Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
I love how everyone's quoting a post by @Samantha Rinne, and I can't because it's gone. : /
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Took ya a lot more words to say the same.Atheism: Absence of belief in the existence of gods
1) Weak atheism = absence of belief in the existence of gods, absence of belief in the non-existence of gods
2) Strong atheism = absence of belief in the existence of gods, presence of belief in the non-existence of gods
What is the true definition of atheism? I mean, I know that I said that I was an atheist before, but I'm not actually sure what I should or shouldn't believe in, to be completely honest.
That being said, does anyone have any answers?
As far as I can tell atheism is a lot of times "my family was crazy and made me do religion".'..
There is no such thing as "the true" when it comes to definition. Definitions have origin, and evolve over time. However, the best definition is usually the one that makes the best logical sense to the person using it.What is the true definition of atheism? I mean, I know that I said that I was an atheist before, but I'm not actually sure what I should or shouldn't believe in, to be completely honest.
That being said, does anyone have any answers?
Atheism isn't just a response to monotheism.Popping in to put my vote toward the: atheism is the belief that the proposition "god exists" is not true.
What's the "opposite" of "belief in god(s)?"When push comes to shove, a theist is someone who believes in god(s).
Someone who believes the opposite/oposition of is an a- theist.
Never said it was. Or perhaps you read my definition and realized by it that it would apply to any and all gods. This epiphany then led you to exclaim as you did that atheism is not just a response to monotheism.Atheism isn't just a response to monotheism.
You used the singular "god." I assumed the lack of a capital was a typo, since your grammar suggested you were using the term as a proper noun.Never said it was. Or perhaps you read my definition and realized by it that it would apply to any and all gods.
Come again? You seem to have a rich fantasy life.This epiphany then led you to exclaim as you did that atheism is not just a response to monotheism.
I totally agree with @DavidT "Evangelizing [made me do] is 1 cause of atheism". And this is very easy to understand. Nobody likes to be told what to eat, or belief.David T said: As far as I can tell atheism is a lot of times "my family was crazy and made me do religion".'.
Nonsense.
Because a singular god would have to exist in order for multiple gods to exist.You used the singular "god." I assumed the lack of a capital was a typo, since your grammar suggested you were using the term as a proper noun.
Just giving you a hard time for a failed attempt at pedantry.Come again? You seem to have a rich fantasy life.
But you didn't say "a god exists" or "at least one god exists;" you said "god exists."Because a singular god would have to exist in order for multiple gods to exist.
It's not pedantry to point out that to define atheism in terms of rejection, you need to do one of two things:Just giving you a hard time for a failed attempt at pedantry.
Didn't I say generally in my post?And to thousands like myself who wasnt indoctrinated, had positive influences with christisnity, and parents who dont believe in god???
Isnt that an off generalization of people you dont know?
Didn't I say generally in my post?
It's like there is a hole and you keep digging. I am speaking about the rejection of all possible gods. Good point on the indefinite article.But you didn't say "a god exists" or "at least one god exists;" you said "god exists."
It's not pedantry to point out that to define atheism in terms of rejection, you need to do one of two things:
- limit it to the rejection of only one god, or at least a limited set of gods, or
- create a situation where actual atheists don't exist.
Neither of these options match how we use the term "atheist."
So now that we've figured out what you meant: is "rejection of all possible gods" something a human being can actually do?It's like there is a hole and you keep digging. I am speaking about the rejection of all possible gods. Good point on the indefinite article.
Has there ever been a person in history who has heard of all possible numbers?So now that we've figured out what you meant: is "rejection of all possible gods" something a human being can actually do?
Has there ever been a human being in history who has even heard of all possible gods?
If you figured out a way to define the set "gods" so that someone could reject all of them as a group, I'd love to hear it. I've only ever been able to define the set "gods" in terms of a list of gods (edit: and therefore never been able to complete the whole set).Has there ever been a person in history who has heard of all possible numbers?
Cool thing about sets is that they allow us to speak about entire groups. I understand you may believe that it is possible to have a number greater than 1 that is neither odd nor even, but I do not.
Atheism is not about what you "believe in", or don't. It's a philosophical position on the existence or non-existence of gods. In this case, that they do not exist. How fervently you hold to this position is your own business, and does not define atheism as a category of human thought. It only defines you as weakly, moderately, or strongly atheistic.What is the true definition of atheism? I mean, I know that I said that I was an atheist before, but I'm not actually sure what I should or shouldn't believe in, to be completely honest.
That being said, does anyone have any answers?
Edit (4/12/2018) — Thanks for the likes, guys; I really appreciate it.
We have had this discussion before now. The last time I gave my definition of a god was in Sunstones recent thread regarding the definition of a god. Feel free to quote me from there.If you figured out a way to define the set "gods" so that someone could reject all of them as a group, I'd love to hear it. I've only ever been able to define the set "gods" in terms of a list of gods (edit: and therefore never been able to complete the whole set).
So how did you do it?