What is the Definition of Atheism?

[LuisDantas]

@dingdao , would you be willing to elaborate on the rationale for choosing those four options?

I think that I might learn a lot about what you understand atheism to be if you do.

I, too, found no grounds for voting at all.

 

[David T]

"incredibly stupid part of the brain self labeled by itself "higher functioning"

Was the context of my comment.

 

[David T]

I see it as just the opposite.
We're born atheist, nonbelievers. Almost everyone is taught, from an early age, to believe in some form of religious fiction.

And most people continue to do so throughout their lives. So they seem to think that their fictional beliefs are the default, when it isn't. And anyone can see that, in the modern global world of zillions of religious world views.
Tom

I deeply question atheists authority on the topic and atheists insist on defending them. I have no idea why except compatibility.

 

[David T]

So, do you think atheists can't admit that we wouldn't be atheists without theists? Of course that is true. If there were no theists, there would be no atheists.

And "without believers" you're probably right - it would take a mental illness to go on and on about something that no one (including yourself) had ever seen, heard, experienced or talked about. But that's not the situation we're looking at in the here and now, are we? Not in the slightest. There certainly ARE people who claim to have seen/heard/experienced, and they damn sure talk A LOT about Him/Her/It (god). So is it "mental illness" to seek answers to questions and poke and prod people's ideas for which they have completely insufficient evidence? Is it mental illness to ask for evidence before venturing into actual belief?

In other words, what you said is completely useless. True... but useless. You want a world without "believers?" So do I. I'm just not deluded/foolish/brainless enough to think that "atheists" would go on discussing "god" and how He probably doesn't exist if there were no one left claiming that He did. The discussion would be over. No believers, nothing to discuss.

I challenge atheists experts as being valid experts and atheists insist on holding onto their experts. A topic can be both true and completely not understood. I see virtually no evidence that religion in general understands the topic at all. In fact all historical evidence points to a degregation of understanding not an increase of understanding.

If historically we see a degregation, I might question my experts, not defend them as understanding the topic as atheism insists. That's The actually interesting question here.

 

[columbus]

I deeply question atheists authority on the topic and atheists insist on defending them. I have no idea why except compatibility.

I can't imagine why you think that theists have more authority on the topic. One thing that you can be confident about is that a theist has a bias. They all believe in some religion or another, with little evidence to go on stronger than hearsay or delusion.
Tom

 

[David T]

I can't imagine why you think that theists have more authority on the topic. One thing that you can be confident about is that a theist has a bias. They all believe in some religion or another, with little evidence to go on stronger than hearsay or delusion.
Tom

I said they are atheists authority on the topic not are authoritative. I have yet to see non belief have any relevance to the sun setting or rising and it's not governed by science or its ideas of it. I am pretty sure it was doing it's thing long before we came along.

I can simply flip that and say the exact same thing about belief .is there any difference between the two? None.

The Belief , non belief, agnosticism trio has zero to do with anything and is a self contained trio arguing about details while agreeing upon certain assumptions. It's what we call "normal". Normal doesn't mean correct.

 

[columbus]

I said they are atheists authority on the topic not are authoritative. I have yet to see non belief have any relevance to the sun setting or rising and it's not governed by science or its ideas of it. I am pretty sure it was doing it's thing long before we came along.

I can simply flip that and say the exact same thing about belief .is there any difference between the two? None.

The Belief , non belief, agnosticism trio has zero to do with anything and is a self contained trio arguing about details while agreeing upon certain assumptions. It's what we call "normal". Normal doesn't mean correct.

What I am seeing here is a meaningless word salad.
But your point seems to be that theists are more authoritative in a conversation about God and religion than non-theists. I strongly oppose that point.
Tom

 

[David T]

What I am seeing here is a meaningless word salad.
But your point seems to be that theists are more authoritative in a conversation about God and religion than non-theists. I strongly oppose that point.
Tom

Exactly the opposite. There is historical evidence of degregation of understanding not an increase of understanding. Invariably religion becomes like a whisper circle, which atheism tries to determine validity by listening to the 100th person in the circle. Sorry you are confused. Morphology is a very interesting topic especially in context to religous thinking.

