Originally posted by KellyJayI am willing to consider Atheism to be a belief system if you are willing to consider atheism not to be. Note that the thread title has "atheism" even though titles are generally capitalized.
If you want to talk about someone who is NOT an Atheist we can; however,
the topic is Atheism is a belief system, which means one does not have
God or gods in their equations, someone wishy washy on the topic isn't a
part of this discussion. If they are 25% sure there isn't a God or gods I'd
not call them an Atheist they are not sure! If you have been ...[text shortened]... nd assigning them to Atheists. The words
either mean what they say or they do not.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is not good enough. I admit a desire to free rocks from our bs, jeez it would be so easy and I guess you've done that. Kudos.
This was cleared up earlier in the thread. The definition generally assumes an entity capable of belief. So you can read his first point as: a specific absence of belief in gods in an entity capable of belief.
One could of course call dirt atheist, but it would have no descriptive value.
Mere lack of belief does not an atheist make. Gotta wrestle with the god meme first. All modern discourse confirms that fact. ALL MODERN DISCOURSE CONFIRMS THAT FACT. Except of course for you and me right now.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistHere.
That is not good enough. I admit a desire to free rocks from our bs, jeez it would be so easy and I guess you've done that. Kudos.
Mere lack of belief does not an atheist make. Gotta wrestle with the god meme first. All modern discourse confirms that fact. ALL MODERN DISCOURSE CONFIRMS THAT FACT. Except of course for you and me right now.
Have a expletive ton of evidence proving you wrong.
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html
Atheism and Agnosticism
There is much confusion about the meaning of the term atheism. Furthermore there is quite a widespread lack of understanding about its conceptual relationship with agnosticism and theism. In this posting we attempt to clarify the situation by concentrating on a few key issues:
The definition of the term atheism, as used by most atheists, is quite different from what one finds in dictionaries and in common use among non atheists.
Agnosticism is not a middle position between atheism and theism. In its original, and proper meaning, it is an epistemological paradigm-a theory of knowledge.
Atheism, properly defined, places the burden on proof squarely at the feet of the theist.
There are two forms of atheism: positive (strong-form) atheism and negative (weak-form) atheism.
Definition of Atheism
The Webster's New World College Dictionary (Macmillan 1996) defines atheism as "the belief that there is no God or a denial that God or gods exist." [1] In contrast it gives agnosticism as the belief "that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause." [2]
This indeed is how many non atheists understand the terms. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism given in Webster’s, and in most dictionaries, is incorrect. Most atheists do not define atheism that way. A proper understanding of the etymology of the word provides the actual meaning. As Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University explains:
In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of a belief in God. [3]
[Emphasis added]
Defined in this way, theism and atheism are mutually exclusive and, more importantly with respect to agnosticism, collectively exhaustive. As another atheist philosopher, George H. Smith explains:
The prefix "a" means "without, so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief...."Atheism" is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism...In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist, there is no other choice. [4]
[Emphasis added]
Thus most atheists define atheism as being without belief in theism. Therefore if one is not a theist, one is then, by definition, an atheist! There is no middle ground.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
http://www.atheist-community.org/
http://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/non-religious-beliefs/
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-278?rskey=V9puod&result=279&q=
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Originally posted by apathistIF YOU REPEAT THINGS IN CAPS, PEOPLE START TO BELIEVE YOU
That is not good enough. I admit a desire to free rocks from our bs, jeez it would be so easy and I guess you've done that. Kudos.
Mere lack of belief does not an atheist make. Gotta wrestle with the god meme first. All modern discourse confirms that fact. ALL MODERN DISCOURSE CONFIRMS THAT FACT. Except of course for you and me right now.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeLOL, yea right and because of conviction *belief* you will be left with
Atheism is not a belief system. It's a specific absense of belief in gods.
Period.
If thats your point then its done dusted and finished.
Being an atheist does not, and has never, required being absolutely
certain gods don't exist.
All it requires is not having a firm conviction [belief] that they do exist.
building your world view *system* without God or gods. I agree that
is what everyone who rejects God and gods are left with out them.
Kelly
Conviction: a strong persuasion or belief .....even dictionaries disagree with
your attempts of trying to avoid the word belief when referring to Atheism.
Originally posted by JS357It should have been Atheism in my opinion, not sure why you'd think that
I am willing to consider Atheism to be a belief system if you are willing to consider atheism not to be. Note that the thread title has "atheism" even though titles are generally capitalized.
anyone can avoid building up a belief system since none of us can go
through life knowing all things. We take on faith many things are true even
if we cannot prove them.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, because of lack of a firm conviction [belief] that gods exist.
