What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

[ratiocinator]

You can keep repeating this until pigs fly, and it will remain illogical, irrational, and untrue.

And you can go on stamping your little foot as long as you like and this will remain a silly, baseless, illogical assertion.

Science is an actual process, so those who engage in the process are called 'scientists'. Atheism is not a process. So there are no 'atheists'.

Is your name Humpty Dumpty? You can't change the English language to suit your bizarre beliefs, and if you insist on using words differently to everybody else, any discussion will descend into daft arguments (like this) and words. It's very, very silly of you.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Get over it.

Technically speaking, there are no "theists", either. There are only 'religionists'.

Perhaps it would help if you started a reference thread in which you can tell everybody all the ways in which you want to mangle the English language, a kind of PureX-speak to English dictionary...

 

[ratiocinator]

An Atheist is somebody who denies that there is a Ground of Reality, the Absolute, the Ultimate Reality.

What's one of those, then?

 

[blü 2]

Yes, I know an atheist is defined as one who has a lack of belief in any God.

But what is the test to be recognized as an atheist by others?

If an atheist behaves in such a manner that aligns with the morals Jesus' teaches even though they claim to be an atheist, shouldn't they be called a Christian?

According to Wikipedia, there are 500 million atheists in the world. How do we know whether someone who claims to be an atheist secretly believes there is likely a divine power, but claims to be an atheist strictly to avoid ridicule for believing as such?

If we were to weed out these fake atheists, would the 500 million number significantly change?

Personally, I'm ignostic ─ that is, I have no idea what real thing is meant to be denoted by the word "God".

But back in my student days when I drove a cab, and had some timely good luck, I found myself murmuring, "Thanks, TG", where TG (my spontaneous and unconscious invention) stands for "Taxi God". I was scarcely unique in having the feeling that good luck is somehow sent, and that the sending implies an agent; it reminds me of the line attributed to DG Rossetti, "The worst time for the atheist is when he feels thankful and has no one to thank."

I'd guess that there must be some survival advantage in being thankful for luck ─ perhaps it encourages optimism. I've never had the feeling that my bad luck is sent, though I know there are many stories where this is the case.

 

[PureX]

It's not a position. There is no god.

That is a philosophical proposition. It cannot be proven. It can only be reasoned.

So, people can either believe there is or believe there is not. That's it.

Or both, or neither. None of which define nor validates, nor invalidates, the proposition.

You'd have to show me a clear definition of how you're defining atheism because it's pretty strict. You believe something exists or you don't. Has nothing to do with humanity and definitely has nothing to do with philosophy. Only deities.

Theism is the proposition that God/gods exist and exist in a way that affects humanity. Atheism is the counter-proposition to theism: that is that no God/gods exist in any way that affects humanity. The "affects humanity" caveat is logically implied as the question is philosophically moot, otherwise. Philosophy is not concerned with questions of existence beyond or apart from how humanity's relates/responds to it. Philosophy is not science, and does not involve itself in the same 'objective' physical realm of inquiry. The existence of God/gods outside of human relevance is not a philosophical concern.

 

[PureX]

Personally, I'm ignostic ─ that is, I have no idea what real thing is meant to be denoted by the word "God".

But back in my student days when I drove a cab, and had some timely good luck, I found myself murmuring, "Thanks, TG", where TG (my spontaneous and unconscious invention) stands for "Taxi God". I was scarcely unique in having the feeling that good luck is somehow sent, and that the sending implies an agent; it reminds me of the line attributed to DG Rossetti, "The worst time for the atheist is when he feels thankful and has no one to thank."

I'd guess that there must be some survival advantage in being thankful for luck ─ perhaps it encourages optimism. I've never had the feeling that my bad luck is sent, though I know there are many stories where this is the case.

We don't have to know where it comes from to be grateful for good fortune. Nor to be resentful of the bad. No one wants or seeks the negative result. And faith is a way of moving forward when we are no longer in control of the results.

 

[blü 2]

We don't have to know where it comes from to be grateful for good fortune. Nor to be resentful of the bad. No one wants or seeks the negative result. And faith is a way of moving forward when we are no longer in control of the results.