Fact, a man is executed as a heretic, a religion builds up around him, that religion then begins to execute people for being heretics. Are they experts on the topic? Hardly but they are atheists experts. Sorry but that's a fact .

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I challenge atheists experts as being valid experts and atheists insist on holding onto their experts. A topic can be both true and completely not understood. I see virtually no evidence that religion in general understands the topic at all. In fact all historical evidence points to a degregation of understanding not an increase of understanding.

If historically we see a degregation, I might question my experts, not defend them as understanding the topic as atheism insists. That's The actually interesting question here.

What is an "atheist expert?"

 

[David T]

What is an "atheist expert?"

Theists. Religion is notorious for degrading over time like a whisper circle. Morphology is incredibly interesting in context to religion.

Fact, a man is executed as a heretic a religion forms around him and the followers begin to execute those they deem as heretics. Are the followers experts? Atheists insist they are I say no they are clueless. They don't understand the man that the religion is based on. Are you proposing that theists even understand the topic? No evidence if that. Please show me the evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Theists. Religion is notorious for degrading over time like a whisper circle. Morphology is incredibly interesting in context to religion.

Fact, a man is executed as a heretic a religion forms around him and the followers begin to execute those they deem as heretics. Are the followers experts? Atheists insist they are I say no they are clueless. They don't understand the man that the religion is based on. Are you proposing that theists even understand the topic? No evidence if that. Please show me the evidence.

I don't pretend to know who is an expert about any of it.

All I know is, if someone makes a claim to something they can't demonstrate in the slightest, and then tells me I should be making similar claims, that person is a complete and utter idiot.

 

[columbus]

Fact, a man is executed as a heretic, a religion builds up around him, that religion then begins to execute people for being heretics. Are they experts on the topic? Hardly but they are atheists experts. Sorry but that's a fact .

That's not a fact.
I believe Jesus was executed for being an anti-Roman activist.
Pilate wouldn't care about some stupid Jewish heresy. Why do you think he would?
Why would people think that Jesus was a messiah? Messiahs rescue the Jewish people from oppression. Like what the Romans were doing to them at the time.

I doubt that Jesus would have believed in anything like the heresy of Trinitarianism. He would have turned over in His grave at being deified by Pauline Christianity. Good Jews like Jesus knew that there is only one True God, same as Abraham and Moses knew that.
Tom

 

[David T]

I don't pretend to know who is an expert about any of it.

All I know is, if someone makes a claim to something they can't demonstrate in the slightest, and then tells me I should be making similar claims, that person is a complete and utter idiot.

Can't disagree with that at all. But if say the idiot was talking about say the sun, I would say, saying the sun does not exist based on the idiots statements about the sun might be problematic at best. I totally agree, all evidence points to the idiot being confused, it does not validate the idea the sun does not exist. That is a false conclusion based on flawed assumptions that the idiot knows what they are talking about. There is Little evidence if that.

 

[David T]

That's not a fact.
I believe Jesus was executed for being an anti-Roman activist.
Pilate wouldn't care about some stupid Jewish heresy. Why do you think he would?
Why would people think that Jesus was a messiah? Messiahs rescue the Jewish people from oppression. Like what the Romans were doing to them at the time.

I doubt that Jesus would have believed in anything like the heresy of Trinitarianism. He would have turned over in His grave at being deified by Pauline Christianity. Good Jews like Jesus knew that there is only one True God, same as Abraham and Moses knew that.
Tom

"I believe" is co equal to "I don't believe" "I am agnostic". An interesting trio.

Since I believe, I don't believe I am agnostic has zero to do with the sun rising and the sun setting I might say all three are irrelevant and only exist in a very specific way to each other.

Tom, every person on this planet does not fit into that but the vast majority do. We call that "normal" which does not mean correct. Of course from my perspective normal is pandemic and we are doomed because of it!! Lol.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Can't disagree with that at all. But if say the idiot was talking about say the sun, I would say, saying the sun does not exist based on the idiots statements about the sun might be problematic at best. I totally agree, all evidence points to the idiot being confused, it does not validate the idea the sun does not exist. That is a false conclusion based on flawed assumptions that the idiot knows what they are talking about. There is Little evidence if that.

