I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

More precisely, maybe. Just as with theism and atheism, there are various flavors of agnostics.

For some agnostics....

If one is not wedded to either theism or atheism, one is free to explore both. One doesn't have to have a position, one doesn't need to be consistent, one doesn't need to prove anything. One can believe in God one day, and not the next, and then believe again, and then not.

On days that they hold a belief in God they are theists. On days that they dont, they are agnostic/atheist. There is no restriction on moving back and forth, is there? All atheism requires is a current lack of belief. All that is required for theism is a current belief that God exists.

 

[outhouse]

We just don't need a term that applies to people who have "not believing in god"

That is to bad you refuse academia.

But we do have a definition for people who are not theist. But thanks for playing.

 

[Willamena]

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?

I don't think that.

I believe that "lacking belief about god" refers to the person who, on hearing the phrase "god" for the first time, realizes he doesn't know what that is. He has no belief about it, and hence no opinion.

Once he learns something about it, of course, he will acquire an opinion; if a negative opinion, he will have come to not believe in god.

What I was referring to as "nonexistent things" is a group of people who are identified by a nonexistent property, namely "no belief in god." These nonexistents exist only in language, but it seems that the language is so firmly entrenched in some that they have come to believe that there are actual "not people" populating the world right alongside us people. Millions of them... maybe zillions...

It's positively religious.

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".

No, I think I said that "not believing" equates to believing that god does not exist. For me. In the above example, the person who has firmed up a negative opinion about god is going to fall on the side that god does not exist, because we tend to hold only to existents for composing the world around us. It's disturbing, and even dangerous, to allow nonexistents to exist. (All those "not people..." ...They're everynotwhere!)

The person with no opinion about god may call himself atheist, too, but he's of another sort than I. Hence two definitions in the dictionary.

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".

There is no reason I can see to call this person an atheist. "God" effectively does not exist for him in the world.

The person who lacks belief has at least heard of the word or been exposed to the concept. That's the only way they could possible develop an opinion about god, or know that they have no opinion about god.

The atheist is the person who doesn't believe in god, i.e. believes god doesn't exist, or who has no opinion on god (that other sort). This fellow is neither of them.

 

[outhouse]

He has no belief about it, and hence no opinion.

Yet he is not a theist

That makes him an atheist

 

[Willamena]

Yet he is not a theist

That makes him an atheist

I have more stringent requirements than you. (Like Occam's Razor. )

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

What is your point...what definition of atheist is it that you believe is correct that you think i do not?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think that.

I believe that "lacking belief about god" refers to the person who, on hearing the phrase "god" for the first time, realizes he doesn't know what that is. He has no belief about it, and hence no opinion.

Once he learns something about it, of course, he will acquire an opinion; if a negative opinion, he will have come to not believe in god.

What I was referring to as "nonexistent things" is a group of people who are identified by a nonexistent property, namely "no belief in god." These nonexistents exist only in language, but it seems that the language is so firmly entrenched in some that they have come to believe that there are actual "not people" populating the world right alongside us people. Millions of them... maybe zillions...

It's positively religious.


No, I think I said that "not believing" equates to believing that god does not exist. For me. In the above example, the person who has firmed up a negative opinion about god is going to fall on the side that god does not exist, because we tend to hold only to existents for composing the world around us. It's disturbing, and even dangerous, to allow nonexistents to exist. (All those "not people..." ...They're everynotwhere!)

The person with no opinion about god may call himself atheist, too, but he's of another sort than I. Hence two definitions in the dictionary.


There is no reason I can see to call this person an atheist. "God" effectively does not exist for him in the world.

The person who lacks belief has at least heard of the word or been exposed to the concept. That's the only way they could possible develop an opinion about god, or know that they have no opinion about god.

The atheist is the person who doesn't believe in god, i.e. believes god doesn't exist, or who has no opinion on god (that other sort). This fellow is neither of them.

Oh ... now I finally get what the issue is in this conversation I think. Real quick, can you clarify this so I can make sure I understand your point.

You are saying that it is impossible for someone familiar with the idea of God to "lack a belief" in God's existence. Is this accurate?

If so, why do you feel this way? I know many people who used to be devout Christians (so they are familiar with the idea of God), but don't hold a belief either way (they don't believe that God exists AND they don't believe that God does not exist). Would you claim that these people are simply confused or something?

