I see no value in atheism

[outhouse]

Remember...the implicit atheist concept is an invention by a passionate atheist writer, it automatically swells the statistical ranks on non believers at the expense of agnostics.....just a mind game really...politics of belief...

But we need a term that will apply to people who do not believe in god.

And that applies to two different groups, those who know and reject, and those who do not believe in god because they don't know about it.

Since the term is not used often, I don't see a big deal. More often then not it is used to describe babies or children who do not believe in god. Which in this case it has little meaning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

George H. Smith writes:Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god. ...

As defined in this chapter, the man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist. Since these instances of nonbelief are not the result of conscious rejection, they are best designated as implicit atheism. ...

The thread has already beat this idea to death....regardless of the musings of atheist George H. Smith. the idea is on the fringe of lunacy.....again it's a mind game about swelling the ranks statistically of atheists, first he comes for the agnostics, next he comes for those unaware of the concept of theism, next the unborn babies, then the animals, followed by the fish....birds....plants...seeds....rocks...lunar rocks....lunacy..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The thread has already beat this idea to death....regardless of the musings of atheist George H. Smith. the idea is on the fringe of lunacy.....again it's a mind game about swelling the ranks statistically of atheists, first he comes for the agnostics, next he comes for those unaware of the concept of theism, next the unborn babies, then the animals, followed by the fish....birds....plants...seeds....rocks...lunar rocks....lunacy..

Not lunacy, just the definition of the word. Do you honestly think that using the word by its actual definition is somehow a dishonest attempt to "swell the ranks" of atheism? What if I told you that we are also all born without belief in giraffes? Would you object to that on the grounds that I am simply trying to "swell the ranks of a-giraffe-ists?"

I'm sorry that you don't like the implications of a particular definition, but that doesn't make that definition wrong or innacruate or "lunacy" in any way. The fact that you aren't comfortable with the notion that atheism is a neutral, default position says more about your attitude towards the concept of atheism than it does about the people who are correctly and accurately applying the term as per the definition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not lunacy, just the definition of the word. Do you honestly think that using the word by its actual definition is somehow a dishonest attempt to "swell the ranks" of atheism? What if I told you that we are also all born without belief in giraffes? Would you object to that on the grounds that I am simply trying to "swell the ranks of a-giraffe-ists?"

I'm sorry that you don't like the implications of a particular definition, but that doesn't make that definition wrong or innacruate or "lunacy" in any way. The fact that you aren't comfortable with the notion that atheism is a neutral, default position says more about your attitude towards the concept of atheism than it does about the people who are correctly and accurately applying the term as per the definition.

A lot of blather, but no substance....don't pretend a failed uni student atheist George H. Smith has any authority to define what and who is an atheist and what and who is not?

You said...."What if I told you that we are also all born without belief in giraffes? Would you object to that on the grounds that I am simply trying to "swell the ranks of a-giraffe-ists?"

So to answer your question...no...I would not object, I would agree with you that we definitely are born without belief in giraffes....and so no objection....but I would also point out to you that we are also born without belief in no giraffes..and therefore I would not expect a sane person to not make a statistical claim one way or the other as to giraffe-ists or a-giraff-ists...

George H. Smith, or his interlocutors on the one hand, tell us that we are born without a belief in god...and with this I agree, but Ben W. Douglas, speaking on his own behalf on the other, tells you that we also are born without a belief in no god...do you object?

 

[Bunyip]

A lot of blather, but no substance....don't pretend a failed uni student atheist George H. Smith has any authority to define what and who is an atheist and what and who is not?

You said...."What if I told you that we are also all born without belief in giraffes? Would you object to that on the grounds that I am simply trying to "swell the ranks of a-giraffe-ists?"

So to answer your question...no...I would not object, I would agree with you that we definitely are born without belief in giraffes....and so no objection....but I would also point out to you that we are also born without belief in no giraffes..and therefore I would not expect a sane person to not make a statistical claim one way or the other as to giraffe-ists or a-giraff-ists...

George H. Smith, or his interlocutors on the one hand, tell us that we are born without a belief in god...and with this I agree, but Ben W. Douglas, speaking on his own behalf on the other, tells you that we also are born without a belief in no god...do you object?

Of course we are born without a belief in god.

And yes, same goes for giraffe's.

 

[McBell]

Someone who has not been exposed to a theistic belief is not an atheist...atheist mean not theist,,,an atheist is someone who had to be exposed to theism and rejects it...simple as that.. If you think otherwise...please explain how they could be an atheist?

