atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by apathist
I've heard that every baby remembers Heaven and God.

That's what you have heard ... how interesting!

What idiot did you hear it from?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Reference? To a peer reviewed journal and not a video or a creationist site.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823142735.htm

The Instructor 😏

Originally posted by DeepThought
The strange thing is that if we are right, the universe is old, and evolutionary theory is at least broadly correct, then it may be wrong to class humans as apes;

The modern trend is to avoid paraphyletic groups. So it doesn't matter how much we diverge from other apes, we are still apes. Great apes for that matter. And monkeys. And mammals.
The only reason apes are not classed as monkeys is historical. ie we should correct that an class apes as monkeys.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No atheist is from the Greek atheos meaning "without god" (see the thread in debates).

I did give that as the etymology.

At various times it has been used to mean actual atheists,
Now we have 'actual atheists'? What are the 'I don't knows'? Fake atheists?

The standard definition that most people use is someone who doesn't believe God exists.
No, it is not the standard definition. It is not clear that there is a standard, but if there is, it leans towards including anyone who doesn't believe in God.

New born babies are in a category of not being able to understand the question yet. There is nothing to be gained from categorizing them as atheists.
And nothing to be lost either. They are certainly not theists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did give that as the etymology.

[b]At various times it has been used to mean actual atheists,
Now we have 'actual atheists'? What are the 'I don't knows'? Fake atheists?

The standard definition that most people use is someone who doesn't believe God exists.
No, it is not the standard definition. It is not clear that there is a ...[text shortened]... ng them as atheists. [/b]
And nothing to be lost either. They are certainly not theists.[/b]

The standard definition for an atheists is someone who claims God does not exist. He may believe it or he may not. However, atheism is a belief system regardless who believes it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823142735.htm

The Instructor 😏

Technically that wasn't a peer reviewed journal, but was close enough as they gave the journal reference. The paper referred to, which one can reach without registering or paying, doesn't state what percentage humans and chimps DNA differ by - there was not reason they should, they were asking a different question. The basis for the 4% figure is this news release: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=148951 which (annoyingly) doesn't state where the figure of 4% comes from. The number I'd heard in the past was 1%.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did give that as the etymology.

[b]At various times it has been used to mean actual atheists,
Now we have 'actual atheists'? What are the 'I don't knows'? Fake atheists?

The standard definition that most people use is someone who doesn't believe God exists.
No, it is not the standard definition. It is not clear that there is a ...[text shortened]... ng them as atheists. [/b]
And nothing to be lost either. They are certainly not theists.[/b]

See the thread in debates, there's a better discussion there. As an agnostic it is irritating to me when atheists try to claim I am one of them.

Originally posted by DeepThought
See the thread in debates, there's a better discussion there. As an agnostic it is irritating to me when atheists try to claim I am one of them.

Really? Why?

I genuinely don't get why it's an issue.

I mean sure there are places where it would be inadvisable to say that you're an atheist.
Due to the prejudice out there against atheists...

But that's a different issue than working out in private if you are or are not an atheist.



I generally define belief in P as something like "a firm conviction that P is true".

And I would generally hold that a sane person either has a 'firm conviction that P is true'
or they do not have a 'firm conviction that P is true'.

When P is "a god or gods exist".

Then if you have a firm conviction that P is true you are a theist.

If you do not have a firm conviction that P is true then you are not a theist.

The position "not a theist" has the label "atheist".

It eludes me as to why anyone (who is not a theist out to discredit atheism) would have a
problem with that.


And it doesn't in any way preclude being agnostic, or using the agnostic label.



To me this seems to be about as pointless as objecting to being labelled a mammal.
You don't have to go around saying you are one, but it's true nonetheless.

Originally posted by DeepThought
See the thread in debates, there's a better discussion there. As an agnostic it is irritating to me when atheists try to claim I am one of them.

And as I say in that thread, do you complain when fellow foreigners try to claim you as one of them?
I consider you an atheist. I do not think your beliefs are the same as mine or even similar. But you are not a theist. That is all the label tells me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And as I say in that thread, do you complain when fellow foreigners try to claim you as one of them?
I consider you an atheist. I do not think your beliefs are the same as mine or even similar. But you are not a theist. That is all the label tells me.

I saw that post, and really liked the analogy.

I may nick it for arguments in the future.

