atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by KellyJay
i believe there is a great deal of difference between a belief that
believes in 1 and one that has many.

Presumably there is a great deal of difference between those that believe in 1, but where that 1 is different. Similarly, there is little in common between someone that believes in 2, say Jupiter and Pluto, and someone else that believe in 2 but the 2 are Ra and Anubis. You may lump them together as di-theistics but you must recognise that doing so tells us nothing other than that they each believe in 2 gods.

The funny thing is, I am not convinced that you are monotheist. You say you believe in only one God, yet you have actually not considered all the possible other gods that may be defined. Some people for instance consider the universe to be 'God' and you do not deny the existence of the universe.
Until the word 'God' is defined more explicitly you cannot honestly express your belief or lack of belief in it or the quantity of its that may exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Presumably there is a great deal of difference between those that believe in 1, but where that 1 is different. Similarly, there is little in common between someone that believes in 2, say Jupiter and Pluto, and someone else that believe in 2 but the 2 are Ra and Anubis. You may lump them together as di-theistics but you must recognise that doing so tells ...[text shortened]... honestly express your belief or lack of belief in it or the quantity of its that may exist.

Who is spreading this false rumor?

The Instructor

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, if you're going to confuse having an attitude with belief-formation—and withholding belief from holding a belief—then there's not much else to say. You’re just confused. You might look up “skepticism”, though.

EDIT: One can certainly maintain an attitude of skepticism toward a claim without denying the possibility of the claim. Doubt is n ...[text shortened]... retical” (or philosophical) atheism and “practical” atheism, which has already been discussed.

I guess you figure that people who hold an "attitude of skepticism" do not believe they do so. I believe they do. You might look up "believe", though.

The op point is correct. Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in gods. Instead, it is a type of considered response to theism, essentially a rejection of theism. Atheism has two types: strong, hard, or positive atheism which asserts that no deities exist; and weak, soft or negative atheism which describes a belief system and philosophical stance whereby a person lacks a belief in gods. I didn't make this stuff up - it is how the words are used by experts.

Babies and rocks are not atheistic. They are secular.

Originally posted by apathist
I guess you figure that people who hold an "attitude of skepticism" do not believe they do so. I believe they do. You might look up "believe", though.

The op point is correct. Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in gods. Instead, it is a type of considered response to theism, essentially a rejection of theism. Atheism has two types: strong, hard, or ...[text shortened]... ow the words are used by experts.

Babies and rocks are not atheistic. They are secular.

Of course I can believe that I have an attitude that is not itself a belief, and I can believe other things about that attitude—e.g., that it is appropriate in the circumstances.

I might put an “attitude of skepticism” closer to agnosticism, if I think of the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, whose skepticism had to do with suspension of belief/disbelief with regard to (especially) metaphysical questions. My suggestion that you look up skepticism was not sarcastic—nor did I mean just look up a dictionary definition. The Pyrrhonian Skeptics, for example, were one of the three main schools of Hellenistic philosophy.

However, here are some dictionary definitions. In the following definitions, 2b would represent the Pyrrhonian Skeptics:

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

—http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism

Granted that 1 and 2a are related to beliefs, they are not themselves beliefs—as 2a would be.

One can (a) hold a given belief, (b) hold the counter-belief, (c) claim that there is insufficient evidence to form either the belief or the counter-belief. Under (c), one’s belief is just that there is insufficient evidence. However, under (c) one may also believe that the current evidence implies (b), but refrain from adopting (b) as a belief because future evidence is uncertain.

Sextus Empiricus went to great pains to argue that Pyrrhonian Skepticism was not a “belief system” (refuting philosophers of the Academy, who held, at the time, more to 2a).

Look, we are undoubtedly at impasse here. It has been a really good thread, and I thank you for that. Be well.

Originally posted by apathist
I didn't make this stuff up - it is how the words are used by experts.

Not only do some experts use the word differently, but experts do not decide definitions. Definitions are malleable and can be redefined by anyone on the spur of the moment. Definitions can also be used differently in different circles/fields.
This thread has shown that the word 'atheist' has been used over a wide range of meanings over a long period of time.

