What do people think "atheist" means?

[Willamena]

So, undecided people do believe in God. Either one holds a belief in God or they don't. Being undecided is still not holding a belief in God.

They are undecided about what they believe. If they knew what they believed, they'd be either theist or atheist.

To be clear, I thought you referred to them as atheists when you described them as, "they do not believe in both the existence and nonexistence of God." And it appears you are. However, I don't find anything rational in the idea of denying "both the existence and nonexistence" of an object.

 

[Willamena]

So, undecided people do believe in God. Either one holds a belief in God or they don't. Being undecided is still not holding a belief in God.

Either one believes in God or one does not believe in God. Holding a belief is another matter.

 

[leibowde84]

They are undecided about what they believe. If they knew what they believed, they'd be either theist or atheist.

To be clear, I thought you referred to them as atheists when you described them as, "they do not believe in both the existence and nonexistence of God." And it appears you are. However, I don't find anything rational in the idea of denying "both the existence and nonexistence" of an object.

Many outspoken atheists (Hitchens and Krauss for example) don't hold a belief that the existence of God is impossible for the same reason that they lack belief in God. Belief is acceptance of something without sufficient evidence, so they tend to not believe either way. Not to say that there aren't plenty of strong atheists out there.

 

[leibowde84]

Either one believes in God or one does not believe in God. Holding a belief is another matter.

Not believing in something is not necessarily holding a belief. Holding a belief in something is the same thing as believing in something.

 

[Willamena]

Many outspoken atheists (Hitchens and Krauss for example) don't hold a belief that the existence of God is impossible for the same reason that they lack belief in God. Belief is acceptance of something without sufficient evidence, so they tend to not believe either way. Not to say that there aren't plenty of strong atheists out there.

Believing God is possible is a whole other story. That they're withholding belief while self-identifying as atheists is fine, but there's nothing inherent in "atheism" about believing in possibilities, and no hint in what you said about them being undecided in their atheism. Did we jump topics?

 

[Willamena]

Not believing in something is not necessarily holding a belief. Holding a belief in something is the same thing as believing in something.

Not believing in something is not believing in something, meaning there is something you're not believing in.

 

[leibowde84]

Believing God is possible is a whole other story. That they're withholding belief while self-identifying as atheists is fine, but there's nothing inherent in "atheism" about believing in possibilities, and no hint in what you said about them being undecided in their atheism. Did we jump topics?

They literally say that they don't hold a belief that God does not exist, as they try not to believe anything without sufficient evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

Not believing in something is not believing in something, meaning there is something you're not believing in.

Sure, the concept of that thing. God is a concept. There isn't anyone who doesn't beieve in the concept of God.

 

[Willamena]

They literally say that they don't hold a belief that God does not exist, as they try not to believe anything without sufficient evidence.

And I believe them, because they would know themselves better than I. But that doesn't point to them being undecided in their atheism.

 

[Ouroboros]

The first religious practices we know of go back to pre-human days, where they were barely sentient. Rational thought was not even on the radar at the time. Original religious thought came from fear of the real world and a lack of understanding of what was happening. It wasn't some full-blown theology that came out of nowhere.

I agree.

Which suggests that these original thoughts is something that is innate in human nature, through evolution (doesn't mean it's true though, there are many things we do and think about nature that's wrong).

Atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists as unsupported. So long as theists have no objective evidence to present, their claims will continue to be rejected.

No problem with rejecting those things. As long as the theist claims are made somewhat cohesive and coherent. It's hard to reject something that is not formalized in any shape or form.

 

[leibowde84]

And I believe them, because they would know themselves better than I. But that doesn't point to them being undecided in their atheism.

Well, then, this means that "atheism" in common usage and by definition does not require a belief that God does not exist. Right?

 

[Willamena]

Sure, the concept of that thing. God is a concept. There isn't anyone who doesn't beieve in the concept of God.

The proposition "there is God or gods," to be more correct. Belief is about propositions.

We can hold the concept of God to be the proposition, or the existence of God to be the proposition, or we can hold God to be the proposition, or we can hold holding the belief of God to be the proposition--but to jump from one proposition to another is literally to talk about different beliefs.

The atheist, in his denial, has only the one relevant proposition: "there is God or gods."

 

[Willamena]

Well, then, this means that "atheism" in common usage and by definition does not require a belief that God does not exist. Right?

I'm okay with that--I've not argued against it here. I'm a hard atheist, and have in the past argued for it, but I've also encountered some fine arguments in favour of keeping atheism simple: atheism is not believing in God or gods.

 

[Cephus]

I agree.