Here is a prime example of you showing either ignorance or dishonesty.

You do know there is more than one definition of atheist, right?
If not, then it is ignorance.
If so, then it is dishonesty.

Now to be perfectly honest with you, neither answer bodes well for you.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Apart from the definition of "atheism" being the absence of "theism", linguistically (theism being a belief in the existence of God; thus, "atheism" must be the absence of that belief), I think that the theist community often tries to put words into the mouths of atheists by claiming that they actively believe that God does not exist. This, in essence, erroneously turns "atheism" into a belief system. For example, there is a pretty well known debate podcast called "Dogma Debate". The host of the show is a very outspoken atheist, BUT he has said time and time again that he does not actively believe that God does not exist. He simply explains that he has not been presented with evidence pointing to this conclusion. Thus, he is a "weak" atheist. I would say that most atheists, whether they have explicitly expressed it or not, share this view. Because of this, I feel like the broad definition is necessary to avoid confusion. Atheism is not a world-view, nor is it a belief system. It is merely the lack of one single belief. This can be easily shown by looking at some of the "atheistic" religions (or "world views") that currently exist in the world today. They are "atheists", and they are part of an organized religion with certain beliefs, some being supernatural in nature. If we were to change the meaning of the word to describe a belief system, it would undermine many of those who identify as "atheist".

The majority (theists) should not get to define the position of the minority (atheism), which seems to obviously be the case. They want to hold atheists to something they are not so they can look down on them as illogical, when, in actuality, the lack of belief is completely reasonable. On the other hand, the case for actively believing that God does not exist is much more difficult. I see this as an attempt to hinder atheism as an identifying term, making it seem more unreasonable than it actually is.

Those are my reasons. And, fyi, I must have missed where any valid argument was given for changing the meaning of the term "atheism", making it a belief system rather than a simple lacking of a specific belief. The reasoning I saw was flawed in that there was an attempt to equate a lack of belief with a negative belief, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[leibowde84]

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


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

A blank slate is truly blank.


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


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.


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

The little voice.

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

Just to clear this up ... can you provide an explanation as to why you feel that a lacking of belief in something is equivalent to belief that something doesn't exist? In the definition of "atheism" that you provided, you included the phrase "a lack of belief in god". Then, you go on to say that "atheism" is equivalent to believing that "god does not exist". Thus, you must equate "lacking belief in God" with "believing that God does not exist".

Here is a pretty simple example:
There is a man who grew up in the desert, all alone, without any notion of the supernatural. This man has had no interaction with God, and has no reason to suspect that there is any reason to consider such a being. Actually, the idea has never once popped into his head. In short, this man has absolutely no notion of God or any God like beings. Now, this man certainly "lacks a belief in God", right? But, he certainly does not actively believe that God does not exist, as that would be a logical impossibility, as the man has no notion of God and wouldn't even know the word or what it refers to. Would this man be considered a "theist"? No. Would this man be considered an "atheist"? Certainly, because, according to the definition, he "lacks a belief in the existence of God".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

BUT he has said time and time again that he does not actively believe that God does not exist. He simply explains that he has not been presented with evidence pointing to this conclusion.

That is actually stating atheism as a belief system same as social darwinism, scientism etc.. It is requiring objective evidence for a subjective issue, and that is a wellknown belief system. We can predict with certainty that this atheist from the podcast asserts the existence of love is a fact, that love can be measured as fact in the brain. And all kinds of other things about this persons beliefs we can predict with a good chance of getting it right, by this mere statement of requiring evidence for the existence of God, or any god. It is especially that atheists do not accept the existence of any god, that it is a general rejection of all subjectivity.

He would have say he has not made a decision on the issue whether or not God exists, to just be without belief and not assert atheism as a belief system.

 

[Curious George]

Apart from the definition of "atheism" being the absence of "theism", linguistically (theism being a belief in the existence of God; thus, "atheism" must be the absence of that belief), I think that the theist community often tries to put words into the mouths of atheists by claiming that they actively believe that God does not exist. This, in essence, erroneously turns "atheism" into a belief system. For example, there is a pretty well known debate podcast called "Dogma Debate". The host of the show is a very outspoken atheist, BUT he has said time and time again that he does not actively believe that God does not exist. He simply explains that he has not been presented with evidence pointing to this conclusion. Thus, he is a "weak" atheist. I would say that most atheists, whether they have explicitly expressed it or not, share this view. Because of this, I feel like the broad definition is necessary to avoid confusion. Atheism is not a world-view, nor is it a belief system. It is merely the lack of one single belief. This can be easily shown by looking at some of the "atheistic" religions (or "world views") that currently exist in the world today. They are "atheists", and they are part of an organized religion with certain beliefs, some being supernatural in nature. If we were to change the meaning of the word to describe a belief system, it would undermine many of those who identify as "atheist".