I hope you don't mind ;-)

Originally posted by googlefudge
I saw that post, and really liked the analogy.

I may nick it for arguments in the future.

I hope you don't mind ;-)

You're welcome to use it.
I thought it captured the essence of atheism rather well. When you live in a country not your own, most people around you are citizens and you are a foreigner. To some extent you may even band together with other foreigners even when they are from opposite sides of the world. As a foreigner you may get discriminated against. You may even identify yourself as a foreigner.
But when you go back to your home country, you now don't ever think about being a foreigner of that nation you lived in.
The same applies to being atheist. It only exists because of the significant numbers of theists and the need to identify yourself as not one of them. The moment you have a situation where nobody talks about religion, you no longer think about being an atheist. The category vanishes.
But it remains the case that even if you have never visited, nor ever will visit Zambia, you are still a foreigner. You can be a day old baby who hasn't even heard of Zambia, and you will still be a foreigner.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really? Why?

I genuinely don't get why it's an issue.

Because it's a different philosophical position. The term atheist comes with baggage I don't want responsibility for.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Because it's a different philosophical position. The term atheist comes with baggage I don't want responsibility for.

It's not a philosophical position.

It's simply the label for people who are not theists.

You can be an atheist because of a philosophical position.

But it isn't a philosophical position in and of itself.



Again, there is a difference between what label you choose to give people and
the position you want to adopt. And labels that apply because of who, or what
you are or what you believe.


For example a Buddhist who doesn't believe in gods is not a theist and is thus an atheist.
But the relevant label, and how they identify themselves is going to be Buddhist and not
atheist.


I am not asking you (and I am not sure anyone else is either) to proclaim yourself an
atheist, or join the atheist movement.

I am simply saying that you are, on top of whatever else you might be, an atheist.
If you don't hold a belief that a god or gods exist.

Because that is what the word means.



I don't know what 'baggage' you think the term comes with, or others think the term comes with.
But that's a PR problem, and has nothing to do with what the word means, or whether it applies
to you.



Perhaps you could look at it like this.

If the word means "a person who doesn't have a belief in the existence of god or gods"...
And I [you] don't have a belief in god or gods...
Then the word applies to me...
If the negative connotations and 'baggage' don't apply to you, then maybe they don't apply to
the word either.



There are people, like RJHinds our classic exhibit A, who will attempt to create negative associations
with whatever word gets used to label people who don't have a belief in gods.
And I have seen plenty of footage of apologists pouring just as much scorn on the label agnostic
as the label atheist.


You may not like the 'baggage' that comes with the word atheist, but by telling everyone you're not one,
or that you don't like it being applied to you. Well that suggests that you agree that that baggage applies
to those that do call themselves atheists.



So my question would be what baggage, or connotations, do you think I have by calling myself an
atheist?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's not a philosophical position.

It's simply the label for people who are not theists.

You can be an atheist because of a philosophical position.

But it isn't a philosophical position in and of itself.



Again, there is a difference between what label you choose to give people and
the position you want to adopt. And labels that apply be gage, or connotations, do you think I have by calling myself an
atheist?

I disagree that atheism is not a philosophical position. Agnosticism certainly is. Philosophical positions come with baggage, with atheism the implication is that I have an answer to the question "Does God exist", since I don't have an answer I don't see why I should justify the negative one.

Incidentally regarding the foreigner analogy - just because I am a Stranger in a Strange Land doesn't mean I'm Welsh (Welsh being the old Anglo-Saxon word for foreign).

Edit: Capitalization of Heinlein reference.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's not a philosophical position.

It's simply the label for people who are not theists.

You can be an atheist because of a philosophical position.

But it isn't a philosophical position in and of itself.



Again, there is a difference between what label you choose to give people and
the position you want to adopt. And labels that apply be gage, or connotations, do you think I have by calling myself an
atheist?

Well, it is a philosophical position for anyone who comes to their view (and their version of atheism) from the standpoint of considered thought. That does not mean that one has studied philosophy as a formal discipline, or thinks about in formal philosophical terms.

"Philosophical", of course, is a term that has somewhat different meanings in different "language games"--e.g. formal philosophy versus conventional discourse. Wittgenstein was right about how much confusion can result from transferring terms from one language game (mode of discourse) to another. If one prefers the term "theoretical atheism" for a a view arrived at via considered thought, but outside formal philosophical discourse, I wouldn't quarrel.