What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

[PureX]

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.

You couldn't do it, could you. That's because there is no logical reason to base the definition of atheism on "disbelief".

 

[ChristineM]

You couldn't do it, could you. That's because there is no logical reason to base the definition of atheism on "disbelief".

WTF are you on about, i provided the OED definition. Get over it

You want logic,is it logical to believe a god created childhood leukemia?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

The statement was a foundation for a point I was making. A lot of religious do state what they believe as facts; so, I hope you got the context of what I'm saying without focusing on whether or not I should believe or know god exists or not.

Saying absolute fact, though, is just based on observations and things of that nature. Everyone comes to facts and beliefs from their experiences and things that make sense to them. In the conversation, though, atheism defines someone's belief vs disbelief in deities. Either one believes they exist or they don't. It's not philosophical and has nothing to do with affects on humanity. It's just two statements opposed to each other.

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.

But the conversation didn't start off philosophical, just the word atheism. I'm very simple. Either you believe something exists or you do not. Whether it be god or a pen in my hand it is irrelevant. That belief god doesn't exist doesn't affect humanity.

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

I'd phrase it (so I understand what you're saying) anyone can give logical reasons why they believe or don't believe something is true. They are both justified. The word atheism is pretty clear cut. Either one believes god exists or not. Logical reasons for both sides are besides the point.

"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'.

It's just the definition of the word. "Belief in god." Of course there are thousands of philosophical and theological books and websites to describe what that means. It's all additions (edit-rather), of course. But the bare bones of it is belief in god vs disbelief in god.

How does belief and disbelief in themselves affect humanity?

 

[paarsurrey]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[McBell]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

Please be so kind as to reveal the nature of the yardstick of which you speak.

 

[ChristineM]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

From the one who was mocked, derided and driven from the church she loved i can guarantee it works both ways.

As the one who's children gave been threatened with eternal hell because their mother won't bow down to a bronze age myth i can guarantee it works both ways.

As one who has been injured in a bomb explosion set by christians and never by atheists i can say religion is more dangerous than atheism.

Want me to continue, i have much more...

 

[Heyo]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

You are free to mock/ridicule my atheism/Agnosticism as much as I mock/ridicule your belief. The problem is: we aren't ridiculous.

 

[ChristineM]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

i could reply with the atrosities, murders, beheadings but thats not mockery is it?

 

[HonestJoe]

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

A person doesn't need to be recognised as an atheist to be one, even by themselves. People can be atheist without even knowing the word (and some probably are). It's like if someone has a medical condition but hasn't been diagnosed, they still have the condition, they just don't know they have it. Of course the same technically applies to theism as well, though that is more commonly linked to a specifically defined set of beliefs so is presumably less common.

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?

It could be argued that they can be called Christian even if they are atheist. There is an entire separate debate on that definition and I'm not getting in to that.

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

That would likely swing both ways, with people who say they believe in a god or gods even if they aren't so sure. I'd also suggest that a lot of people (possibly even a significant majority), don't really think about the question and so don't yet have a definitive answer either way.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please be so kind as to reveal the nature of the yardstick of which you speak.

What reasonable and truthful criteria one has/had in mind when one decided to find truth in revealed religions or no-religions?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Tambourine]

You couldn't do it, could you. That's because there is no logical reason to base the definition of atheism on "disbelief".

Logic is about the internal consistency of arguments, not whether you agree with somebody's reasoning or not.

 

[blü 2]

You'd think that a good atheist should get into heaven before an un-repented sinner.

Gautama Buddha said that if you live a life of decency and good order then if there's a heaven you'll have no worries and if there isn't, you'll die knowing you've added some good to the world. I'm not a Buddhist, but if there's a god, or gods, and [he] or they are just, then that seems fair. I've never understood why Jesus' death absolved the world from sin conditionally on belief ─ sounds like a cheap sales trick when you think about it.

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.

Much crime is due to mental disorders and much is due to social resentments and the lack of a level playing field. Surely a god could cure the first and persuade the second to a better outlook rather than send any soul they might have to punishment and perdition?

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.

I know what you mean, but there are many exceptions. Some people are atheists because they feel wronged by the church, not only for sexual abuse or workhouse welfare but also for discrimination against them ─ Stephen Fry, who is gay, said as much in a talk which was and may be still be on YouTube, a very angry outburst rather than a carefully reasoned theological or materialist position.

Yet, atheists seem to put more faith in science, and some scientists seem to toss ideas without proving them.

In science, you have the distinction between what is satisfactorily demonstrated to be correct, and what is hypothetical but a reasonable conjecture and therefore should be further tested. In science, both 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are names of problems, not of solutions or identified things / phenomena, and the claims you speak of are hypotheses, promising but still undergoing testing.

But as in life, so in science ─ there are many reliable statements but no absolute ones. Science proceeds by empiricism and induction, and is never protected from unknown unknowns. Or as Brian Cox said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.

So the justification of science is not that it grasps absolute truth about reality (ie the world external to the self) but that what it indeed grasps, has worked and continues to work pretty dang well.

As for religion, it seems to me that all gods and all supernatural things exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. Part of a great deal of evidence for this is the absence of any definition of 'God' (or 'god') appropriate to a real god, one with objective existence. To give my usual example, there are objective tests that can determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is a bat, or light in the violet band, or the smell of diesel fumes, or even a unicorn (and it's none of those) but no test to tell me whether it's God or not. If God were real, had objective existence, how could that be the case?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Logic is about the internal consistency of arguments, not whether you agree with somebody's reasoning or not.

Exactly why belief ("whether you agree with somebody's reasoning or not") is irrelevant.

 

[Zaha Torte]

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?

Atheist Test - "Do you believe in any kind of God(s) or Creator(s)?"

If they answer "Yes" then they are not an atheist.

If they answer "No" then they are an atheist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheist Test - "Do you believe in any kind of God(s) or Creator(s)?"

If they answer "Yes" then they are not an atheist.

If they answer "No" then they are an atheist.

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledge their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

Atheists

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheists

So even though these folks acknowledge the existence of Gods, they're still atheists?

 

[Zaha Torte]

So even though these folks acknowledge the existence of Gods, they're still atheists?

I think I misunderstood your question. You asked, "How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?"

I took this as asking what would I classify people who do not believe in the existence of Gods of Creators yet they acknowledge that those who do believe in the existence of a God or Creator has a benevolent affect upon them.

All I'm saying is if someone does not believe a God or Creator of any kind exists - they are atheist. Period. Nothing else matters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Y That's because there is no logical reason to base the definition of atheism on "disbelief".

The most logical basis is standard common usage.
And that is disbelief (ie, lack of belief) in deities.
She wasn't defining it...she just uses standard sources
that comport with how everyone generally uses it.