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Non dualists do not see reality in a dualistic perspective....there is only oneness.....and such apparent dualities as theists and atheists, are seen as only arbitrary framing of a conceptual nature, and are not real in a mind that is liberated from the error of dualism....

I think you are incorrect. I've done a lot of research in the past couple of days on this topic, and I have come to the conclusion that "atheism" is an extremely general term, and for good reason. It merely requires a lack of belief in the existence of God. This makes sense, as, linguistically, it is defined as "the absence of theism". Thus, anyone who merely lacks a belief in God, whether they are familiar with the idea of God or not, can accurately be classified as "atheist". There are, of course, subcategories of both Theism and Atheism which require more specificity, but I can safely say that "atheists" are those that merely "lack a belief in God".

"Atheism" is often confused as being a system of beliefs or "world view", which it certainly is not. "Strong atheism" is a world-view, but atheism in general is a lack of belief, so many world-views are included in it. For example, there are many "atheistic religions" out there which make up alternate world-views, but are still considered "atheistic", as they lack a belief in God.

I think the most general meaning of the term should be accepted, as both "theist" and "atheist" are extremely general terms which must apply to many different ideologies. I would also argue that, as the word is used by "atheists" themselves (who should be granted the right to define their own beliefs), seems to not signify a belief that God does not exist. In other words, if you asked most of the people who identify as "atheist", they would say that they don't believe in God, and that they don't believe that God does not exist. They just haven't been convinced.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. They are atheists. Not theists

It seems you are just being obtuse ...if they have never been exposed to theism ever....then they can't be theists, and they cant be atheists....atheism implies exposure to the concept of theism in order to be able to judge it not credible and thus to reject it...

This is my last word to you on this ArtieE...you are either very dense, or are being obstinate...either way, you are a worthless time waster...

 

[ArtieE]

I believe that "lacking belief about god" refers to the person who, on hearing the phrase "god" for the first time, realizes he doesn't know what that is. He has no belief about it, and hence no opinion.

Why would he need to hear the phrase "god" for the first time to have no belief about it, and hence no opinion? Didn't he already have no belief about it and hence no opinion before he heard the phrase "god"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you are incorrect. I've done a lot of research in the past couple of days on this topic, and I have come to the conclusion that "atheism" is an extremely general term, and for good reason. It merely requires a lack of belief in the existence of God. This makes sense, as, linguistically, it is defined as "the absence of theism". Thus, anyone who merely lacks a belief in God, whether they are familiar with the idea of God or not, can accurately be classified as "atheist". There are, of course, subcategories of both Theism and Atheism which require more specificity, but I can safely say that "atheists" are those that merely "lack a belief in God".

"Atheism" is often confused as being a system of beliefs or "world view", which it certainly is not. "Strong atheism" is a world-view, but atheism in general is a lack of belief, so many world-views are included in it. For example, there are many "atheistic religions" out there which make up alternate world-views, but are still considered "atheistic", as they lack a belief in God.

I think the most general meaning of the term should be accepted, as both "theist" and "atheist" are extremely general terms which must apply to many different ideologies. I would also argue that, as the word is used by "atheists" themselves (who should be granted the right to define their own beliefs), seems to not signify a belief that God does not exist. In other words, if you asked most of the people who identify as "atheist", they would say that they don't believe in God, and that they don't believe that God does not exist. They just haven't been convinced.

You seems to have been sufficiently general in your definition of atheist that I can't say that I find it illogical...but since you obviously are aware of my position to claim I am incorrect...I must ask that when you say " It merely requires a lack of belief in the existence of God"...are you including those people who have never been exposed to the concept of theism?

Nothing like getting it out in the open so we can avoid wasting time on ambiguities...

 

[leibowde84]

As previous, to say it might be possible that the painting is in "fact" beautiful, is speculating on gibberish becoming prevalent. It is not really possible.

You are merely limiting yourself to our current understanding of "beauty". I am leaving open the possibility that we might discover some unknown objective aspect in the future. I am not saying that it is likely ... only possible. We, as human beings, have to recognize our own limitations and allow for our assumptions to be wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

You seems to have been sufficiently general in your definition of atheist that I can't say that I find it illogical...but since you obviously are aware of my position to claim I am incorrect...I must ask that when you say " It merely requires a lack of belief in the existence of God"...are you including those people who have never been exposed to the concept of theism?

Nothing like getting it out in the open so we can avoid wasting time in ambiguities...