I'm not aware of any research that touches on the question, and we agree that we don't know why that response to good luck is there.

But since it appears to be universal, we can say it's an evolved trait of humans, which suggests that it serves a function useful to survival. It could of course be an accidental development whose effect is neither positive nor negative, but in that case we might expect it to occur in some human populations and not others. So I think it must provide some benefit to survival, though I have no clearer idea of how that might work than I said in my previous post.

 

[Clara Tea]

GETTING INTO HEAVEN:

You'd think that a good atheist should get into heaven before an un-repented sinner. Jesus said that one could get eternal life (not necessarily in heaven) for merely believing in him. But clearly un-repented sinners must not be allowed into heaven or heaven would be like hell, filled with vicious people and sinners. The new testament bible indicates that one must believe in Jesus in order to get into heaven.

WHAT MAKES AN ATHEIST:

Atheists know that believing without proof would lead to believing everything (Santa, tooth fairy, and even cartoons, like Fred Flintstone). Therefore, they believe in nothing until they absolutely have to believe.

Yet, atheists seem to put more faith in science, and some scientists seem to toss ideas without proving them. For example, often scientists claim that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is possibly caused by dark energy. Yet, nothing has been shown to have anti-gravity (repels). And, dark energy has never been observed. Freidman's Equation (derived from General Relativity) seems to indicate that dark energy might be causing this acceleration of expansion.

So, belief without proof is religion. This leads to the notion that science is its own religion.

Yet, there are parts of science that deal with the knowable, that are not about wild speculations. It is only when dealing with the unknowable that science devolves into a religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are wrong. A spirit/force is a deity if the spirit/force has consciousness.

If i believed in a natural force with no consiousness = Then yes i would be a atheist

What constitutes a god will vary from person to person. It's each person's individual definition of what is and isn't a god that matters, not any external definition.

If two people both believe in the exact same thing with the same attributes, but one of the people regards the thing as a god and the other doesn't, then the one person is a theist and the other is an atheist (assuming that they don't believe in anything else they regard as a god, of course).

This is similar to how we can recognize, say, a Muslim who believes in angels as a monotheist, even though the angels they believe in are very similar to the gods of a polytheistic religion.

The Muslim doesn't regard the divine messenger Jibreel/Gabriel as a god, so it isn't a god for him. The Roman polytheist regards the divine messenger Mercury as a god, so it is a god for him. Objective, external definitions of what is and isn't a god don't matter in these sorts of determinations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science is an actual process, so those who engage in the process are called 'scientists'. Atheism is not a process. So there are no 'atheists'.

Ah - I get it. You just don't understand how language works.

 

[ChristineM]

You can keep repeating this until pigs fly, and it will remain illogical, irrational, and untrue.

Here is a thought, why don't you write to those who compile dictionaries and tell them, perhaps you can eventually get the world to think as you do.

Science is an actual process, so those who engage in the process are called 'scientists'. Atheism is not a process. So there are no 'atheists'.

Cooking is a an actual process to, does that mean those who cook are food?

 

[PureX]

We can allow logic, reason, and application determine the meaning of the term, "atheist", or we can let knee-jerk personal opinions and "beliefs" decide. I prefer the former.

 

[ratiocinator]

We can allow logic, reason, and application determine the meaning of the term, "atheist", or we can let knee-jerk personal opinions and "beliefs" decide. I prefer the former.

I quite agree. How about getting up to speed with how language and logic work and stop with the knee-jerk personal opinions? This really isn't difficult, you can't redefine words, the way the language works, and the logic of the situation to suit what you want to believe..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is a philosophical proposition. It cannot be proven. It can only be reasoned.

It has nothing to do with god. It just means "I believe there is X here. I do not." There is no common criteria to base our "facts" on. So it's just a believe. One person believe something is there. The other does not. It's just basic logic. God is not excluded from this. Some people believe he exists. Others do not.

It's philosophical because it is about god?

Or both, or neither. None of which define nor validates, nor invalidates, the proposition.

Yes. Though I just mentioned those two to show people can believe something exist and someone can believe the opposite and it won't be more complicated than that.

