I see no value in atheism

[Curious George]

Does a person who is undecided about whether they believe in God "lack belief in God"? Of course they do.

Is person who is not happy unhappy?

 

[Willamena]

The definition of "atheist" from Oxford that you provided include those who merely "lack belief in God". You are saying that those who "lack belief in God", but do not actively believe that God does not exist, should not be included as "atheists", right?

I don't give a care about grouping people. I'm just presenting a case for what words mean and how they should be used. You are, of course, free to use them any other way, as you will.

Atheism, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," is the negation of theism, "Belief in the existence of God or gods."

Atheist, "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods," i.e. the person who does atheism, per se.

Atheist is not the negation of theist, it's not the negation of a premise, and it's not the negation of the fact of holding a belief.

That's my case.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree. But, would you agree that both the "strong" and "weak" are "atheists", by definition?

Sure. Both are not theists. The difference is that "strong atheists" believe that gods don't exist in addition to being "not theists".

 

[leibowde84]

Yes but if one can be neither happy nor unhappy and unhappy is defined by not happy then we get the contradiction that someone is unhappy and not unhappy.

being both happy and unhappy is an impossibility. Remember, not happy is notnecessarily sad.

 

[Xaxyx]

Atheism, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," is the negation of theism, "Belief in the existence of God or gods."

Atheist, "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods," i.e. the person who does atheism, per se.

I lack a belief in gods. How is that "doing" atheism? That, to me, is merely a description, very much similar to, "I have no hair on my head."

 

[leibowde84]

I don't give a care about grouping people. I'm just presenting a case for what words mean and how they should be used. You are, of course, free to use them any other way, as you will.

Atheism, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," is the negation of theism, "Belief in the existence of God or gods."

Atheist, "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods," i.e. the person who does atheism, per se.

Atheist is not the negation of theist, it's not the negation of a premise, and it's not the negation of the fact of holding a belief.

That's my case.

I get all that. I'm asking why you think that a person who is undecided is not practicing atheism, as they certainly lack a belief in god.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure. Both are not theists. The difference is that "strong atheists" believe that gods don't exist in addition to being "not theists".

I agree. But they are merely kinds of atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Is person who is not happy unhappy?

Yes.

 

[Curious George]

Because irrational emotion and rational logic do not both behave under the same rule set. It is possible for me to feel happy and sad simultaneously. It is not possible, not rational or reasonable, to both believe and not believe simultaneously that there is an elephant in my living room.

Can you do that? Can you both believe and not believe in the existence of the elephant in my living room, simultaneously?

well if I can believe that I feel one way and believe that I feel another then yes it must be possible for me to do both simultaneously.

 

[ArtieE]

I lack a belief in gods. How is that "doing" atheism? That, to me, is merely a description, very much similar to, "I have no hair on my head."

If I'm walking I'm doing something. Is "not walking" something I do?

 

[Curious George]

As long as you are not happy, then you are not happy. You can be more than one emotion at once. The only requirement for not being happy is being unhappy. Just like "atheism", there are subcategories.

so having no feeling at all is being unhappy?

 

[Curious George]

If I'm walking I'm doing something. Is "not walking" something I do?

yes

 

[Curious George]

If I'm walking I'm doing something. Is "not walking" something I do?

taking no action is still an action. sometimes the best action according to game theory.

 

[Curious George]

Does a person who is undecided about whether they believe in God "lack belief in God"? Of course they do.

or they are just undecided.

 

[leibowde84]

so having no feeling at all is being unhappy?

Unhappy = not being happy. That's it. There is no further qualifier, so it is a pretty good analogy for our conversation.

un·hap·py
ˌənˈhapē/
adjective

1. not happy.

unhappy definition

 

[leibowde84]

or they are just undecided.

Undecided means, by definition, that they "lack a belief in God". Either you hold a belief that God exists or you do not hold that belief.

 

[Curious George]

Unhappy = not being happy. That's it. There is no further qualifier, so it is a pretty good analogy for our conversation.

un·hap·py
ˌənˈhapē/
adjective

1. not happy.

unhappy definition

so then it is not possible to be neither unhappy or happy?

 

[Xaxyx]

If I'm walking I'm doing something. Is "not walking" something I do?

No.

 

[leibowde84]

so then it is not possible to be neither unhappy or happy?

Nope. You are either happpy or you are not happy. Same with pretty much everything else. Either you are green or you aren't. Either you are sad or you aren't. For example, one could ask you, "are you sad". And you could respond, "no, I am not sad, but I am angry". Either way you are not happy.

 

[Curious George]

Undecided means, by definition, that they "lack a belief in God". Either you hold a belief that God exists or you do not hold that belief.

you are trying to fit separate terms into a binary definition. This is the same as trying to fit emotions into a binary definition. Language is prone to semantics. I already explained that I do not mind all of the semantic distinctions however, they are still arbitrary.