Absolutely. Anyone who has not been exposed to theism would "lack a belief in God" (as they don't have that belief), and would, thus, accurately be classified as "atheists" (among other things). I think that is necessary according to the definition of the term. Anyone who is not a "theist" is an "atheist". There are, of course, countless subcategories of each, which is why I feel like they must be extremely general.

 

[leibowde84]

You seems to have been sufficiently general in your definition of atheist that I can't say that I find it illogical...but since you obviously are aware of my position to claim I am incorrect...I must ask that when you say " It merely requires a lack of belief in the existence of God"...are you including those people who have never been exposed to the concept of theism?

Nothing like getting it out in the open so we can avoid wasting time on ambiguities...

I feel like people often accuse "atheism" incorrectly of being a world-view or belief system, when, in fact, it is the opposite. It is the absence of a specific belief.

 

[Willamena]

Oh ... now I finally get what the issue is in this conversation I think. Real quick, can you clarify this so I can make sure I understand your point.

You are saying that it is impossible for someone [un]familiar with the idea of God to "lack a belief" in God's existence. Is this accurate?

Essentially. I'm saying that to lack something requires there be something to lack. For the fellow on the island, there is nothing in regards to "god" for "atheism" to be about.

If so, why do you feel this way? I know many people who used to be devout Christians (so they are familiar with the idea of God), but don't hold a belief either way (they don't believe that God exists AND they don't believe that God does not exist). Would you claim that these people are simply confused or something?

Of course not. If that's what they believe, then that's what they believe.

 

[Willamena]

I feel like people often accuse "atheism" incorrectly of being a world-view or belief system, when, in fact, it is the opposite. It is the absence of a specific belief.

There's already a word for the absence of a world-view: death.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolutely. Anyone who has not been exposed to theism would "lack a belief in God" (as they don't have that belief), and would, thus, accurately be classified as "atheists" (among other things). I think that is necessary according to the definition of the term. Anyone who is not a "theist" is an "atheist". There are, of course, countless subcategories of each, which is why I feel like they must be extremely general.

But these people who don't have a belied in God, also do not have a belief in there being no God....so a theist using your logic can say.....people who do not disbelieve in God must be classified as theists!!!

C'mon...use your brains....

 

[leibowde84]

Essentially. I'm saying that to lack something requires there be something to lack. For the fellow on the island, there is nothing in regards to "god" for "atheism" to be about.


Of course not. If that's what they believe, then that's what they believe.

Alright, I'm losing you. We clearly have something to "lack". We've been discusssing it this whole time. They "lack a belief in God".

How about this. Have you ever read or watched "The Secret"? The law of attraction and such. Now, I have read and watched the secret, and I am a believer now. But, when my Sister first introduced me to it, I was extremely skeptical. I, like many others, erroneously equated it to being able to imagine things and get them. Obviously it isn't that simple, but that is beyond the point. There was a period of time when I did not believe that the law of attraction was real or fake. I was in the process of learning more about it and giving it a try myself. At that point I wasn't so much skeptical, but cautious. I had no reason to believe that it was fake, but I hadn't yet been convinced that it was real. I lacked belief in the law of attraction, but, at the same time, I surely did not positively think that the law of attraction was false. Nevertheless, I certainly, at that point, "lacked a belief" in the law of attraction, even though I was very familiar with it.

So, why do you feel that it is not possible to "lack a belief in God" without "believing that God does not exist"? Why is it not possible to be familiar with the issue, yet still hold no affirmative belief either way?

 

[leibowde84]

There's already a word for the absence of a world-view: death.

I never said that atheists don't have world-views, I merely said that "atheism" is not a world-view. Of course, all atheists have world views like secular humanism and strong atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

But these people who don't have a belied in God, also do not have a belief in there being no God....so a theist using your logic can say.....people who do not disbelieve in God must be classified as theists!!!

C'mon...use your brains....

I mean, "disbelief" is defined as a "lack of belief" as well, but that is besides the point. I would not agree though. You said "people who do not disbelieve in God must be classified as theists", but that makes no sense. "Theism" requires a belief in the existence of God. Only those that have an affirmative belief that God exists is included in that classification. Everyone who lacks such an affirmative belief can accurately be classified as "atheists" (among other things), as the requirement for said term is merely the absence of belief (or "lacking").

Classifying anyone who lacks a belief in God as a Theist is inaccurate, as that is literally the only requirement. Conversely, the only requirement for "atheism" is a lacking of that same belief (that God exists). Thus, classifying anyone who does not hold the belief that God exists as an atheist would be accurate.