But most importantly, the fact remains that when I call myself atheist, I am not using your definition, so if you stick to your definition, you will fail to understand me, and insisting on your definition serves no purpose whatsoever and has no impact on what I believe or do not believe nor any impact on any argument related to religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not only do some experts use the word differently, but experts do not decide definitions. Definitions are malleable and can be redefined by anyone on the spur of the moment. Definitions can also be used differently in different circles/fields.
This thread has shown that the word 'atheist' has been used over a wide range of meanings over a long period of ...[text shortened]... impact on what I believe or do not believe nor any impact on any argument related to religion.

Your definition may be a wrong definition, just like some people give to evolution the definition of a change over time, which is obviously a redefining of the word, so that it can be applied to more things.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not only do some experts use the word differently, but experts do not decide definitions. Definitions are malleable and can be redefined by anyone on the spur of the moment. Definitions can also be used differently in different circles/fields.
This thread has shown that the word 'atheist' has been used over a wide range of meanings over a long period of ...[text shortened]... impact on what I believe or do not believe nor any impact on any argument related to religion.

Of course definitions are malleable. That certainly doesn't mean that anyone can define any word any way she wants, unless of course she doesn't mind being misunderstood and sounding like an idiot.

I disagree that experts do not decide definitions. Of course they do. One factor that wordsmiths use is based on popular usage, but certainly they use other considerations also, and they aim at making meaningful and useful definitions.

You make a good point that definitions can also be used differently in different circles/fields. So what? We already know that atheist clubs can choose silly definitions for the terms. That silliness is what spurred the op.

But most importantly, the fact remains that when I call myself atheist, I am not using your definition, so if you stick to your definition, you will fail to understand me, and insisting on your definition serves no purpose whatsoever and has no impact on what I believe or do not believe nor any impact on any argument related to religion.

More important is that you (and the rest of the 'babies are atheist' crowd) will, according to the fact you just stated, fail to understand every modern work on the subject.

Originally posted by apathist
Of course definitions are malleable. That certainly doesn't mean that anyone can define any word any way she wants, unless of course she doesn't mind being misunderstood and sounding like an idiot.

I disagree that experts do not decide definitions. Of course they do. One factor that wordsmiths use is based on popular usage, but certainly they use other c according to the fact you just stated, fail to understand every modern work on the subject.

Personally, I think holding the same view as a rock or a new born seems a
little insulting to me, yet if they feel that best describes themselves so be it.
Kelly

Originally posted by apathist
Of course definitions are malleable. That certainly doesn't mean that anyone can define any word any way she wants, unless of course she doesn't mind being misunderstood and sounding like an idiot.

That 'unless' is a biggie.

I disagree that experts do not decide definitions. Of course they do.
No, they don't. Sorry, but you'll have to do more than just state it as fact. Try and provide some sort of reasoning / evidence to that effect.

We already know that atheist clubs can choose silly definitions for the terms. That silliness is what spurred the op.
So why do you find it silly?

More important is that you (and the rest of the 'babies are atheist' crowd) will, according to the fact you just stated, fail to understand every modern work on the subject.
Well thats not a problem given that I do not generally read modern works on the subject. Do you? I would also expect any modern work on the subject to be clear what their intended meaning is in the work.
The biggest problem I see is that your definition is virtually useless in every day life as nobody actually fits your definition ie there are no atheists.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Personally, I think holding the same view as a rock or a new born seems a
little insulting to me, yet if they feel that best describes themselves so be it.
Kelly

I don't know why you think that would be insulting. Holding no view/belief about something should not be insulting at all regardless of what other entities similarly hold no view/belief about it.
Its like being insulted by the fact that you have two eyes and so do frogs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know why you think that would be insulting. Holding no view/belief about something should not be insulting at all regardless of what other entities similarly hold no view/belief about it.
Its like being insulted by the fact that you have two eyes and so do frogs.

To imply that humans must have evolved from frogs, because frogs have two eyes like humans, is insulting to me.

The Instructor

Remember: don't feed the troll.

Originally posted by Penguin
Remember: don't feed the troll.

But its so cute and fluffy 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
But its so cute and fluffy 🙂

OMG it's your first joke after 8 years of posting. 😲