agnostics = weak atheists

[Oberon]

"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.." atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Apparently, contra Smoke, britannica recognizes that the semantic range of "atheism" is wide enough to commonly refer to a rejection even of Buddhism (which lacks gods), and religion in general.

Atheism means without theism. Plain and simple, yet so difficult for some to grasp.

Again, only indicative of your complete lack of knowledge concerning the etymology of the term. The prefix was already joined with the root noun in ancient greek, with a meaning beyond "without god" but rather "denying the gods" or even "impious." Therefore, the prefix "a" was not attached to "theism." Rather, the suffix "ism" was attached to the word "atheos."

 

[dogsgod]

"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion." atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia




Again, only indicative of your complete lack of knowledge concerning the etymology of the term. The prefix was already joined with the root noun in ancient greek, with a meaning beyond "without god" but rather "denying the gods" or even "impious." Therefore, the prefix "a" was not attached to "theism." Rather, the suffix "ism" was attached to the word "atheos."

Atheism is a default position which is why that Britannica definition of atheism is mistaken on so many levels that it would require a number of distinct threads to cover them all.

A rejection of religion and gods is not a requirement nor a definition of atheism. There is no doctrine or principle to be taught because atheism is a default position. An atheist can go on to feel free and make any claims against existence, but that in and of itself does not define atheism.

 

[Oberon]

Atheism is a default position which is why that Britannica definition of atheism is mistaken on so many levels that it would require a number of distinct threads to cover them all.

Yes, your expertise on this subject gives you the ability to point to the "many levels" on which britannica is mistaken. Or not. The article was written by Professor Kai E. Nielsen, PhD and expert in philosophy. You, on the other hand, have no expertise in any related field.

Your claim that "atheism" is merely "without theism" is demonstrably false given the etymology. There is no need to even entertain an argument as to why you have no relevant knowledge with which to even address your imagined "flaws" of the britannica article.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, your expertise on this subject gives you the ability to point to the "many levels" on which britannica is mistaken. Or not. The article was written by Professor Kai E. Nielsen, PhD and expert in philosophy. You, on the other hand, have no expertise in any related field.

Your claim that "atheism" is merely "without theism" is demonstrably false given the etymology. There is no need to even entertain an argument as to why you have no relevant knowledge with which to even address your imagined "flaws" of the britannica article.

I don't care to debate the worth or worthlessness of PhD's, I'm debating the mistaken notions as it regards to atheism. How theists respond to atheism does not define atheism. Entertaining "meaning beyond" (whatever that means) without god such as "denying gods" or "impious" are reactionary, knee jerk responses to those without theism, they do not, nor have they ever defined atheism.

Atheism is without doctrine or principles that can be taught, it's a default position.

 

[dogsgod]

OK, I read on and the next paragraph counters Oberon's quote.


It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to “rejection of religious belief” and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

 

[Oberon]

I don't care to debate the worth or worthlessness of PhD's

What is in question is the relative worthlessness of your individual opinion compared to someone who actually knows what she or he is talking about. A professor of philosophy has a far better grasp of the history of atheism than you.

I'm debating the mistaken notions as it regards to atheism.

You mean atheism as you personally conceive of it, which is irrelevant.

How theists respond to atheism does not define atheism.

1. who said professor Nielson was a theist?
2. The term has a long literary history where atheists have defined it in a manner quite different than you suggest.

Entertaining "meaning beyond" (whatever that means) without god such as "denying gods" or "impious" are reactionary, knee jerk responses to those without theism, they do not, nor have they ever defined atheism.

Right. On the one hand, we have a professor of philosophy who has studied the history and development of this idea, and on the other hand we have you, who has no relevant knowledge with which to back your conceptions of atheism.

Atheism is without doctrine or principles that can be taught, it's a default position.

According to your personal opinion, which is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the term has been defined and understood throughout history, from ancient greece to Richard Dawkins.

 

[Oberon]

OK, I read on and the next paragraph counters Oberon's quote.