LOL, yea right and because of conviction *belief* you will be left with
building your world view *system* without God or gods. I agree that
is what everyone who rejects God and gods are left with.
Kelly
You never can get that right.
And again, atheists are not [necessarily] rejecting god/s.
Many atheists simply don't believe in gods rather than actively reject them.
And you still have it backwards.
Nobody builds their world-view FROM the lack of belief in gods.
That's nonsensical.
People can conclude that they shouldn't or can't believe in gods because of the
rest of their world view...
But that's entirely not the same thing.
And no it doesn't get you to 'the same place'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayNo WE don't.
It should have been Atheism in my opinion, not sure why you'd think that
anyone can avoid building up a belief system since none of us can go
through life knowing all things. We take on faith many things are true even
if we cannot prove them.
Kelly
Faith is by no means a requirement.
If we don't have enough evidence to justify believing a proposition (or of
knowing it) then we simply say we don't [yet] know and/or justify belief in
that proposition.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think that we do build up a belief system, but atheism is not a belief system. My belief system has nothing to do with God/gods. It is not defined by their absence. Their absence is as irrelevant as the absence of a Bristlecone pine in your living room. It simply does not define your living space. Sure you could call all houses Abristleconepineian and make sure to capitalize it, but if people look at you funnily, don't be surprised.
It should have been Atheism in my opinion, not sure why you'd think that
anyone can avoid building up a belief system since none of us can go
through life knowing all things. We take on faith many things are true even
if we cannot prove them.
Kelly
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou build your belief system with what you do have, not with what you
No, because of lack of a firm conviction [belief] that gods exist.
You never can get that right.
And again, atheists are not [necessarily] rejecting god/s.
Many atheists simply don't believe in gods rather than actively reject them.
And you still have it backwards.
Nobody builds their world-view FROM the lack of belief in gods.
That's non ...[text shortened]... ut that's entirely not the same thing.
And no it doesn't get you to 'the same place'.
do not have.
So if you do not have God or gods in your belief system you are going to
build your belief system without them.
Yes, same place, you reject the parts it takes to build a belief system with
God or gods, or you don't use God or gods in your belief system, both of
those get you to the same place.
Kelly
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou act upon what you believe you do know to be true, it may not be true
No WE don't.
Faith is by no means a requirement.
If we don't have enough evidence to justify believing a proposition (or of
knowing it) then we simply say we don't [yet] know and/or justify belief in
that proposition.
but you'll live as if it were.
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KellyJay"We take on faith many things are true even
It should have been Atheism in my opinion, not sure why you'd think that
anyone can avoid building up a belief system since none of us can go
through life knowing all things. We take on faith many things are true even
if we cannot prove them.
Kelly
if we cannot prove them"
like what?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, it's not quite as simple as you imply. Belief (or suspension thereof) can proceed at differing levels of confidence. Even two persons who, say, both believe not-P can have (and in general will have) different levels of psychological sureness in the truth of P. So, even two persons who both believe not-P are not in the exact "same place". Maybe they are both near Chicago but on opposite sides of the city. Your claim is even more naive: you claim that even the believer in not-P and the person who suspends belief either way are in the "same place". That's too disrespectful, in my opinion, to the fact the belief proceeds at differing levels of confidence.
You build your belief system with what you do have, not with what you
do not have.
So if you do not have God or gods in your belief system you are going to
build your belief system without them.
Yes, same place, you reject the parts it takes to build a belief system with
God or gods, or you don't use God or gods in your belief system, both of
those get you to the same place.
Kelly
In fact, just consider the two extremes. Suppose we say that it requires X% or greater confidence in the truth of P to qualify as 'belief' in P. Suppose person A is absolutely sure that P is false and so A assigns 0% confidence in P. Suppose on the other hand, you have person B who assigns (X - delta)% confidence in P, where delta can be arbitrarily close to zero. As delta goes to zero, person B becomes indistiguishable from a person who weakly believes that P (call this person C). According to you, any such B is in the "same place" as A. But since B can be made basically indistinguishable from C, I think it should follow that C and A are in the same place. So, based on your claims, it seems like even people who believe P can be in the "same place" as those who strongly believe not-P. This place you talk about must be the place to be! Seems like just about everyone is there! Your view is not nuanced enough: it amounts to over-generalization. Belief (or suspension thereof) is not the simple black and white 0/1 process you imply.