According to what you're saying, people who believe god does exist cannot validate or invalidate their proposition.

My question is, who made up that rule? Just because thousands of people say god exists doesn't mean it's all of the sudden a probability that it does. Majority doesn't make things "probable."

Theism is the proposition that God/gods exist and exist in a way that affects humanity. Atheism is the counter-proposition to theism: that is that no God/gods exist in any way that affects humanity. The "affects humanity" caveat is logically implied as the question is philosophically moot, otherwise. Philosophy is not concerned with questions of existence beyond or apart from how humanity's relates/responds to it. Philosophy is not science, and does not involve itself in the same 'objective' physical realm of inquiry. The existence of God/gods outside of human relevance is not a philosophical concern.

Theism just says "I believe god exists." Pagans are theists. Hindus are. Joe on the block doing nothing is a theist. The belief doesn't need to affect humanity in order to have that belief or disbelief.

Take out "Affects humanity" and you're spot on. Belief in gods do affect humanity. That's not the definition of theism though.

Since philosophy isnt concerned with questions of existence would mean god exists and god does not exists as beliefs are not philosophical positions (as you mentioned). They're just statements of belief and disbelief that, by theist/atheist definition, has nothing to do with how humanity is affected.

People are affected "by" or as a result of people's belief in god, but that's not the definition of theism.

 

[ChristineM]

We can allow logic, reason, and application determine the meaning of the term, "atheist", or we can let knee-jerk personal opinions and "beliefs" decide. I prefer the former.

Or you can look at the definition and etymology like everyone else rather than making something up about something you obviously cannot understand.

 

[PureX]

I quite agree. How about getting up to speed with how language and logic work and stop with the knee-jerk personal opinions? This really isn't difficult, you can't redefine words, the way the language works, and the logic of the situation to suit what you want to believe..

Please explain, logically, how atheism is defined by, practiced, and validated by your "unbelief".

 

[PureX]

Or you can look at the definition and etymology like everyone else rather than making something up about something you obviously cannot understand.

Please explain, logically, how atheism is defined by, practiced, and validated by your "unbelief".

 

[ratiocinator]

Please explain, logically, how atheism is defined by, and validated by your "unbelief"

I already quoted a definition of atheism which corresponds to my lack of belief. Of course my lack of belief doesn't validate or define atheism - atheism is a description of that lack of belief.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, I know an atheist is defined as one who has a lack of belief in any God.

But what is the test to be recognized as an atheist by others?

If an atheist behaves in such a manner that aligns with the morals Jesus' teaches even though they claim to be an atheist, shouldn't they be called a Christian?

According to Wikipedia, there are 500 million atheists in the world. How do we know whether someone who claims to be an atheist secretly believes there is likely a divine power, but claims to be an atheist strictly to avoid ridicule for believing as such?

If we were to weed out these fake atheists, would the 500 million number significantly change?

There are no behavioral requirements for being an atheist. Perhaps you could put them on a lie detector.

Ask them "Are you an atheist". At least you know they believe they are.

 

[ChristineM]

Please explain, logically, how atheism is defined by, practiced, and validated by your "unbelief".

Dictionaries are easy to find on the internet, look, a simple search found this from the OED

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less

In the same way i lack belief in pink unicorns and leprechauns without any philosophy involved.

 

[PureX]

It has nothing to do with god. It just means "I believe there is X here. I do not."

That's not what you posted. What you posted was: "There is no God". This does not imply "belief", it implies an absolute fact of reality that affects us all. And as such it is a philosophical proposition.

There is no common criteria to base our "facts" on. So it's just a believe.

There is the logic of one's reasoning, and these are what philosophy use to explore and examine this kind of truth-proposition. Personal belief has nothing to do with the validity of the logical reasoning one employs to arrive at their assertion of truth.

According to what you're saying, people who believe god does exist cannot validate or invalidate their proposition.

Anyone can present logical reasons to consider their proposition valid, whether they believe it to be valid, or not.

Theism just says "I believe god exists."

"Theism" doesn't say anything. It has no mouth, and no voice, and no "beliefs". It is a proposed understanding of 'the 'truth of reality'.