It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to “rejection of religious belief” and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

Wrong. Nielson is not contradicting, but futhering the definition. The original definition explicitly stated that "denial of god or the gods is inadequate" and that atheism is far more a "rejection of religious belief." The author than goes on, in your quote, to explain that it is necessary to go into why this is so. Nielson than proceeds to do so. Your reading comprehension leaves a great deal to be desired.

 

[dogsgod]

Although there is a lot I disagree with, I do agree with him on some points:



To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways.

 

[dogsgod]

Wrong. Nielson is not contradicting, but futhering the definition. The original definition explicitly stated that "denial of god or the gods is inadequate" and that atheism is far more a "rejection of religious belief." The author than goes on, in your quote, to explain that it is necessary to go into why this is so. Nielson than proceeds to do so. Your reading comprehension leaves a great deal to be desired.

I don't have to agree with how he comes to these conclusions. Aristotle came to the conclusion that the earth was a sphere but his reasoning as to how he derived at that conclusion was just as absurd as this article. The fact remains, most definitions of atheism are derived by reactionaries such as you. Atheism is a lack of belief, nothing more. Read into it what you will, but you're wasting your time.

 

[Oberon]

I don't have to agree with how he comes to these conclusions.

You can believe whatever idiocy you want. I am used to you doing so. Heck, I've seen you quote some guy with a bachelor's in classics to make a point about historical jesus research contrary to virtually every expert in the field.

What is important here is not what you believe. If this were a private conversation, I could simply write you off as one among many who just don't know what they are talking about yet insist that their opinion, however unsubstantiated, is correct. But this is a public debate forum, so I quoted someone with some relevant expertise in this area, and in response, you (who have yet to acknowledge you "atheism is simply "a-theism" is completely contradicted by the etymology of the term) simply state "well I don't agree."

You can believe atheism means a belief in the existence of bunnies, and it wouldn't make any more or less difference. What is relevant is how the term has been used as throughout history and now, and your usage simply does not reflect either the english language, the majority of speakers, or the conception of atheism through history.

 

[dogsgod]

You can believe whatever idiocy you want. I am used to you doing so. Heck, I've seen you quote some guy with a bachelor's in classics to make a point about historical jesus research contrary to virtually every expert in the field.

What is important here is not what you believe. If this were a private conversation, I could simply write you off as one among many who just don't know what they are talking about yet insist that their opinion, however unsubstantiated, is correct. But this is a public debate forum, so I quoted someone with some relevant expertise in this area, and in response, you (who have yet to acknowledge you "atheism is simply "a-theism" is completely contradicted by the etymology of the term) simply state "well I don't agree."

You can believe atheism means a belief in the existence of bunnies, and it wouldn't make any more or less difference. What is relevant is how the term has been used as throughout history and now, and your usage simply does not reflect either the english language, the majority of speakers, or the conception of atheism through history.

If you could think for yourself for a moment you would realize that there is no other possible definition for atheism since a non belief does not require rejection, denial, a doctrine, principle, nor any system of belief. You can be impressed by all the knee jerk responses to atheism you like but to suggest that atheism is a system unto itself is silly since atheism is predicated on there being theism.

 

[Oberon]

If you could think for yourself for a moment you would realize that there is no other possible definition for atheism since a non belief does not require rejection, denial, a doctrine, principle, nor any system of belief.

Atheism is not simply not belief, but (as with any disbelief) is a belief in the opposite. If I don't believe that chomskyan linguistics adequately captures the realities of human language, I do believe that something else does. If I believe people don't come back from the dead, I do believe they stay dead.

If atheism involves a disbelief in god, it likewise involves a belief that god does not exist. Hence atheism is a belief system wherein, at the least, any supreme being or theos does not exist. And that is a belief, by any reasonable standard.

You can be impressed by all the knee jerk responses to atheism you like

I fail to see how Nielson's article is a "knee jerk response" and I have actually read plenty of atheist treatises which contradict your notion.

but to suggest that atheism is a system unto itself is silly since atheism is predicated on there being theism.