The majority (theists) should not get to define the position of the minority (atheism), which seems to obviously be the case. They want to hold atheists to something they are not so they can look down on them as illogical, when, in actuality, the lack of belief is completely reasonable. On the other hand, the case for actively believing that God does not exist is much more difficult. I see this as an attempt to hinder atheism as an identifying term, making it seem more unreasonable than it actually is.

Those are my reasons. And, fyi, I must have missed where any valid argument was given for changing the meaning of the term "atheism", making it a belief system rather than a simple lacking of a specific belief. The reasoning I saw was flawed in that there was an attempt to equate a lack of belief with a negative belief, which is a logical fallacy.

Reasons consist of principles of negation. See willamena posts and legions in another thread. Linguistics post of legions I quoted in this thread, historical post of legions also quoted in this thread.

Not necessarily "changing" the definition. Many have continued to use and define the term consistent with its original and historical meaning. See quagmires posts about definition of atheism. This is not a case of theists putting words in someone's mouth.

However choosing to define atheism by "not theist" is defining the terms according to the majority. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. That rarely happens on RF (or at least rarely admitted). Just weigh the other sides argument and explain why they are not valid.

Basically what I hear you saying is that you want "weak atheists" and "implicit atheists" not to have a "belief." Surely taking them out of the category "atheist" achieves the same result? No? It also keeps out unwanted association.

Theists then wouldn't be talking about you when they bashed atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

That is actually stating atheism as a belief system same as social darwinism, scientism etc.. It is requiring objective evidence for a subjective issue, and that is a wellknown belief system. We can predict with certainty that this atheist from the podcast asserts the existence of love is a fact, that love can be measured as fact in the brain. And all kinds of other things about this persons beliefs we can predict with a good chance of getting it right, by this mere statement of requiring evidence for the existence of God, or any god. It is especially that atheists do not accept the existence of any god, that it is a general rejection of all subjectivity.

He would have say he has not made a decision on the issue whether or not God exists, to just be without belief and not assert atheism as a belief system.

But, God is not required for subjectivity. Why would you even think that? Subjectivity and/or consciousness in no way rely on God or anything supernatural for that matter. Why would you think differently?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But, God is not required for subjectivity. Why would you even think that? Subjectivity and/or consciousness in no way rely on God or anything supernatural for that matter. Why would you think differently?

See now you reject anything supernatural, as well as reject any god. You are simply rejecting subjectivity altogether. This is how you go from rejecting any god, to rejecting anything supernatural.

All things natural are commonly known to be measurable as fact. While all things supernatural are commonly known to be subjective, an issue of faith.

It is not strict rejection of all subjectivity, but in practise it is a close enough rejection of all subjectivity. And by this information we can know a plethora of things of what kind of person leibowd is. It is a defining characteristic of a belief system.

 

[leibowde84]

Reasons consist of principles of negation. See willamena posts and legions in another thread. Linguistics post of legions I quoted in this thread, historical post of legions also quoted in this thread.

Not necessarily "changing" the definition. Many have continued to use and define the term consistent with its original and historical meaning. See quagmires posts about definition of atheism. This is not a case of theists putting words in someone's mouth.

However choosing to define atheism by "not theist" is defining the terms according to the majority. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. That rarely happens on RF (or at least rarely admitted). Just weigh the other sides argument and explain why they are not valid.

Basically what I hear you saying is that you want "weak atheists" and "implicit atheists" not to have a "belief." Surely taking them out of the category "atheist" achieves the same result? No? It also keeps out unwanted association.

Theists then wouldn't be talking about you when they bashed atheists.

See now you reject anything supernatural, as well as reject any god. You are simply rejecting subjectivity altogether. This is how you go from rejecting any god, to rejecting anything supernatural.

All things natural are commonly known to be measurable as fact. While all things supernatural are commonly known to be subjective, an issue of faith.

