What is the Definition of Atheism?

[Quintessence]

Atheists, that's what Socrates called some of the younger generation when they dropped a couple of gods from his pantheon.

If true, that's not surprising. As atheism defines itself in the negative - specifically in opposition to theism - the term doesn't make sense except in reference to specific types of theism.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. I find hard atheism nearly as irrational as fundamentalist theism. Nobody can know this stuff, and support their "knowledge" with any evidence.

There is nothing irrational about having beliefs, as long as they are justified.

But also,
People commonly use the terms "hard atheist" and "strong atheist" to mean "confident atheist".

The lack of precision makes the conversation difficult.
Tom

The adjectives are easy. It's when people mistake the adjectives for "atheist" that things get weird.

 

[columbus]

There is nothing irrational about having beliefs, as long as they are justified.

What does"justified" mean in this context?

I see no more justification for hard atheism than fundamentalist religion. They are both humans claiming to know important things about the unknowable. That's irrational. Neither can justify their beliefs by any standard that I see as reasonable.
Tom

 

[Audie]

If true, that's not surprising. As atheism defines itself in the negative - specifically in opposition to theism - the term doesn't make sense except in reference to specific types of theism.

Nah. Goddies define others in terms of their beliefs.
I am just a person. Are you an aflyingsaucrist?

 

[Terry Sampson]

In other words, what you said is completely useless. True... but useless ... No believers, nothing to discuss.

Thanks. Hope your words help him to connect the dots. I'd have bungled the job.

 

[Willamena]

What does"justified" mean in this context?

I see no more justification for hard atheism than fundamentalist religion. They are both humans claiming to know important things about the unknowable. That's irrational. Neither can justify their beliefs by any standard that I see as reasonable.
Tom

Just the usual sense of the word: that something can be shown to be right or correct. For instance, some of the narratives drawn about 'God' paint an image of a disembodied consciousness that is not justified. To disbelieve in 'God' because of such a narratives drawn about it would be justified. Another example would be a worldview that is naturalistic. Everything natural is justified, so a 'God' that is unnatural is not.

Edit: And we've already established that I don't accept that atheism is about knowing.

 

[Terry Sampson]

dingdao to you: "3. If you self-identify as an Atheist, whats to keep you from becoming a mob boss?" You to dingdao: "Reason and Morality, mainly."

Lucky you. I lacked the wherewithal to make a living or get enough pleasure from being a mob-boss to even try.

 

[columbus]

Just the usual sense of the word: that something can be shown to be right or correct.

"Shown"?
The world I live in is dominated by people who believe that Jesus has been shown to be God. Not just exist, He's God.

That's been shown to most of the people around here, to their satisfaction, although not to me. It's a bit of a problem for me.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

"Shown"?
The world I live in is dominated by people who believe that Jesus has been shown to be God. Not just exist, He's God.

That's been shown to most of the people around here, to their satisfaction, although not to me. It's a bit of a problem for me.
Tom

Yes, shown, as in understood.

As in, "I see."

 

[columbus]

Yes, shown, as in understood.

As in, "I see."

So, something could be demonstrably wrong and be justified? As long as someone believes "I see" and it's understood and they consider it shown?

The problem with most of these words is that they're vague. People often believe things that are not true.


People aren't really particularly smart, perceptive, or rational. I've noticed that over my lifetime.
Tom

 

[dingdao]

For some people, it apparently does.

Generally, it does not.

That's the whole problem, most Christians act as if their God doesn't matter.

 

[dingdao]

Which word, i used several to compile that post

OK, I'll be more specific. How do you usually use the term Atheist?

 

[Willamena]

So, something could be demonstrably wrong and be justified? As long as someone believes "I see" and it's understood and they consider it shown?

The problem with most of these words is that they're vague. People often believe things that are not true.


People aren't really particularly smart, perceptive, or rational. I've noticed that over my lifetime.
Tom

I see.

 

[ChristineM]

OK, I'll be more specific. How do you usually use the term Atheist?

As i described, as per the definition that i have quoted twice on this thread.

I.e. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Considering the zero proof for god of gods atheism is not a dificdiff stance to take.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lucky you. I lacked the wherewithal to make a living or get enough pleasure from being a mob-boss to even try.

Sorry. I was in denial and forgot to mention "stomach, competence and skill" in my previous answer.

Yes, there is definitely that as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the whole problem, most Christians act as if their God doesn't matter.

I figure that even for most Christians it indeed does not matter. Needless to say, that is ok, and probably even optimal.

Do you think that it should matter? If so, how and why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It isn't a necessity for everybody. That's why there are non-theists.
Tom

And theists of different flavours who nevertheless appear to be able to survive despite their mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I went with option 4, since it's the closest out of the poll options to where I'd see myself. Not an exact fit, but nevermind.
As for a working life philosophy, that might take a few more words than I am capable of banging out here, even assuming I can get what's in my head down in coherent form. It appears a difficult task, based on other attempts I've seen.

I generally go with 'Don't be an assclown.' That works at some level.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please list your vote, why, and a working philosophy for living.

I did not vote, as "none of the above" wasn't listed.

To be clear-- you need to define what you mean by "god" before a rational discussion about the word can be had.

Most definitions of the word "god" can easily be proven to be impossible things: A square circle or a married bachelor (for example). I do not believe any of those, naturally, as impossible things do not exist.

So far? All definitions of "god" that I've read (beyond the Traditional Book Gods), either make no sense (and therefore, I don't believe them), or are so nebulous that they become meaningless (and, again, unbelievable). The book gods are all back to impossible things-- you cannot have free will, in the same universe as an all-powerful god (for example).

Bottom line: Show me evidence? I'll consider it. Since most definitions of "god" are of an Incredible! Stupendous! Amazing! Glorious! Being? The evidence better be equally amazing.

I don't need amazing evidence to believe someone has a pet cat. I'll simply take their word (unless they have been shown to be a habitual liar).

But I'd need a lot more than someone's word, when it comes to The Ultimate Creator Of Everything. Especially if the someone claims to have a close and personal relationship with this ... being.

 

[blü 2]

Please list your vote, why, and a working philosophy for living.

We've been here before.

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say God?

Or are you only referring to imaginary gods?