I don't know what the above means, as atheism is predicated on theoi not existing, not "on there being theism." Atheism is at least a system of belief (hence "ism") wherein one holds to an atheos doctrine, or a doctrine of godlessness. More commonly, as Nielson points out, atheism is a denial in the validity of any and all religions.

 

[dogsgod]

I think believers need to create a fictional definition of atheism in order to be able to perceive an enemy. It's not enough that atheism is merely without theism, that it's simply a non belief, that it can carry on without notice. The believer needs the conspiracy theory behind it all, that there's a movement out there and it's out to get them, and it's known as atheism. That evil atheism, it's everywhere, it's a system out of control, and it's spreading, we have to stop it before it destroys us all.

 

[Oberon]

I think believers need to create a fictional definition of atheism in order to be able to perceive an enemy.

Yes, Richard Dawkins is definitely a believer. Or how about that site you have quoted so often, infidels.org? "Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature. It could be said that Atheism has a doctrine to question and a dogma to doubt. It is the human mind in its natural environment, nothing is too holy to be investigated, nor too sacred to be questioned. The Atheist Bible, it could be said, has but one word: "THINK." Atheism is the complete emancipation of the human mind from the chains and fears of superstition." ATHEISM: An Affirmative View

It's not enough that atheism is merely without theism

Given that, once more, the word does not come from a-theism but from the greek atheos meaning "godless" or "denying the gods" then yes, that isn't enough as far as an adequate definition is concerned.

 

[dogsgod]

Atheism is not simply not belief, but (as with any disbelief) is a belief in the opposite. If I don't believe that chomskyan linguistics adequately captures the realities of human language, I do believe that something else does. If I believe people don't come back from the dead, I do believe they stay dead.

If atheism involves a disbelief in god, it likewise involves a belief that god does not exist. Hence atheism is a belief system wherein, at the least, any supreme being or theos does not exist. And that is a belief, by any reasonable standard.

What god? What supreme being? You must be assuming one must necessarily be aware of such things.

I don't know what the above means, as atheism is predicated on theoi not existing, not "on there being theism." Atheism is at least a system of belief (hence "ism") wherein one holds to an atheos doctrine, or a doctrine of godlessness. More commonly, as Nielson points out, atheism is a denial in the validity of any and all religions.

What religions? Again, you assume.

Atheism is predicated on there being theists running around claiming there are gods out there. In a populated place, or island, where there are no theists making such claims, there are no atheists.

 

[Smoke]

So, yes, it is necessary to explain how a dictionary works.

Yes, I ignored the second given definition as it doesn't contradict the first in any way shape or form.

It rounds out the definition. It shows that mere disbelief in a god or gods can be called atheism. You have, by your selective and distorted reading, taken a part of the full definition and then attempted to pass it off as the true or only definition. In fact, by interpreting "doctrine or belief" to mean "certainly a doctrine", you've failed to grasp even the first part of the entry.

And until you can show that a better definition of "ism" fits "atheism" there is no reason to take seriously any argument you put forth arguing that the definition I gave fits best.

It should not be necessary to do so -- but fine, here you go:

From the Encarta Dictionary:

-ism

suffix
Definition:

1. action, process
mesmerism
volcanism

2. characteristic behavior or manner
despotism

3. state, condition
conservatism
gangsterism

4. unusual or unhealthy state
caffeinism

5. doctrine, system of beliefs
defeatism
Calvinism

6. prejudice
sexism

7. distinctive feature or trait
Southernism
vulgarism

[Via French< Latin -ismus< Greek -ismos]
​

Excatly what linguistic theory, or theory of semantics, do you hold to? I'm guessing you never studied any. Common usage is particularly important when defining an abstract concept like "atheim." And, fortunately, not only do we have my subjective experience of how the term is used, but a vast and diverse arrray of texts of all sorts (from the scholarly to online blogs) wherein the word is used to refer to a greater semantic range than simply "a disbelief in god." The word "atheism" has changed in meaining since it was first used in france years ago, based off of the greek.

This would be disturbing if it weren't so damned funny. I am the one who is insisting on a broader definition of atheism which encompasses the semantic range of the word. You are the one who is insisting on a single, narrow definition which encompasses only a small part of that range.