It is not strict rejection of all subjectivity, but in practise it is a close enough rejection of all subjectivity. And by this information we can know a plethora of things of what kind of person leibowd is. It is a defining characteristic of a belief system.

I do believe in God. I made no such denial. I merely pointed out that God was not necessary for subjectivity specifically. See how your assumptions can be wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

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."

"Weak atheists" are just a different name for "atheists". They're the same. The category "strong atheist" is a subgroup of atheists/weak atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Reasons consist of principles of negation. See willamena posts and legions in another thread. Linguistics post of legions I quoted in this thread, historical post of legions also quoted in this thread.

Not necessarily "changing" the definition. Many have continued to use and define the term consistent with its original and historical meaning. See quagmires posts about definition of atheism. This is not a case of theists putting words in someone's mouth.

However choosing to define atheism by "not theist" is defining the terms according to the majority. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. That rarely happens on RF (or at least rarely admitted). Just weigh the other sides argument and explain why they are not valid.

Basically what I hear you saying is that you want "weak atheists" and "implicit atheists" not to have a "belief." Surely taking them out of the category "atheist" achieves the same result? No? It also keeps out unwanted association.

Theists then wouldn't be talking about you when they bashed atheists.

But, self-identifying atheists are proud of the fact that they don't take "leaps of faith" in believing things without sufficient evidence, which would include believing that God does not exist without sufficient evidence. I think it is beneficial to make sure that the term "atheist" is defined more liberally, just as "theism" is.

 

[leibowde84]

See now you reject anything supernatural, as well as reject any god. You are simply rejecting subjectivity altogether. This is how you go from rejecting any god, to rejecting anything supernatural.

All things natural are commonly known to be measurable as fact. While all things supernatural are commonly known to be subjective, an issue of faith.

It is not strict rejection of all subjectivity, but in practise it is a close enough rejection of all subjectivity. And by this information we can know a plethora of things of what kind of person leibowd is. It is a defining characteristic of a belief system.

You literally proved yourself wrong. Your assumption that my QUESTION shows my lack of belief in the supernatural was erroneous. Thus, your proposition is false.

 

[ArtieE]

But this is not a sound proposition.....in the middle there are neither...there are those who have never heard of God and non-dualists...

Yes. They are atheists. Not theists.

It's like dividing the world between Big Bang believers and disbelievers...in the middle are neither...there are those who have never heard of the big bang, and those who don't have an opinion....

Yes, there are those who believe in the Big Bang and those who don't for whatever reason.

Btw...if the absurd implicit atheist definition is to be considered valid.....then the principle is also valid for those who have never heard of the bib bang and they would automatically be implicit big bang disbelievers...

Right. Those who don't believe in the Big Bang for whatever reason.

The mind bogles...the world is full implicit every disbelief existing.... big foot, aliens, moon landing, round earth, elvis is dead.......

Sure.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do believe in God. I made no such denial. I merely pointed out that God was not necessary for subjectivity specifically. See how your assumptions can be wrong?

Well you said God, and then you extended that to anything supernatural. It is this generalization, anything supernatural, any god, anything spiritual, which implies a general rejection of all subjectivity, and not just a specifically lacking an opinion on the existence of God.

Maybe what you said previously is more defining of your belief system than your belief in God.

 

[leibowde84]

Well you said God, and then you extended that to anything supernatural. It is this generalization, anything supernatural, any god, anything spiritual, which implies a general rejection of all subjectivity, and not just a specifically lacking an opinion on the existence of God.

Maybe what you said previously is more defining of your belief system than your belief in God.

lol. I never made a claim. I merely asked a question and pointed out that subjectivity does not necessarily require God or anything supernatural. This in no way means that I do not believe that supernatural things can exist, so I would suggest "checking yourself before wrecking yourself." You seem to think you know an awful lot that you very obviously do not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

lol. I never made a claim. I merely asked a question and pointed out that subjectivity does not necessarily require God or anything supernatural. This in no way means that I do not believe that supernatural things can exist, so I would suggest "checking yourself before wrecking yourself." You seem to think you know an awful lot that you very obviously do not.

What I know is as simple as 1+1=2. Subjectivity requires acceptance of the existence of some things, like love, as a matter of opinion, not fact.

And that makes love supernatural by any other name. And we all know what kind of person that podcaster is, and we can all know what sort of person you are for rejecting subjectivity as stated. So that makes your argument meaninglessly formalistic.