Shifting more towards atheism

[Kenny]

You have a very peculiar way of using words. You seem, somehow, to be putting a wall up around your notion of what "belief" means. The reasons for it remain completely opaque to me.

A "proposition" is "a statement that expresses a judgment or opinion." In what way, exactly, are judgments and opinions so very different from beliefs? Whether I believe the bus will be along in 5 minutes, or I'm of the opinion that it will be here in 5, really are quite the same thing, in the end.

Wikipedia defines atheism as:

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."​

It is all of those things, depending on the atheist. So who are you to try and redefine it for the rest of us. You do not speak for me -- nor for my beliefs, unbeliefs, opinions or judgments. My atheism means what I SAY IT MEANS TO ME.

Yes… wikipedia includes a politically correct statement. “Depending on the atheist” IMV, simply means that there are some people who are not really committed to the definition because if they did actually use the definition, they would have to defend their position but because of lack of empirical and verifiable evidence, they can’t… so a politically correct statement is more beneficial.

That being said, the “narrower sense” is the correct definition

atheism (n.)

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo"atheist." Also compare atheous. The ancient Greek noun was atheotēs "ungodliness."
In late 19c. it was sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses: "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."

atheism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

 

[ChristineM]

You really need to stop trying to unload your baggage off to everyone else.
Atheism is lack of belief in deity.
All that other baggage you attach to it is your baggage.

I've been telling him that for years, it makes no difference to one who's mind is set

 

[joelr]

Yes… wikipedia includes a politically correct statement. “Depending on the atheist” IMV, simply means that there are some people who are really committed to the definition because if they did actually use the definition, they would have to defend their position but because of lack of empirical and verifiable evidence, they can’t… so a politically correct statement is more beneficial.

That being said, the “narrower sense” is the correct definition

No it means the old term suffers from the the unfalsifiability fallacy. It isn't difficult or complex.
You don't buy into stories about Krishna because you don't feel any evidence supports it. Or Zeus or any other deity besides Yahweh.
But you cannot prove any of them don't exist so you don't say they don't exist. You say you don't believe they exist.

 

[PureX]

No it means the old term suffers from the the unfalsifiability fallacy. It isn't difficult or complex.
You don't buy into stories about Krishna because you don't feel any evidence supports it. Or Zeus or any other deity besides Yahweh.
But you cannot prove any of them don't exist so you don't say they don't exist. You say you don't believe they exist.

But not "buying into" religious stories and depictions about God/god's is just being a-religious. It's not atheism. So it does not logically justify taking the position that the theist proposition is invalid (real atheism). And this is the real reason atheists don't want to acknowledge that they are atheists in the proper sense. Because all they have to justify it is their rejection of religiosity and that does not logically apply to theism.

 

[1213]

Like in the global flood myth? Like in justifying slavery? Like killing enemies and taking their women as prizes?

Conservatives do seem to accept this kind of "love" given their lack of compassion and empathy as a social norm.

Would it be loving to allow evil to continue forever?

Humans do have a set of emotional experiences that are called love. This is a fact.

In Biblical point of view love is not an emotion.

There are no Gods known to exist.

I think love exists, because I have experienced it.

Atheists feel and express love.

What does that mean?

 

[Kenny]

No it means the old term suffers from the the unfalsifiability fallacy. It isn't difficult or complex.
You don't buy into stories about Krishna because you don't feel any evidence supports it. Or Zeus or any other deity besides Yahweh.
But you cannot prove any of them don't exist so you don't say they don't exist. You say you don't believe they exist.

I just go back to what atheism means… a faith statement because one cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence

 

[Augustus]

Adding -ism places this as a belief or philosophy, and from this we clearly get "Theism: The belief in gods", "Atheism: the absence of belief in gods", and "Antitheism: opposition to the belief in gods".

While meaning is purely derived from usage rather than etymology, the above is not correct from an etymological perspective.

The word atheism predates the word theism, and thus it was never a-theism, but athe-ism.

It is the suffix -ism applied to atheos not the prefix a- applied to theism.

Thus we have the belief or philosophy (-ism) of being without gods (atheos).

Not really, because the use of the word hasn't changed since the 1580's

Theism used to have a meaning equivalent to the modern deism. Thus a-theism would have meant a lack of belief in deism at that juncture in time.

The “lack of belief” definition for atheism is pretty much absent from any dictionary prior to the 1980s, and last time I checked it wasn’t even in the OED.

Unless it’s been updated recently, this is the OED entry:

atheism, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθiːɪz(ə)m/

Forms: Also 15 athisme.

Frequency (in current use):

Etymology: < French athéisme (16th cent. in Littré), < Greek ἄθεος : see atheal adj. and -ism suffix.Compare Italian atheismo and the earlier atheonism n.(Show Less)

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.


If people want to use the term to mean a lack of belief in gods then they can do whatever they like as language is simply use of language and words mean whatever people use them to mean.

But it is a more modern redefinition of the term that does not reflect either etymology or historical usage (and, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with pretending it hasn’t changed since the 16th c and reflects the actual etymology).