Unfortunately, your analogy falls on its face right out of the gate. Two of the most obvious reasons:

1. An atheist doesn't necessarily make the claim that "God does not exist"
2. The sun can be demonstrated to exist between two or more (or all) independent parties

I wouldn't be caught making the positive claim "God does not exist." Which makes me NOT AT ALL the person in your analogy claiming "the sun does not exist."

I also find myself at a loss as to what statements a confused "idiot" could make about the sun that would leave me doubting its very existence.

In the end, trying to course correct someone who doesn't "know what they are talking about" is not, at all, a useless endeavor. This seems to be what you are implying. So you can stop any time now.

 

[columbus]

"I believe" is co equal to "I don't believe" "I am agnostic". An interesting trio.

More nonsensical word salad.
"I believe, but can't say why" is not at all the same as "I don't believe, because I have no reason to do that".

"I don't know, and I don't pretend to know", (agnosticism) is yet another completely different concept.

These are not "co-equal" in any way. Not even close. Although I do understand that religionists are unable to distinguish between them, because then their world views would collapse.

Tom

 

[Kartari]

Hi all,

The prevalence of misunderstandings about atheism, agnosticism, and similar concepts continues to astonish me. Especially since atheism is quite a simple concept to understand.

The definition of an atheist is, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods" (Meriam-Webster). An atheist, very simply, is someone who lacks belief in gods. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The four "definitions" given as choices in the poll are not actual definitions of atheism. It is not an argument against the dissimilar beliefs of others on the basis of their dissimilarity, as the first choice asserts. The "search for God" and its apparent "futility" does not broadly apply to all atheists, and is certainly not a part of the definition of atheism, even if some (but not all) atheists might feel that way. It is not broadly defined as the firm assertion that God or gods do not exist, as the third choice asserts, even if some atheists (called "strong atheists") do assert that this is the case. Nor is it a "rejection" of all gods, strictly speaking, as the fourth choice asserts. To reject something implies that that something is well-defined and real enough to either consider, accept, or reject; rejection therefore requires belief in the object of rejection. An atheist, by contrast, lacks belief in the very notion of gods. So from an atheist's perspective, there is really nothing to reject; hence, atheism cannot be defined as a rejection of gods.

Peace.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hi all,

The prevalence of misunderstandings about atheism, agnosticism, and similar concepts continues to astonish me. Especially since atheism is quite a simple concept to understand.

The definition of an atheist is, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods" (Meriam-Webster). An atheist, very simply, is someone who lacks belief in gods. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The four "definitions" given as choices in the poll are not actual definitions of atheism. It is not an argument against the dissimilar beliefs of others on the basis of their dissimilarity, as the first choice asserts. The "search for God" and its apparent "futility" does not broadly apply to all atheists, and is certainly not a part of the definition of atheism, even if some (but not all) atheists might feel that way. It is not broadly defined as the firm assertion that God or gods do not exist, as the third choice asserts, even if some atheists (called "strong atheists") do assert that this is the case. Nor is it a "rejection" of all gods, strictly speaking, as the fourth choice asserts. To reject something implies that that something is well-defined and real enough to either consider, accept, or reject; rejection therefore requires belief in the object of rejection. An atheist, by contrast, lacks belief in the very notion of gods. So from an atheist's perspective, there is really nothing to reject; hence, atheism cannot be defined as a rejection of gods.

Peace.

Agreed-- but you can define "atheism" as "a rejection of god-claims".

In that a theist claims "[a] God is Real" and the atheist replies, "I do not believe your statement is accurate." Which is a rejection of sorts.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Bob,

That's true. An atheist can reject claims about a god or gods. Claims are expressed thoughts on a subject matter, and thoughts are a real phenomenon which can be rejected (or accepted).

 

[lukethethird]

Which Definition of Atheism Do You Use?

Why, does it matter?