Oh, indeed.
But there are so many alternatives that are not self-contradictory or utterly unworkable, that doing that would not justify atheism proper.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But there are so many alternatives that are not self-contradictory or utterly unworkable, that doing that would not justify atheism proper.
Speaking only for myself.
I often claim atheism, even though I am not a hard atheist, because it simplifies a discussion. I find it most plausible that religions, even the ones with little of a God image, are all fictional.
Completely abstract concepts that don't exist in any objective way.
But most theists cannot grasp the simple notion that, like all other religions, their religion looks like fiction to me. And it also looks like fiction to the rest of us, from non-theists to believers in other religions. Christianity looks like fiction to a Muslim. Hinduism looks like fiction to a Christian. The Greek pantheon looks like fiction to a...
You get this? Religion is obviously fiction to practically everybody, except theists who believe that they are so special that they understand the unknowable better than anyone else.
I'm a non-theist because I agree with the Muslims about Greek pantheon, and the Christians about Hinduism, and the Native Americans about Judaism, etc. etc. I agree with all religious people about religions they don't happen to be biased in favor of.
Tom
dingdao
The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
1. Anytime anyone tries to "Save Your Soul", they are using this definition. (you do not believe what I believe)
4. OK, most people don't put in the work or go in the direction to get here. (I reject)
5. This seems to be a favorite of those who have found a satisfying philosophical reason for (life, the universe & everything).
They are? I guess they may well be.
I would expect that very few would, indeed.
Apatheism?
Perhaps. I for one just find it sensible and useful for avoiding useless distractions.
lukethethird
unknown member
What is the Definition of Atheism?
Theism, not.
Theism, not.
dingdao
The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
Sort of like A-Theism.
KelseyR
The eternal optimist!
No, just the "strong" and "hard" contingent.
Isn't that what I said?
No.
Honestly, I have no idea of what difference you see.
I think an atheist is a person who remains skeptical of the claims theists make of whatever it is they call God
The problem with defining atheism succinctly is that there are many kinds of theism of various amounts of definitional rigor.
For instance if someone believes in a god that specifically has the property "flooded the world mere thousands of years ago," this is a concept of a god that can easily be refuted with empirical evidence. It's easy to say that this god does not exist.
However if someone defines their god much more nebulously, such as if they only say "god is an omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe," this is much more difficult to outright refute. So a reasonable person in this instance doesn't say "this thing does not exist," they may merely sit on the position that they're not convinced it does exist until more evidence is forthcoming.
For these reasons, the most widely encompassing definition of atheism would simply be to at least abstain from affirming any theistic propositions as true.
For instance if someone believes in a god that specifically has the property "flooded the world mere thousands of years ago," this is a concept of a god that can easily be refuted with empirical evidence. It's easy to say that this god does not exist.
However if someone defines their god much more nebulously, such as if they only say "god is an omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe," this is much more difficult to outright refute. So a reasonable person in this instance doesn't say "this thing does not exist," they may merely sit on the position that they're not convinced it does exist until more evidence is forthcoming.
For these reasons, the most widely encompassing definition of atheism would simply be to at least abstain from affirming any theistic propositions as true.
PureX
Veteran Member
But that's agnosticism, or skepticism, not atheism. For the term 'atheism' to have any actual meaning, it needs to actually mean something. It needs to represent an actual position. "Unbelief" is not a position that has any actual meaning (content). It's just an empty label for people to hide their unwillingness to assert an honest opinion behind.
Then we have a problem: one can be an atheist in that they positively assert gods with x,y,z properties do not exist; but may merely be skeptics to less stringently defined beings (or beings whose definitions are not easily checkable). What shall we call them?
This is why I simply go by "nontheist." The definitions of the word "atheist" are far too contentious so I just say "I am not a theist. If you want to know my opinion on a particular brand of theism then you'll need to give me the details on that brand of theism."
@PureX
I'd like to add that I don't think abstaining from affirming propositions due to a lack of evidence is a non-position. It's an epistemic position.
But perhaps we'd be happy to just call such a person a skeptic. Still, it seems like there is utility in having a word for one who is skeptical of theistic claims; but that skepticism can range from outright rejection (for instance for claims that are not internally consistent or for which there is empirical or analytical evidence against) to privative skepticism ("I'm not convinced until there is more/better evidence.")
