googlefudge: "My definition [the one I use and is used by the major atheist organisations] is beautifully simple and robust.
There is absolutely no need to change it, make it more complicated, or add caveats, etc. An atheist is anyone not a theist....
apathist: "Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if she disbelieves in gods. Then go ask a baby."
Fetchmyjunk did ask, we told him, and he doesn't like it. That's not our problem.
googlefudge's definition "anyone not a theist" is perfectly adequate (and it clearly excludes rocks). A theist is one who takes a stand on the question of God's existence, and the stand he takes is affirmative. So, an atheist is one who does not need to take a stand on God's existence.
Further, if atheists constitute a 'special interest group', aren't they entitled to define themselves however they want to? Just as Christians define themselves.
Originally posted by apathist'Disbelieve' is a rather vaguely defined term. It can be read as a 'soft' atheist would read it, i.e. to lack belief [in a god or gods], or it can be read as one of these crazy theists would prefer to see it, chacteristic of 'hard' atheism, i.e. as an 'act of faith', to believe there is no god. Note please that these two positions are not the same. I accept that there may be a god, but I am still an atheist according to the widely accepted definition of that term. I have made no leap of faith, as there does not appear to be, to me, sufficient data to choose to believe that there is/are or that there is/are not a god or gods. I am not agnostic in my disbelief, as I do not think there is sufficient data to decide whether or not the existence or nature of any such god or gods can be known.
Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if she disbelieves in gods. Then go ask a baby.
It seems clear by now that there are theists who will not accept what I am saying here. Presumably this is another act of faith, a belief that they know what I'm thinking better than I do. This seems a rather arrogant position to take, but then, to believe that one knows more about the existence and nature of god than another person would seem to declare a predilection towards arrogance, so I suppose I should not be surprised.
Originally posted by apathistBut they do get to unilaterally declare definitions when they are using them.
Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups.
In what way is it 'more accurate'? A definition can never be more accurate. To say that is to misunderstand a definition.
Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if she disbelieves in gods. Then go ask a baby.
Why am I asking a baby the same thing twice?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Oh, it's not lack of intelligence. It's that some people's belief in God has a central and organizing role in their lives and personalities; many other things important to them (morality, sexuality, etc.) orbit around that point, it becomes the unassailable point of perspective from which they view and judge everything else, and for them to imagine the loss of that belief constitutes a distressing and disorienting incoherence. What they can't get their minds round, because of their God-belief-centric point of perspective, is that other people don't have that central-point perspective, and that this causes them no distress or disorientation.
I think Moonbus needs to get the big chalks out.
Originally posted by moonbusSo you are saying that people who don't believe in God don't have a view with which they judge everything else?
Oh, it's not lack of intelligence. It's that some people's belief in God has a central and organizing role in their lives and personalities; many other things important to them (morality, sexuality, etc.) orbit around that point, it becomes the unassailable point of perspective from which they view and judge everything else, and for them to imagine the loss ...[text shortened]... 't have that central-point perspective, and that this causes them no distress or disorientation.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI certainly do not. I have many many different unrelated views with no central belief or 'belief system'. As far as I know, I do not share all those views with any other person on the planet. Thus even if you were to collect all my views and give it a name, it would hardly constitute a religion, nor be useful to give it a label. If you absolutely must label it then call it 'twhiteheadism'.
So you are saying that people who don't believe in God don't have a view with which they judge everything else?
Originally posted by twhiteheadA belief system is merely something someone believes. It doesn't cease to be one simply because someone else does not share that belief. Since you have admitted that you believe there is no God, is that belief not part of 'Twhiteheadism?'. Do you not use that belief to try to make sense of reality?
I certainly do not. I have many many different unrelated views with no central belief or 'belief system'. As far as I know, I do not share all those views with any other person on the planet. Thus even if you were to collect all my views and give it a name, it would hardly constitute a religion, nor be useful to give it a label. If you absolutely must label it then call it 'twhiteheadism'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
A belief system is merely something someone believes. It doesn't cease to be one simply because someone else does not share that belief. Since you have admitted that you believe there is no God, is that belief not part of 'Twhiteheadism?'. Do you not use that belief to try to make sense of reality?