Talk about stupid and intellectually dishonest. A system of belief wherein supreme beings are systematically excluded as being possible parts of reality is hardly akin to disbelief in a historical individual.

And you have utterly failed to demonstrate that atheism is in itself such a system.

If you disbelief in all supreme beings, because you don't believe in supreme beings, this is a systematic exclusion of the possibility for the existence of these beings from your cosmology.

What kind of nonsense is that? I don't disbelieve in supreme beings "because I don't believe in supreme beings." In fact, I believed in god for most of my life. I only came to abandon the belief when I realized I had no reason to believe in it. I remain open to new evidence and greater understanding, but as of now I still have no reason to believe in it. That is not "systematic exclusion of the possibility," and since that has been explained to you repeatedly, I really don't know what to make of your pigheaded insistence on calling it something it clearly is not.

In fact, only agnosticism allows for an approach backed by empiricism, as it acknolwedges that the existence of god or gods is outside of empirical exploration.

Maintaining that empirical exploration is impossible is the only approach that allows for an approach backed by empiricism? Now you're just babbling.

Atheism is a belief that goes beyond evidence, as is theism.

Please explain how disbelief in the god goes beyond the evidence in a way that disbelief in the penetrability of the mystery and the possibility of empirical investigation does not.

"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in &#8220;spiritual beings,&#8221; and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Isl&#257;m, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief." atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Apparently, contra Smoke, britannica recognizes that the semantic range of "atheism" is wide enough to commonly refer to a rejection even of Buddhism (which lacks gods), and religion in general.

The semantic range of "Christianity" is wide enough to include Mormonism, but that does not mean that all Christians are Mormons.

If I had only the part of the article you quoted, I'd think Nielsen had his head up his *** when he wrote the Britannica article. He says, "Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief." That's a big "if". Nielsen proceeds to seemingly ignore it, saying that not all religious people are theists and that therefore since atheists (supposedly) reject all religious belief, atheism is much more than the rejection of theism.

Nielsen seems to be arguing in circles in a way with which you can surely identify. However, if you take the time to read the rest of the article, beyond the part that seems to support your argument, you would see that Nielsen in fact takes into account a much broader definition and a much more comprehensive semantic range for "atheism" than you are willing to allow. The article doesn't really support your argument. It's a pity that you seem unable to comprehend or even notice anything that doesn't support your ill-conceived notion of atheism, but that misfortune is your own and causes me no harm, so I'll stop here.

 

[Oberon]

It rounds out the definition.

First, an encyclopedia article such as that cited is much better for defining such an invovled concept, and second definition 2. is not anywhere near as adequate at capturing the definition of atheism.

It shows that mere disbelief in a god or gods can be called atheism. You have, by your selective and distorted reading, taken a part of the full definition and then attempted to pass it off as the true or only definition. In fact, by interpreting "doctrine or belief" to mean "certainly a doctrine", you've failed to grasp even the first part of the entry.

The point of the dictionary is, in general, to give the briefest and usually the widest possible range for a given word. Atheism can mean a simple disbelief in god or the gods. However, even this simple definition involves a system of belief, because it involves a cosmology/theology/philosophy wherein gods do not exist. This is a statement of belief concerning the nature of the universe (unlike your intellectually sterile comparison with a belief concerning RFK).

It should not be necessary to do so -- but fine, here you go:

I did not ask for a complete range of the use for this suffix, but for you to indicate which one fits atheism better than the usage I cited.


From the Encarta Dictionary:

1. action, process
mesmerism
volcanism

Nope.

2. characteristic behavior or manner
despotism

Nope.

3. state, condition
conservatism
gangsterism

Not really. Not a "state."
But then conservatism isn't a "state" either but a belief system/political philosophy.

4. unusual or unhealthy state
caffeinism

Nope.

5. doctrine, system of beliefs
defeatism
Calvinism

And here it is.

6. prejudice
sexism

Nope.

. distinctive feature or trait
Southernism
vulgarism

And no again. The only one that fits is the one I gave. Nice try.

