What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)

[Curious George]

I'd be more curious why this person is calling the sun a god. If you can just assign god to anything then my cat becomes a god or my rug, because it ties the room together. Therefore, it's a meaningless word.
To make this more of an appropriate analogy, assume our sun was once alive and spat out some planets so he wouldn't be alone anymore, then went back to sleep. I find this a much, much better analogy for deism. The sun, in essence, becomes some deity if this person wishes to regard them as such.
So, if I believe the sun exists do I also believe the sun has intelligence? Hmmm, no.

Sorry, did you misunderstand the question?

The idea of a group of people believing the sun is a god is not exactly some great leap. You merely are qualifying a god as having intelligence. While that may be true for your god concept, it needn't be true for someone else's.

 

[charlie sc]

Sorry, did you misunderstand the question?

The idea of a group of people believing the sun is a god is not exactly some great leap. You merely are qualifying a god as having intelligence. While that may be true for your god concept, it needn't be true for someone else's.

You didn’t say anything here and you appear to be using some kind of rhetoric. It seems as if you didn’t understand my response to you.

 

[Curious George]

You didn’t say anything here and you appear to be using some kind of rhetoric. It seems as if you didn’t understand my response to you.

No i understood your response it fell short.

The problem is that we categorize theists by their subjective value input. They need only believe what they categorize as a god to exist. Yet you want to push your belief on them in order to categorize them as a theist.

If a person believes the sun is a god and that god exists then they are a theist. Full stop.

There is no alternate scenario where the sun needs to be anthropomorphized. There needs to be no creation of other planets.

 

[charlie sc]

No i understood your response it fell short.

The problem is that we categorize theists by their subjective value input. They need only believe what they categorize as a god to exist. Yet you want to push your belief on them in order to categorize them as a theist.

If a person believes the sun is a god and that god exists then they are a theist. Full stop.

There is no alternate scenario where the sun needs to be anthropomorphized. There needs to be no creation of other planets.

And I have to ask again, what is the criteria for the word god or does it just become a synonym for the word sun?

If it has no criteria it becomes a meaningless word. I can define my carpet a god. You seem to be way too focused on definitions without being comprehensible, and you’re avoiding usages altogether.

 

[Shad]

What is Atheism to you?

NFL Sunday. Is that an acceptable answer? (former Christian)

To me it is freedom from a form of paranoia.

 

[Polymath257]

And I have to ask again, what is the criteria for the word god or does it just become a synonym for the word sun?

If it has no criteria it becomes a meaningless word. I can define my carpet a god. You seem to be way too focused on definitions without being comprehensible, and you’re avoiding usages altogether.

And there are those who think that if you regard the carpet as an object deserving honor and worship, then you identify it as a god. This is different than the Abrahamic tradition, but it is a common position, nevertheless.

 

[Spirit of Light]

NFL Sunday. Is that an acceptable answer? (former Christian)

To me it is freedom from a form of paranoia.

In what way do you feel it was paranoia when you were a Christian?

 

[Curious George]

And I have to ask again, what is the criteria for the word god or does it just become a synonym for the word sun?

It is subjective. A star certainly does not fit my god concept, but that doesn't mean this is true for others.

If it has no criteria it becomes a meaningless word. I can define my carpet a god. You seem to be way too focused on definitions without being comprehensible, and you’re avoiding usages altogether.

Do you define your carpet as a god? I usually use potato instead of Sun. When discussing god concepts. That is nearly as meaningless as a carpet. So sure, if you honestly held that your carpet was a god then I would call you a theist. That I don't recognize your carpet as fitting within my god concept is irrelevant to categorizing you as a theist. A whether you are a theist is determined solely by your belief. Why would it matter what I thought about your carpet?

 

[charlie sc]

It is subjective. A star certainly does not fit my god concept, but that doesn't mean this is true for others.

Do you define your carpet as a god? I usually use potato instead of Sun. When discussing god concepts. That is nearly as meaningless as a carpet. So sure, if you honestly held that your carpet was a god then I would call you a theist. That I don't recognize your carpet as fitting within my god concept is irrelevant to categorizing you as a theist. A whether you are a theist is determined solely by your belief. Why would it matter what I thought about your carpet?

We're talking past each other and I think it's because you aren't sure how language is used.

