"Lack of belief"

[Willamena]

I consider the only time someone can be said to 'lack belief' is when they are totally ignorant of something.

I consider it to be those atheists who had belief, and those who genuinely considered it.

 

[Valjean]

To clarify something here. I have no issue with atheism at all. I was an atheist, strong atheist for 10-15 years, and I still consider myself a form of atheist (mystical atheist perhaps is a term), but one thing that I never was, was ignorant of why. I was very educated and understood very well why I was an atheist and identified myself as one. Ignorant atheists need to educate themselves. I compare them to Christians who never read the Bible. They don't know what they believe in. Ignorant atheist don't know what they lack belief in. To call yourself an atheist, you need to pick up some knowledge first and not just slap a label on your sleeve without any considerations.

Definitions, Ouroboros.
An atheist entirely ignorant of the concept of God is as much an atheist as who disputes the notion of God.
The one definitive feature is lack of belief. That includes both rejection, complete ignorance and total lack of exposure.
You're making things way too complicated. This is a simple semantic dispute. The working definition is lack of belief/ignorance.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the word "people" is a useless word to assign to people. All it tells us is that the entities in question are members of the human race nothing else. It tells us even less about people than if we call them atheists.

No, it doesn't, but it diminishes the term atheism.

As an atheist, I considered something to be prideful of. I had arrived at a conclusion of atheism because of my journey and what I had learned. To label everyone atheist takes away the power of it.

 

[Valjean]

So, to you, weak atheism is the same as ignorance? Someone who is ignorant of gods is therefore a weak atheist? Well. Ok. That's how you use it, but that's not how I see it.
Ok. That's your view. I think it's useless word to assign to people. Agurkist, ablurbist, aglogist, asmurphist, in other words, to do it in a form of regular expressions, something like: a{.+}ist. Something we all are to some degree or less.

That's how essentially all atheists are using it these days.
I understand there are many historical definitions, but the sine qua non is absence/ignorance.

A million times, until you realize what the other people are trying to say.

I understand what they're saying. They're imposing a subset of atheism as definitive. They're constructing a straw man.

Sorry, but wrong.
Gurka is the Swedish word for cucumber.

Interesting...

 

[Ouroboros]

Definitions, Ouroboros.
An atheist entirely ignorant of the concept of God is as much an atheist as who disputes the notion of God.

That's what the modern atheist thinks. Yes. And me, as a classical, old style atheist, don't like it. It has taken away the power of the word and vision. It's not an opinion, ideology, philosophy, or consideration anymore. Flew flew away, and left was nothing. We can't have philosophical discussions about atheism anymore, because it's just a battle of definitions which include how much or little a person is ignorant about things.

The one definitive feature is lack of belief. That includes both rejection, complete ignorance and total lack of exposure.
You're making things way too complicated. This is a simple semantic dispute. The working definition is lack of belief/ignorance.

If it is a simple semantic dispute, and the working definition is lack of belief/ignorance, then why can I argue and reason about these things? Is it just a simple semantic dispute between those who agree to the working definition? Or is this a discussion about the definition and what's right and wrong about it?

 

[Willamena]

Well, obviously, that's where we disagree. I see them as ignorant. Are they non-believers, yeah, sure. They are.

That's where the word "unbelievers" fits.

"Non-believers" are the nay-sayers.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting...

See, you learned something.

Now you know if you believe in or lack belief in gurka.

 

[Valjean]

That's what the modern atheist thinks. Yes. And me, as a classical, old style atheist, don't like it. It has taken away the power of the word and vision. It's not an opinion, ideology, philosophy, or consideration anymore. Flew flew away, and left was nothing. We can't have philosophical discussions about atheism anymore, because it's just a battle of definitions which include how much or little a person is ignorant about things.

That's why God invented modifiers.

 

[Willamena]

Ignorance is a subset of "lack."

What's with all the subsets? Neither is a subset of the other.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's why God invented modifiers.

Still, even with modifiers, I do see a huge difference between the "implied atheist" and someone who made an effort before identifying themselves as an atheist.

 

[Valjean]

See, you learned something.

Now you know if you believe in or lack belief in gurka.

I do believe in gurka, but I believe the term comprises gurka/gurkas in all their forms, including pickles.
Pickled gurka is a subset of gurka.

 

[Valjean]

What's with all the subsets? Neither is a subset of the other.

Ven diagrams. Strong atheist is a subset of atheist.

 

[Valjean]

Still, even with modifiers, I do see a huge difference between the "implied atheist" and someone who made an effort before identifying themselves as an atheist.

Many atheists don't identify themselves as atheist. Many aren't aware they're atheists.

 

[Willamena]

That's how essentially all atheists are using it these days.

In some places.

 

[Ouroboros]

Many atheists don't identify themselves as atheist. Many aren't aware they're atheists.

That's the heart of the disagreement.

Personally, because of my own atheism, I prefer atheism to be something people know about. Something they decided about. A conclusion the arrive at, and not just something they've been tagged as.

When I was an atheist, it was a price I had paid. But now, because it's so generalized to include ignorance, the power of using it as an identifier in discussion has been removed. It's better to just respond "I don't believe in your god because such and such" than to say "I'm an atheist because I don't know".

 

[Willamena]

Ven diagrams. Strong atheist is a subset of atheist.

People normally don't think in ven diagrams.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ven diagrams. Strong atheist is a subset of atheist.

Vän in Swedish means friend.

So, it has to be a friendly diagram.

 

[Valjean]

They do unconsciously Willamena, and whenever they use language.
Chair is a subset of furniture. Oak is a subset of tree. Oak chair is a subset of chair.

Anytime you use an adjective, you're indicating a Venn subset.

 

[atanu]

...
Of course there's a difference between total ignorance of the concept and rejection of the concept, but so what? ...

So, do you accept that a rejection is not total ignorance. How do we then know what exactly the so-called weak atheist has rejected?

 

[allfoak]

That's the heart of the disagreement.

Personally, because of my own atheism, I prefer atheism to be something people know about. Something they decided about. A conclusion the arrive at, and not just something they've been tagged as.

When I was an atheist, it was a price I had paid. But now, because it's so generalized to include ignorance, the power of using it as an identifier in discussion has been removed. It's better to just respond "I don't believe in your god because such and such" than to say "I'm an atheist because I don't know".

The only label i am willing to adopt is Alchemist.
The only reason i even accept that label is because it describes a process rather than a religion.
I have beliefs that run the entire gamut.
From Atheist to fundamentalist Christian.
As soon as i adopt a label someone calls me on it.