 

[Audie]

But not "buying into" religious stories and depictions about God/god's is just being a-religious. It's not atheism. So it does not logically justify taking the position that the theist proposition is invalid (real atheism). And this is the real reason atheists don't want to acknowledge that they are atheists in the proper sense. Because all they have to justify it is their rejection of religiosity and that does not logically apply to theism.

What on "gods green" makes you
think i or any atheist has to justify
disbelief in some " god"?

 

[Audie]

I just go back to what atheism means… a faith statement because one cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence

So, its a " faith starement" from you to
say you don't believe batman is real.

You are welcome to thinking as weird as you like.

As for actual atheists though..we are quite simple.

We don't believe in " god". Thats all.

 

[Kenny]

So, its a " faith starement" from you to
say you don't believe batman is real.

You are welcome to thinking as weird as you like.

As for actual atheists though..we are quite simple.

We don't believe in " god". Thats all.

We are talking about atheism and not bati-ism. Making an outlandish comparison simply weakens your position.

 

[F1fan]

Would it be loving to allow evil to continue forever?

Doesn't the Bible explain why God created evil? Since your God created evil it's on him to eliminate it. Why don't you share with us why your God allows evil.

In the real world what is considered evil is usually the effects of mental illness. It can also mean a social phenomenon like groupthink, for example how Nazism influenced many ordinary Christians to commit the Holocaust, and later felt regret and shame. If a society doesn't have solutions to citizens with mental illness then what they do will have an impact on the general well-beling. The lack of universal healthcare is the sort of cultual immorality and greed that is caused by conservatives, including Christians who claim to love others. There's no love in denying healthcare to all citizens as a right.

In Biblical point of view love is not an emotion.

If you mean agape love, I have heard this explained. Here is a definition:

Agape love, which is most often crowned as the highest form of Christian love, is the kind of love and action that shows empathy; extends the desire for good of the beloved; wants the best; extends help or demonstrates good intentions; and is intended for everyone. Agape love is sacrificial.

Can you explain why so many Christians fail to live up to this definition? Do you support universal healthcare? Do you support equality and democracy? Tell us how you as a Christian extend agape love towards oters.

I think love exists, because I have experienced it.

You think? You're not sure? Tell us what your experience was.

What does that mean?

You don't understand that atheists feel love and express it? What are you not understanding?

 

[F1fan]

But not "buying into" religious stories and depictions about God/god's is just being a-religious.

It's more than that, it is being skeptical about the claims being made by any given theist. Let's note that Christians won't "buy in to" Muslim claims because they have an ideology already, and they are religious. Atheists don't "buy into" any religous claims because they are 1. extraordinary and 2. lack evidence.

It's not atheism.

Atheism is a catogory that some fall into because they reject the claims made by theists.

So it does not logically justify taking the position that the theist proposition is invalid (real atheism).

Invalid isn't commonly used, it is more common to refer to religious claims as false. Even in logic any claims are treated as untrue until they can be shown to be true, or at least likely true.

And this is the real reason atheists don't want to acknowledge that they are atheists in the proper sense. Because all they have to justify it is their rejection of religiosity and that does not logically apply to theism.

This makes no sense at all. Religiosity can be ranked at zero. In the social sciences there is a standard survey used to assess and rank religiosity based on answers. No atheist rejects religiosity as a thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I care what they assert to be true.

The problem is that none of them are asserting to be true what you are claiming they are asserting to be true.

And I expect them to do that as honestly and succinctly as they can.

Just like we expect you to not misrepresent people.

The fact that so many of refuse to be corrected speaks VOLUMES about the phony validity of their "atheism".

No, it only speaks volumes about your insistance on misrepresenting people.
You don't get to "correct" what people believe (or in this case: don't believe).

You only get to accept what people believe (or don't believe).

They tell you "I don't believe this" and you insist on knowing better then them by replying "ow you do believe it, you are not honest, I know better then you what you believe".

It's incredibly arrogant.

Also, for the upteenth time:

Read definition number 1. It's the definition that most atheists here use.
You insist that all atheists MUST use definition number 2.

This is your arrogance. It's a you-problem.

It's all smoke and mirrors and deliberate confusion. And of course anti-religiosity.

No. It's just agnostic atheism. See definition number 1 above.

So do I. This has no bearing on theism or atheism, though.

Indeed it hasn't. Because it pertains to different subjects. One is about knowledge and the other about belief. They are different answers to different questions.
I'm sure people have shown you this graph before:

Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist.
If you are still not sure what that means, read definition number one in the screenshot from the dictionary.

We don't all have to be philosophers. We just have to be willing to accept criticism and take correction.

You don't get to "correct" what I do and don't believe about things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are the only one using that train wreck of definition for the word atheism.
You are the only one claiming "kangaroo court".

Do you not find it interesting how every time you use the term "kangaroo court" it is YOU conducting it?

It's a classic case of projection.

 

[Yerda]

Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God but simply a lack of belief in God. Over the last few years, I've been shifting further to the idea without real physical evidence, then everything that occurs in our thought-space is just fabricated imaginary delusions. And the only thing that is truly real is what we experience in the presence of others. Nobody denies the existence of apples. When I hold an apple in my hand I say, "apple". It's right there. I can't do that with God. As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language. If people did not use the word God in sentences then God would cease to exist.