Which suggests that these original thoughts is something that is innate in human nature, through evolution (doesn't mean it's true though, there are many things we do and think about nature that's wrong).

No, it suggests that these original thoughts were something that came up because man has evolved to seek out answers, whether we have any actual answers or not. We know this is the case. These are things that were useful earlier on in our evolution, but today are largely useless, perhaps even hazardous. They have yet to be purged from our DNA and may not be for a long time, if ever. However, just because we are wired to seek answers and make them up when we don't actually have them, that doesn't mean that's a rational way to operate and we've also evolved this really nice brain that allows us to override our biological impulses. That a lot of people refuse to do so is pathetic.

No problem with rejecting those things. As long as the theist claims are made somewhat cohesive and coherent. It's hard to reject something that is not formalized in any shape or form.

I've yet to see a single theist claim that is cohesive or coherent. Maybe you'd like to point some of them out for us. And no, it isn't hard to reject something that is not formalized, in fact, that's the easiest thing to reject because you're not being presented with any ideas that can be evaluated. If someone just babbles at you and asks if you take it seriously, how can you when you can't make any sense of it in the first place?

 

[leibowde84]

The proposition "there is God or gods," to be more correct. Belief is about propositions.

We can hold the concept of God to be the proposition, or the existence of God to be the proposition, or we can hold God to be the proposition, or we can hold holding the belief of God to be the proposition--but to jump from one proposition to another is literally to talk about different beliefs.

The atheist, in his denial, has only the one relevant proposition: "there is God or gods."

Theism and atheism surely do not concern belief in the concept of God, but rather BELIEF in the EXISTENCE of God or gods. No one "knows" with certainty that God exists, and no one "knows" that God does not exist. It's all about belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not sure. I think our human brains are wired to assume answers we can't actually support. It's a form of comfort and increases our happiness, at least in the general sense.

Of course. We assume many things. And many things we assume are actually wrong in the end. Intuition can even take us the wrong path. For instance, I played a little golf years ago. My natural motion for the swing was wrong. What came natural and intuitively for me was completely wrong. I had to learn how to swing right to get maximal force.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course. We assume many things. And many things we assume are actually wrong in the end. Intuition can even take us the wrong path. For instance, I played a little golf years ago. My natural motion for the swing was wrong. What came natural and intuitively for me was completely wrong. I had to learn how to swing right to get maximal force.

Don't feel bad. A natural swing is very rare. But, it does happen from time to time. I get your point though.

 

[Willamena]

Theism and atheism surely do not concern belief in the concept of God, but rather BELIEF in the EXISTENCE of God or gods. No one "knows" with certainty that God exists, and no one "knows" that God does not exist. It's all about belief.

Existence is a given: if we're not proposing existents to believe or not believe, we are making little sense and little logic.

Non-existence doesn't exist, and if we're proposing fantasy there is no reason to believe or not believe anyway.

Theists are those who believe in God.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it suggests that these original thoughts were something that came up because man has evolved to seek out answers, whether we have any actual answers or not. We know this is the case. These are things that were useful earlier on in our evolution, but today are largely useless, perhaps even hazardous. They have yet to be purged from our DNA and may not be for a long time, if ever. However, just because we are wired to seek answers and make them up when we don't actually have them, that doesn't mean that's a rational way to operate and we've also evolved this really nice brain that allows us to override our biological impulses. That a lot of people refuse to do so is pathetic.

I'm not saying that because it's in "our DNA" (as you say above) that it means it's correct or true or even rational. The fact that it's in "our DNA" suggest that people would have "belief" innately. Just that. Nothing more. Basically, we have a genetic (so to speak) tendency to believe, and only through rational thought and reason can we reach accurate understanding (which I think atheism really should stand for, the rational thought to save us from the innate misconceptions, but that's just what I think).

I've yet to see a single theist claim that is cohesive or coherent. Maybe you'd like to point some of them out for us. And no, it isn't hard to reject something that is not formalized, in fact, that's the easiest thing to reject because you're not being presented with any ideas that can be evaluated. If someone just babbles at you and asks if you take it seriously, how can you when you can't make any sense of it in the first place?

Well, then that's the problem, isn't it? If they can't comprehensible or coherent defined what theism is, then how can a-theism be anymore comprehensible?

Theists believe in X. Atheists don't believe in X. X can be anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't feel bad. A natural swing is very rare. But, it does happen from time to time. I get your point though.

I don't feel bad about it. Golf wasn't my thing. I considered myself, half jokingly, that they didn't need to turn the turf, because I would do it for free playing one round the holes hitting that darn ball.