In language, words can be seen as symbolic representations of things, concepts, ideas and ideologies. If everyone used their own subjective language, no one would be able to understand each other! This is why dictionaries are so important. Dictionaries help mainstream words for certain concepts. Understandably, some people may use words differently and/or have slight variations. This is why it's imperative, especially in discussions, to discuss the word usage, so people don't talk past each other. Comprende, señor? What you seem to be stuck at is the word itself and you aren't talking about how people use them, which is far more important. Atheist and theist have certain usages and so does the word god. If you want to make an argument based on swapping words around and then applying usages to them, then this discussion is obviously pointless, because you haven't understood how we use language in a meaningful manner. If you don't understand this, perhaps someone else can explain this to you. I would be far more inclined to explain this to you if you show more interest in learning.

 

[Shad]

In what way do you feel it was paranoia when you were a Christian?

I think a lot of religions create paranoia in their followers via judgement dynamics along with constant over watch of their deity.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think a lot of religions create paranoia in their followers via judgement dynamics along with constant over watch of their deity.

Yes there are those religious people who do take it to far, I been there my self so i should know by experiance. The way i see it is Religion in it self is not wrong, but some people who follow it, does see it wrong and become extreme, and when they become extreme they can not see that they too are wrong in the words, actions and thoughts.

 

[Curious George]

We're talking past each other and I think it's because you aren't sure how language is used.

In language, words can be seen as symbolic representations of things, concepts, ideas and ideologies. If everyone used their own subjective language, no one would be able to understand each other! This is why dictionaries are so important. Dictionaries help mainstream words for certain concepts. Understandably, some people may use words differently and/or have slight variations. This is why it's imperative, especially in discussions, to discuss the word usage, so people don't talk past each other. Comprende, señor? What you seem to be stuck at is the word itself and you aren't talking about how people use them, which is far more important. Atheist and theist have certain usages and so does the word god. If you want to make an argument based on swapping words around and then applying usages to them, then this discussion is obviously pointless, because you haven't understood how we use language in a meaningful manner. If you don't understand this, perhaps someone else can explain this to you. I would be far more inclined to explain this to you if you show more interest in learning.

Somehow i don't think the problem is on my end.

The way I am using god is a common meaning to the word. You can try to backpedal and say that I am distorting the meaning of words, but that is simply not the case.

I would agree that the argument turns on a distinction between deity and a god; however, a person can make such a distinction and would be therefore entitled to claim themselves an atheist while believing a deity exists or existed.

Personally i would lump a deity in the god category, just as I would lump a star in the not god category. But that is me. I understand the world is not about me, and while I may categorize one way, not all others will.

But theism turns on belief in at least one god. God is not defined here. Any god will work as long as the person believes it is a god and believes it exists.

 

[England my lionheart]

According to the American Atheists website they state this

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

But in many discussions in this forum with many good Atheists i come across many ways to describe what atheism is.

Could i get some more info from Atheists in this forum? What is Atheism to you?

Ok,imo it goes like this,someone is selling a car that runs without fuel but it doesn't run.

 

[Shad]

Yes there are those religious people who do take it to far, I been there my self so i should know by experiance. The way i see it is Religion in it self is not wrong, but some people who follow it, does see it wrong and become extreme, and when they become extreme they can not see that they too are wrong in the words, actions and thoughts.

Toss in trivial things people consider an "offense"

 

[JChnsc19]

My first answer in this thread tried to explain what atheism really means...and doesn't mean. But the thread's topic "what does it mean to be an atheist" cries out for another answer altogether, one that I think is richer and deeper:

Being an atheist means that I am free to think for myself, never constrained by creeds and mandatory dogma. It means I do not have to worry that some "power" is constantly watching and judging my thoughts, as I struggle to live as good a life as I can.

Being an atheist means never having to worry about resolving the multitude of theodicies and contradictions that plague believers, and require the tireless efforts of so many apologists.

Being an atheist means not having to feel guilt over my natural, human urges...and who really enjoys wearing a hair shirt, after all?

Being an atheist means not having to contribute, through the collection plate, to the livelihood of those whose job it seems to be to tell me how corrupt I am -- this one's huge!

On the downside, being an atheist means that I must give up any notion of living on forever, or hoping to rely on divine help when things are going badly, or the lottery seems like my last lifeline.

Finally admitting it, including to myself, made my life unbelievably better. My downside was also admitting I’ll never see grandma again. Still it’s better than trying to live a lie

 

[JChnsc19]

The same thing that was the case before they were born. I expect after-death to be very much like pre-birth.



How about that you lack belief in a god because you find no reason to believe otherwise? That describes most if not all atheists.



I'd say that we do at times. We call ourselves nonviolent, or a non-drinker, or a non-contender, or nonconformist, or nondenominational, or nonpartisan, etc.. Isn't vegetarian another way of saying non-meat eating?

And sometimes, we say it using different prefixes than "-non," as with unconvinced, impassive, ineducable, illegitimate, abnormal, asymmetric, etc. - all privations.