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

In terms of ex-Deus Machina, I believe we are all champions of our destiny. If we soil our own beds, nobody but ourselves is responsible, and available, to clean up our mess. We are fully responsible for every single aspect of our lives. Based on human experiments, there seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. God is always not intervening in the short term and always choosing his long term "plan", which as far as I can tell, is all just fantasy delusion only existing in our minds.

I've never been this far atheistic before in my life. Unless I have some earth shaking experience with psychedelic drugs, as far as I can tell, God is pure delusion having no basis in reality.

Welcome aboard.

As you have witnessed, the word "atheism" can denote more than one possible position in regards to gods. I'm not sure why everyone gets so mad horny for arguments about the meaning of atheism on RF, but here we are. I hope it works for you, in the way that you understand it.

You can't do that with a lot of things. Love, justice, honor, honesty, beauty, joy, kindness, etc., and yet we all agree that these "fabricated imaginary delusions" are actually far more important to us in our experience of life than the physicality of an apple.

All words are just words. Just language. They are labels intended to represent our similar ideas and experiences to each other. "God", "tree", "humility", all just words representing common thoughts and experiences.

If all humans stopped talking the world would still be here, just as it is, and so would all those thoughts happening in people's minds. The labels don't create them. We do. Then we label them so we can refer to them with each other.

We are not responsible for what happens to us. Only for how we respond to what happens to us. And even then, only with a very narrow range of possible responses.

These are all useful points, imo. Anyone concerned about the nature of reality and how we can determine what it is should be aware that most of what matters to us is not "real" in some senses of the word.

 

[Tomef]

Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God but simply a lack of belief in God. Over the last few years, I've been shifting further to the idea without real physical evidence, then everything that occurs in our thought-space is just fabricated imaginary delusions. And the only thing that is truly real is what we experience in the presence of others. Nobody denies the existence of apples. When I hold an apple in my hand I say, "apple". It's right there. I can't do that with God. As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language. If people did not use the word God in sentences then God would cease to exist.

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

In terms of ex-Deus Machina, I believe we are all champions of our destiny. If we soil our own beds, nobody but ourselves is responsible, and available, to clean up our mess. We are fully responsible for every single aspect of our lives. Based on human experiments, there seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. God is always not intervening in the short term and always choosing his long term "plan", which as far as I can tell, is all just fantasy delusion only existing in our minds.

I've never been this far atheistic before in my life. Unless I have some earth shaking experience with psychedelic drugs, as far as I can tell, God is pure delusion having no basis in reality.

Sounds like you’ve found your way to existentialism.

 

[Yerda]

"Thank you for sharing your perspective! It's refreshing to see someone delve into the complexities of atheism with such introspection and honesty. Your exploration of the concept as a lack of belief rather than outright denial is thought-provoking. Your analogy regarding the existence of apples versus the concept of God is particularly insightful. It's fascinating to hear how you've found purpose and fulfillment in family, hobbies, and personal growth. Your stance on personal responsibility and the absence of divine intervention raises important questions about agency and accountability. Your openness to new experiences and perspectives, such as those possibly provided by psychedelic drugs, adds an intriguing dimension to your journey. Thank you for contributing to this meaningful conversation!"

ChatGPT?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't care what they mean. I donlt care what they believe. And I don't care what they don't believe. None of this defines language. None of this matters to anyone but them. I care what they assert to be true. And I expect them to do that as honestly and succinctly as they can. The fact that so many of refuse to be corrected speaks VOLUMES about the phony validity of their "atheism". It's all smoke and mirrors and deliberate confusion. And of course anti-religiosity.

You really are trying to usurp everyone's right to both think for themselves, and express themselves in their own way. That is way beyond hubris.

You have been told a thousand times that the most common definition the atheists on this forum use is simply this: "I do not believe that God/gods exist." Period, end of story. And then you try to muddy that up with a bizarre "Atheism is the antithetical of the theist proposition [...] that God/gods exist is invalid. I repeat, it is the position that holds that the theist proposition is invalid. It has nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn’t believe."

What, exactly, do you think is the meaningful difference between "I don't believe God/gods/exist" and "I don't hold to the proposition that God/gods exist?" I'm not looking for sophistry; I'm looking for a difference that means something to any ordinary person.

 

[PureX]

You really are trying to usurp everyone's right to both think for themselves, and express themselves in their own way. That is way beyond hubris.

A thousand monkeys banging on the keys of a thousand typewriters is never going to result in anything by meaningless gibberish and a lot of noise. The whole point of language is to stop that from happening. To make us clarify our thoughts and illuminate each other by sharing them. The purpose of language is not to exercise our right to be dishonest, confused, egocentric idiots. That would just be a waste of the gift.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A thousand monkeys banging on the keys of a thousand typewriters is never going to result in anything by meaningless gibberish and a lot of noise. The whole point of language is to stop that from happening. To make us clarify our thoughts and illuminate each other by sharing them. The purpose of language is not to exercise our right to be dishonest, confused, egocentric idiots. That would just be a waste of the gift.

Which is why, I suppose, you didn't answer my question?