A belief system is merely something someone believes
No, no it isn't. The thing that is "merely something someone believes" is a belief.
A 'belief system' is rather more than that.
To put it in terms you might understand...
Theism, is not a belief system. It's the position of believing in the existence of one or
more gods.
Christianity is a belief system*, which generally includes and results in being a theist,
but there is so much more to it than simply believing that a specific god exists.
Christianity has things to say about how you should form other beliefs about things and
how you are supposed to make moral judgements and what the answers are supposed
to be. It explains how you should live your life and make decisions for the future.
It has organising principles and is formed of a huge collection of mutually supporting
beliefs.
A persons belief system typically contains the foundational beliefs that shape the way they
think [consciously or otherwise] and which are consequently hard to change and highly
impactfull when they are changed.
*Or really a set of different belief systems as there are a lot if different 'Christian' religions.
Do you not use that belief to try to make sense of reality?
Speaking in general, rather than for twhitehead as I can't speak for him...
Atheists do not as a rule try to make sense of the world through atheism. As that makes no sense.
Instead they might try to make sense of the world via 'Secular Humanism' or 'Rationalism' or 'Scientific
Skepticism' or indeed 'Buddhism' [among a vast and dazzling array of others]. Or some combination
of the above and others.
I tend towards Secular Humanism and Scientific Skepticism with a side order of Transhumanism and
Liberal Socialism [although those terms are now so abused that they seldom convey anything like the
meaning I intend] with some Bayesian probability thrown in.
The fact that I am an atheist simply stems from the above, and isn't something that even crosses my mind
when trying to understand the world. Or make moral judgements, or for anything other than dealing with people
that believe in gods.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistWhat is it about gender neutral language that is so hard for people to grasp, I've fixed it for
Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if [THEY] disbelieve in gods. Then go ask a baby.
you in case you can't figure it out yourself. Also atheist is only capitalised at the start of a
sentence. Ditto theist.
Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course.
Atheists and atheist organisations are not 'special interest groups' and we can absolutely define what
it means to be a member of those groups.
But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Well nobody can force anyone else to use a given definition, but we can still tell you when you
are getting it wrong. And it is wrong.
Because the word atheist is a label for a group of people. If you change the definition so that it no longer
accurately maps to that group of people then your definition is WRONG.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your
Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if [THEY] disbelieve in gods.
You see, here's the thing... I/we already have, and for plenty of atheists I know if you ask them if they
disbelieve in gods they will say "No, I just lack belief that they exist". [or words to that effect].
It is NOT more accurate to say disbelieve instead of 'lack of belief'. Nor is it clearer.
Your obstinate stupidity on this issue is baffling, and getting you nowhere.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbus
googlefudge: "My definition [the one I use and is used by the major atheist organisations] is beautifully simple and robust.
There is absolutely no need to change it, make it more complicated, or add caveats, etc. An atheist is anyone not a theist....
apathist: "Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilater ...[text shortened]... entitled to define themselves however they want to? Just as Christians define themselves.
Originally posted by moonbus
googlefudge: "My definition [the one I use and is used by the major atheist organisations] is beautifully simple and robust.
There is absolutely no need to change it, make it more complicated, or add caveats, etc. An atheist is anyone not a theist....
apathist: "Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if she disbelieves in gods. Then go ask a baby."
Fetchmyjunk did ask, we told him, and he doesn't like it. That's not our problem.
googlefudge's definition "anyone not a theist" is perfectly adequate (and it clearly excludes rocks). A theist is one who takes a stand on the question of God's existence, and the stand [THEY] take[] is affirmative. So, an atheist is one who does not need to take a stand on God's existence.
Further, if atheists constitute a 'special interest group', aren't they entitled to define themselves however they want to? Just as Christians define themselves.
In the interests of being equal and fair... Good post but need to work on the gendered language. Fixed it for you.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhy is that so strange?
So you are saying that people who don't believe in God don't have a view with which they judge everything else?
Given a new situation I would judge it on the information available to me.
I don't have a "go to" book with answers in. Nor would I want one.
