I see no value in atheism

[ArtieE]

Other than those unaware of any god concept, and therefore not discussing them all atheists are both weak and strong atheists.

So in the context of a discussion on atheism, the weak and the strong atheists are the same people.

No they aren't.

All of them hold both of those positions.

No they don't.

The strong atheists and the weak atheists are the same people,

No they aren't.

they are positions held in common - not two distinct groups of atheists.

Strong atheists are a subgroup of all atheists. Not all atheists are strong atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

No they aren't.No they don't.No they aren't. Strong atheists are a subgroup of all atheists. Not all atheists are strong atheists.

Correct. Only all atheists participating in such discussions. I did say that

 

[leibowde84]

Many for this exact reason dismiss the notion that uncertain (people who have not decided whether they believe in God or not) are atheist. There is a large contingency that see the defining of atheist so broadly, as a rejection of a whole body of work of previous philosophers.

The idea of a strong atheist and a rock share a characteristic in their worldview is dismissive. That a strong atheist is comparable with someone who is doesn't have a have a belief either way is not flattering.

There are plenty of definitions and reasons to support atheism as a belief that god does not exist. The question is why does it matter?

My position is that it does not matter. However, if we are to compare these two perspectives, we se that the strong atheists have more powerful reasoning on their side.

As I have said numerous times, I am ok with either as long as we set the terms in advance, so they don't get switched halfway through. But the assertion that people who define atheism as what has been referred to in this thread as "strong atheism" are somehow wrong in suggesting such, or the failure to acknowledge that the defining the terms in such that rocks, agnostics, and unknowns are all atheists is arbitrary, is a failure to acknowledge valid perspectives. I will gladly pick up that semantic game and run with it. Btw, it ends with me either getting tired and walking away or someone getting huffy because they only have "that is just the way it is" to fall back on for their "reasons."

I never said that the definition for "atheist" was the same as for "strong atheist". "Atheism" only requires a lack of belief, but "strong atheism" requires an active believe that God does not exist. Why would that be a problem? They are different terms with different meanings. Atheism merely includes "strong" atheism. Linguistically, this makes sense.

My concern is that if the definition of "atheism" is changed to be identical with "strong atheism", the term "weak atheism" will be cast aside. Linguistically, "weak atheism" has to be included in the definition of "atheism", or else it cannot be identified as "weak atheism". I think that most atheists are "weak atheists", some of the most vocal are in fact (at least they profess to not have an active belief that God does not exist), so they would no longer be considered as "atheist".

I think it is important to know for theists that most atheists are weak atheists, in that they merely lack a belief in God. But, they don't believe that the existence of God is impossible.

 

[Willamena]

Its called implicit atheism, if they have not consciously rejected the idea. I have sourced my position and provided links to substantiate my claim.

So they unconsciously rejected it?

 

[Willamena]

If you divide the population of the world into theists and not theists and remove the theists, who do you have left?

If you removed the theists and the atheists, you'd be left with those who've never heard of god, some few who don't care, and many mystics.

 

[outhouse]

So they unconsciously rejected it?

"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

 

[outhouse]

If you removed the theists and the atheists, you'd be left with those who've never heard of god, some few who don't care, and many mystics.

Yet you do no get to define the term. The rest of us will stick with academia thank you

 

[Willamena]

That is... almost completely meaningless. It's quite simple: we are born without (or, at least, with very few) beliefs. The default position with regards to all claims is a lack of belief. "Non-existent things" have absolutely nothing to do with that.

Which doesn't contradict what I said. You appear to be agree with me.

If you promote that we can have a "not belief about God" written on that slate from the get-go, then you promote non-existent things. I disagree that, "We are all born not believing in practically anything." Rather, the slate is blank, hence its name. I believe that we populate the slate with things and their negation as we learn them, as we grow.

The negation of something, like a belief, does not have an identity of its own, that it can stand apart from its counterpart and populate that slate by itself. The negation of something is simply that same thing negated.

Check the evolution vs. creation thread and you'll see for yourself.

Can you explain?

So, we're in agreement? Any claim you don't accept is a claim that you reject, right?

I never argued against "not accepting" as a definition of "rejecting." But non-acceptance, like all negations, has no identity of its own--it is acceptance negated--and rejection does. Rejection is that little voice inside that, in response to a question about belief, says, "No."

 

[outhouse]

"We are all born not believing

That's right, and there is a name for those who are not theist.

"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

 

[ArtieE]

If you removed the theists and the atheists, you'd be left with those who've never heard of god, some few who don't care, and many mystics.

And those would all be not theists, that is atheists. Atheists literally mean not theists.

 

[McBell]

He had said:


I agreed.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant when you said "yes it is".
My bad.

 

[McBell]

\
A person...look this nuts...you are not convincing anyone except yourself...live with it..it's ok by me....

So you do not call theists persons?
What do you call them?

 

[McBell]

What is the problem with calling them "not a theist?"

Nothing.
How do you define "atheist"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you promote that we can have a "not belief about God" written on that slate from the get-go, then you promote non-existent things.