Humans and lower animals alike do just that continually. When a zebra sees a lion pursuing it, the zebra certainly behaves as if it is using evidence to come to the conclusion that it is in danger and should run, which is likely true.



Wouldn't you agree that if a person who is known to be reliable says he had a big meal on Christmas, it makes the likelihood of that being true shoot up from the likelihood that he did not have a big meal? If so, doesn't that mean that the simple act of making the statement serve as evidence that it is probably true? For example, if your brother, who you know to be an honest and reliable person, says he had a large Christmas dinner with his wife's family, is that not good evidence that that probably happened, especially if his wife and her parents corroborate the claim.

Now proving that claim is a different matter, but that goes beyond mere evidence being able to support a claim.



Evidence is what is evident. Understanding it's significance, that is, what it implies about reality, is sometimes obvious, such as seeing smoke and flames billowing out of a burning building, and sometimes requires specialized knowledge and training, as with forensic science.



With that comment, you reveal that you are just another theistic, athoephobic bigot. It is people like you spreading hate speech like this against atheists and atheism who justify the anti-theist's desire to see less religion in the world. Atheists don't need people with ideas like yours in it, ideas that harm millions of law-abiding, hard-working citizens trying to do right by their families and communities. Why should we have to contend with bigots like you?

It is you that is the liar here, not the atheists telling you that they don't believe in any gods. You have been told repeatedly what it is that atheists believe, yet you continue to misrepresent most of us, probably because you have no honest argument - just bitterness for atheists.

And we need defend nothing concerning our atheism. We are merely telling you that your beliefs are unbelievable to people who decide what is true using evidence rather than emotions, and that since you can't make a compelling case for the truth of your beliefs, we don't believe you. And your response: "You're liars."



And that somebody is always a theist. Although many reject that kind of bigoted teaching, certainly the Christian ones are encouraged to think like that, and probably the Muslim ones as well. The rest of the religions seem much less atheophobic. Since I don't mind those religions, or the Abrahamic theists that reject the message of hatred for atheists in their Bible and coming from many of their pulpits, I don't think that anti-theism is the best term to describe the idea that many of us want these huge, organized, politicized religions to fade from prominence and take their place with the Druids and Zeus followers as yet another small sect with virtually no cultural hegemony.

This post is FANTASTIC! Are YOU the pope of atheism?? Jk

 

[firedragon]

According to the American Atheists website they state this

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

But in many discussions in this forum with many good Atheists i come across many ways to describe what atheism is.

Could i get some more info from Atheists in this forum? What is Atheism to you?

As I know there mainly two ways looking at this word Atheist. One is A theist like A sexual. They dont believe in a theos or anything divine.

Then you get the anti-theist. The religious anti-God campaigner who has made a religion out of that sentiment.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As I know there mainly two ways looking at this word Atheist. One is A theist like A sexual. They dont believe in a theos or anything divine.

Then you get the anti-theist. The religious anti-God campaigner who has made a religion out of that sentiment.

Thank you @firedragon that actually made a lot of sense to me

 

[Valjean]

There are, as has been mentioned, many flavors of atheism. I think the most sensible taxonomy would be to use the unmodified word "atheism" for the unmodified, essential feature of atheism: a simple lack of belief in God or Gods. This is the single feature shared by all varieties. "Atheism," then, would refer simply to non-belief.
For different varieties, just add modifiers to correspond to the added features of your chosen variety: strong, weak, broad, gnostic, explicit, indifferent, evangelical, agnostic, &c.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's not that subtle. One is open minded about the possibility, the other is not. Most atheists are not open-minded at all, regardless of their "it's only unbelief" BS.
There is no burden of proof for anyone's "beliefs". Anyone can believe anything they want to for any reason they want to. This thread is completely confusing atheists with atheism, and "belief" with asserted truth. Not only that, but very few theists (only the most profoundly uneducated and confused) ever assert the existence of God as an objective truth. Nearly all of them assert the existence of God as an act of faith that results in a subjectively experienced truth: which makes it a matter of individual choice. God is experienced as true to those who choose to trust in that ideal.

So an 'objective truth', that you are unaware of, isn't truth? Or I should present that as 'entirely subjective'? That makes everything subjective.

•
A belief, can be evidenced, or not.

Evidenced beliefs are subjective, in many ways. Traditionally, a religious belief without evidence, isn't considered as worse than a religious belief, with evidence.
•
Ideally, one professing a religion or such is going to use their faith and logic to figure out what might be true, or not, in what way, so forth. So, the religious are "responsible" to arrive at the correct beliefs.[within reason