or a human. The field is narrowed, both in regards to characteristics it does and doesn't have. You now know something about that character that you previously didn't, because you have a general concept of what a "god" is.

Actually, the first thing that came to my mind when you said that is the Rain God character in one of the Dirk Gently novels by Douglas Adams. In his case, he is human and doesn't even realize he's a god. Still, clouds worship him, follow him, and rain on him all the time.

I believe there are roughly 3 major categories of gods. 1) monotheistic omnimax sort of God, 2) polytheistic, rulers-of-the-universe or some specific aspect of nature or human experience sort of gods and 3) pantheistic and panentheistic, everything-is-god/within-god sort of concepts. Deist conception is a subcategory of 1, with the split being between a God that is interested in humans and a God that is not.

- I have no problem with (1).
- I have major problems with (2). There are and have been actual religions (the Greek or Norse pantheons, for instance) where gods aren't necessarily "rulers of some aspect of nature", but are just a more powerful class of being. Also, I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition for a polytheistic god that wouldn't classify at least some angels, demons, saints, spirits or other "non-god things" as gods. For instance, does the Archangel Michael meet the criteria to be considered a god? By the Greek model, I think he would. By the Christian model, he is definitely not a god.
- I think (3) is incomplete, because it needs some sort of characteristics for God. You need to be able to tell the difference between an "everything" that is God from an "everything" that is not God. Otherwise, if you're jus going to allow "everything" or "the universe" as one of the things that meets the criteria for godhood, then practically everyone's a theist. Take me: I believe the universe exists. Does this make me a theist?

I think most people have a pretty good understanding of the first two categories, and utilize both in their general concept of god. The third category is probably less well known, or well utilized, and often ignored.

Based upon context, you can pull up the correct general concept for the specific god being talked about, and add details as necessary. Just like we have the word "animal" and then subcategories, like "vertebrates", "mammals", "marsupials", "bivalves", etc, we can still talk about the group "animal" as a whole, and then drill down to specifics as the discussion progresses.

And I'm saying that this isn't really how the category "gods" is defined. I think it's actually been defined by effectively throwing anything that a person calls "god" into a big set, and after the fact trying to pull common factors out of a disparate grab bag of ideas. We can't come up with a set of categories that cover all god things without also including a whole bunch of non-god things.

This means that the only way to become an atheist by that definition is to reject exact god concept one by one, which is something that nobody has ever done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Upon receiving knowledge of what the concepts and stances are and what the terms are so as to make a choice would be the point someone would determine that they are an atheist, a theist, an agnostic, or so on. Until that point they are just ignorant and innocent, while they may or may not have ideas or feelings, they are as of yet undefined and so fall under no heading or label.

If a person believes in one god but hasn't "received knowledge" of polytheistic beliefs, can we call them monotheists? Should we just say that *they're* "ignorant and innocent"?