I am not "promoting" anything, and I have said nothing whatsoever about non-existent things. I am simply making the statement that we are all born without beliefs.

I disagree that, "We are all born not believing in practically anything." Rather, the slate is blank, hence its name. I believe that we populate the slate with things and their negation as we learn them, as we grow.

That means exactly the same thing.

The negation of something, like a belief, does not have an identity of its own, that it can stand apart from its counterpart and populate that slate by itself. The negation of something is simply that same thing negated.

You need not "negate" something in order to not believe it. All you need to do is not believe it.

Can you explain?

We regularly see creationists who demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of evolution, and yet they do not believe it. In fact, all of us possess disbelief about things we don't understand - it is one of the most common causes of disbelief.

I never argued against "not accepting" as a definition of "rejecting." But non-acceptance, like all negations, has no identity of its own--it is acceptance negated--and rejection does. Rejection is that little voice inside that, in response to a question about belief, says, "No."

No, rejection is not accepting. You need not hear, or even have, "a little voice". You need not even have ever heard of the claim.

 

[McBell]

If you promote that we can have a "not belief about God" written on that slate from the get-go, then you promote non-existent things.

I have seen no indication that anyone even believes your strawman, let alone promotes it.

 

[Curious George]

I never said that the definition for "atheist" was the same as for "strong atheist". "Atheism" only requires a lack of belief, but "strong atheism" requires an active believe that God does not exist. Why would that be a problem? They are different terms with different meanings. Atheism merely includes "strong" atheism. Linguistically, this makes sense.

My concern is that if the definition of "atheism" is changed to be identical with "strong atheism", the term "weak atheism" will be cast aside. Linguistically, "weak atheism" has to be included in the definition of "atheism", or else it cannot be identified as "weak atheism". I think that most atheists are "weak atheists", some of the most vocal are in fact (at least they profess to not have an active belief that God does not exist), so they would no longer be considered as "atheist".

I think it is important to know for theists that most atheists are weak atheists, in that they merely lack a belief in God. But, they don't believe that the existence of God is impossible.

When was the term "weak atheist" coined? Why is it a necessary term? If it is important for theists to distinguish this group of people, why put them under the umbrella af "atheism" at all? Why associate people who are unsure and people to whom belief is inapplicable with atheism? Why associate agnostics with atheists? Why associate rocks and babies with atheism?

The reason that people often give is that all of these people share a characteristic in that the do not hold a belief in God/gods. Now, it is fine to categorize things and people based on similar characteristics. But there is no reason for the choice of the characteristics of holding a belief that God /gods exist and not holding a belief that god/gods exist vs. Holding a belief that god/gods does/do not exist and not holding such a belief. Moreover there is no reason not to distinguish all of the groups at the outset.

If someone wants to assert one definition is better, then they need to support why their definition is better or more reasoned. When we look at the definition that gives rise to the later distinction of strong and weak atheism, we find that linguistics do not necessarily promote such a definition, history does not necessarily promote such a definition, and logical negation does not necessarily promote such a distinction.

Now I am not opposed to someone pointing out a reason and providing evidence to carry their burden of proof that comes with their assertion that the distinction they prefer is better and reasoned.

People who want the term atheist defined as only what others term "strong atheists" have given reasons. Moreover, they have refuted any evidences provided by people demanding the inclusion of people, uncertain of the existence of god, and entities, to which belief is inapplicable, under the umbrella of atheism.

Given this failure to carry their burden of proof, I am surprised so many "weak atheists" are in the camp lobbying for this broad definition of atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Nothing.
How do you define "atheist"?

Lol, I don't define it. I usually just work within the parameters of the discussion at hand. I have come to realize people are far too sensitive over the definition.

 

[Curious George]

And those would all be not theists, that is atheists. Atheists literally mean not theists.

Does it? How did you work that out?

 

[Willamena]

I am simply making the statement that we are all born without beliefs.

Right. There is not "not believing in God, now..." written on the blank slate, there is nothing written on the blank slate.

That means exactly the same thing.

No. You've populated the slate with nonexistent things.

A blank slate is truly blank.

You need not "negate" something in order to not believe it. All you need to do is not believe it.

Negation is the "not" in "not believing."

We regularly see creationists who demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of evolution, and yet they do not believe it. In fact, all of us possess disbelief about things we don't understand - it is one of the most common causes of disbelief.

They disbelieve because they operate under their own conceptions. It's a case of misunderstanding, not a case of having no understanding. What they understand, as far as they understand it, results in a clear "false" to them.

No, rejection is not accepting. You need not hear, or even have, "a little voice". You need not even have ever heard of the claim.

Rejection: The dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc.

The little voice.

All good definition presents a positive picture, not a negative.

 

[Curious George]

No they aren't.No they don't.No they aren't. Strong atheists are a subgroup of all atheists. Not all atheists are strong atheists.

I think everyone here understands the distinction that is made with strong and weak atheists. They question the validity of the need for such a division, because they do not see the merit in the inclusion of weak atheists in the category "atheist."