It would be less contentious if all theistic propositions had similar weight, ontologies, epistemologies, etc. But they don't. So the self-described atheist is in the unenviable position of having to describe themselves with a word that means they have various strengths of rejection for various kinds of beliefs.
I'd like to add that I don't think abstaining from affirming propositions due to a lack of evidence is a non-position. It's an epistemic position.
But perhaps we'd be happy to just call such a person a skeptic. Still, it seems like there is utility in having a word for one who is skeptical of theistic claims; but that skepticism can range from outright rejection (for instance for claims that are not internally consistent or for which there is empirical or analytical evidence against) to privative skepticism ("I'm not convinced until there is more/better evidence.")
It would be less contentious if all theistic propositions had similar weight, ontologies, epistemologies, etc. But they don't. So the self-described atheist is in the unenviable position of having to describe themselves with a word that means they have various strengths of rejection for various kinds of beliefs.
PureX
Veteran Member
Rejecting a specific definition of God is not 'atheism'. Basically because 'theism' is not a specific definition of God. Religions provide specific definitions for God. So rejecting a specific religious definition is only the rejection of that religion. It's not a rejection of the proposition that God/gods exists in some way or form (which is the theist proposition).
But you are still being unnecessarily vague and misleading if you accept the proposition that God/gods may exist in some way or form. Theism and atheism refer to the proposition that God/gods exist in some way or form that effect us. As labels they're not referring to the specific ways or forms one might choose to define that existence.
So, to label oneself an "atheist" properly means that one rejects the proposition that God/gods exist in any way or form. Not that one rejects a specific definition of God/gods existence, and yet may accept another.
PureX
Veteran Member
Then it would properly be labeled agnosticism; meaning one lacks the necessary knowledge (information) to determine a position on the nature or existence of God/gods.
Even the label "skeptic" implies that one's mind is open to convincing. Which means a skeptic is not an atheist.
There already are different terms to define these different positions. People just don't seem to bother to understand them, or want to use them precisely.
The problem is that the "atheists" confuse the singular theistic proposition with the multiple religious definitions becase they don't differentiate between theism, and religion. So they assume that when they reject religion, and religious definitions of God, they are rejecting theism. But then when they are asked to defend their rejection of theism, they back-peddle and say they don't reject the possibility of God all together. They only reject some religious definitions of God. Whereas if they had been more precise in their thinking and their rejections in the first place, they would not be calling themselves atheists, at all, but merely anti-religious, agnostic, skeptical, or indifferent.
Specificity matters.
Yes, which is why specificity matters.
@PureX
I could argue that the term has come to mean differently for many (most?) self-described atheists; and I could probably get somewhere with that. However, I have been in atheism-defining discussions for so much of my life that I'm well past it.
Many atheists try to make distinctions like soft or weak atheism vs. hard or strong atheism, explicit vs. implicit atheism, so on and so forth. There are people that insist that atheism must be a blanket denial of all theistic propositions, even ones for which they don't have evidence either way for.
Even agnosticism can be disputable as a term. Some maintain that, as Huxley defined it, agnosticism isn't just a lack of knowledge but specifically the position that a thing can't be known.
So I think I was arguing less that "this is what these terms definitely mean" and more that "nobody anywhere agrees on these terms, so I try to just be explicit when I describe my situation." I also just avoid the terms at all to avoid that huge mountain of baggage they come with in the first place.
I could argue that the term has come to mean differently for many (most?) self-described atheists; and I could probably get somewhere with that. However, I have been in atheism-defining discussions for so much of my life that I'm well past it.
Many atheists try to make distinctions like soft or weak atheism vs. hard or strong atheism, explicit vs. implicit atheism, so on and so forth. There are people that insist that atheism must be a blanket denial of all theistic propositions, even ones for which they don't have evidence either way for.
Even agnosticism can be disputable as a term. Some maintain that, as Huxley defined it, agnosticism isn't just a lack of knowledge but specifically the position that a thing can't be known.
So I think I was arguing less that "this is what these terms definitely mean" and more that "nobody anywhere agrees on these terms, so I try to just be explicit when I describe my situation." I also just avoid the terms at all to avoid that huge mountain of baggage they come with in the first place.