[Via French< Latin -ismus< Greek -ismos]

Already stated this.
​

This would be disturbing if it weren't so damned funny. I am the one who is insisting on a broader definition of atheism which encompasses the semantic range of the word.

Wrong. I am insisting rather that the broadest range fails to capture the usual usage, and (moreover) that atheism is a belief system.

You are the one who is insisting on a single, narrow definition which encompasses only a small part of that range.

Wrong. The fact that I state it is a "belief system" does not narrow down a single definition. This belief system can be as dogmatic as that of Dawkins or a simply as simple not emphatic disbelief in god(s).

And you have utterly failed to demonstrate that atheism is in itself such a system.

I quoted britannica for you, not to mention another article, as well as the only possible usage for the suffix.

What kind of nonsense is that? I don't disbelieve in supreme beings "because I don't believe in supreme beings." In fact, I believed in god for most of my life. I only came to abandon the belief when I realized I had no reason to believe in it.

You misunderstood my use of "because." I wasn't causally linking the first clause with the second, but rather linking the first causally with the third via repitition. In other words, "because you do not believe in gods (and believe in a universe/reality in which gods do not exist, you subscribe to a particular system of belief."

That is not "systematic exclusion of the possibility,"

Yes it is. The fact that you remain open to the fact that your current belief system may be incorrect does not change the fact that, currently, it systematically excludes the possibility that gods exist. If you allowed for the possibility for gods to exist, i.e. believe that it is quite possible they do, you are not atheist but agnostic.

Maintaining that empirical exploration is impossible is the only approach that allows for an approach backed by empiricism? Now you're just babbling.

Maintaining that the existence or non-existence of gods is outside the realm of empirical observation is the only approach which limits a belief into the nature of reality to empiricism, and acknowledges that the rest is unknowable. Atheism denies that god or gods exist (at the least), and theism posits god or gods do exist. Agnosticism is the position that neither can be known.

Please explain how disbelief in the god goes beyond the evidence in a way that disbelief in the penetrability of the mystery and the possibility of empirical investigation does not.

Disbelief in god or gods invovles a belief in a reality in which these entities do not exist. Otherwise it isn't disbelief. However, this belief is not based on empirical observation or science, as the existence of such entitites is outside of emprical observations. Science cannot confirm the existence of god or the non-existence. So atheism goes beyond what can be confirmed, as does theism, by making a positive belief-statement (X is true, Y is not) about the universe, while agnosticism makes no such statement (X maybe true, Y may not be true, or the reverse, or neither).

The semantic range of "Christianity" is wide enough to include Mormonism, but that does not mean that all Christians are Mormons.

I am not limiting atheism to "mormons" (metaphorically) but (to extend your metaphor) I am excluding "satanic christians" as truly being christians.

He says, "Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief."

Nielson also states that atheism rejects "the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism."

The article doesn't really support your argument.

It absolutely does. My argument is:

1. Atheism is a system of belief, which the article certainly supports and
2. Atheism generally refers to more than simply a system of belief in which gods do not exist, but rather usually refers to a lack of belief in religious concepts in general.

 

[Oberon]

What god? What supreme being? You must be assuming one must necessarily be aware of such things.

Yes. Someone who has never given a thought to whether some sort of "god" exists cannot, by definition, be an atheist. An atheist believes that god or gods (and usually religious or supernatural concepts in general) do not exist.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes. Someone who has never given a thought to whether some sort of "god" exists cannot, by definition, be an atheist. An atheist believes that god or gods (and usually religious or supernatural concepts in general) do not exist.

I don't share in the beliefs of the theist, that makes me an atheist. I don't have to go so far as to make the positive assertion that gods do not exist in order to be an atheist.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes. Someone who has never given a thought to whether some sort of "god" exists cannot, by definition, be an atheist. An atheist believes that god or gods (and usually religious or supernatural concepts in general) do not exist.

Immersed in a culture of theists, yes, I would be considered an atheist even if I never gave a thought to whether gods exist. In fact I have no idea what other peoples concept of god is, who believes what, so I don't even know what makes me an atheist to most people.