How do you define "Athesim"?

[Falvlun]

Sure, but the problem is, if people like me evaluate atheism with respect to our god-concept, it has some very... uh... absurd implications that are doubtless not intentional on the part of the atheist. This conundrum is why I find the term atheist/theist broadly useless unless you interpret it from within a specific cultural context.

If someone says to me "I don't believe in God," I assume they are such with respect to classical monotheism, since that is what dominates in my culture. Likewise, if someone says to me "I believe in God," I assume they mean classical monotheism. When a strong majority of theists in my country are classical monotheists, this starting assumption is usually a safe one (pfft, the poll in this thread has a monotheistic bias!). I maintain these assumptions until I am given reason to suspect otherwise.

That seems like a reasonable assumption. You can always ask for clarification, if need be.

Personally, I define a god as something with supernatural powers over some natural process. I think this is a pretty reasonable, normal, widespread understanding of what the word "god" means; and I don't think people necessarily only think of monotheism when they hear the word "god"-- we are acquainted with the concept of Roman/Greek/Norse gods, after all, and most have a rudimentary understanding of animism.

In addition, I include panentheism (everything with consciousness) in my understanding of the word "god", but not pantheism (everything), since I think we already have a word for that: the Universe. Though, this is probably because I think about these things, and I agree it's likely that panentheism isn't in most peoples' concept of what the word "god" means.

I wasn't quite sure what Peng was getting at in his post, so I'm gonna wait to clarify other things after he replies, cuz I think I may have missed his point.

 

[Sunstone]

How do you define "Atheism"? I define it as the philosophical position that it is morally permissible to commit mass murder and genocide if your leader sports a mustache like Hitler or Stalin. Frankly, I have now and then suspected that might be the wrong definition, but then someone on the internet has always come along to assure me that atheists have killed more people in the name of atheism than theists have killed people in the name of god. And you can't say anything on the internet unless it's true.

 

[Tarheeler]

How do you define "Atheism"? I define it as the philosophical position that it is morally permissible to commit mass murder and genocide if your leader sports a mustache like Hitler or Stalin. Frankly, I have now and then suspected that might be the wrong definition, but then someone on the internet has always come along to assure me that atheists have killed more people in the name of atheism than theists have killed people in the name of god. And you can't say anything on the internet unless it's true.

Wait... you mean Biden and Ryan really are... oh, that's gross ....oh God, I think I'm going to be sick....

 

[RedJamaX]

How do you define "Atheism"? I define it as the philosophical position that it is morally permissible to commit mass murder and genocide if your leader sports a mustache like Hitler or Stalin. Frankly, I have now and then suspected that might be the wrong definition, but then someone on the internet has always come along to assure me that atheists have killed more people in the name of atheism than theists have killed people in the name of god. And you can't say anything on the internet unless it's true.

Ok, so I'm not sure if I should laugh at the circle-jerk of sarcasm, or be dumbfounded to belive you think there is some truth buried in there [except the last statement, no one is so bold to claim that one ] Let me research your other posts and return a bit more educated.... btw.. the "morality" debate will require a whole new thread.

 

[RedJamaX]

I have a theory that most Atheists would chose the first, and most believers would choose the second... let's find out. Please answer the poll honestly based on the provided criteria...

So it would appear, thus far, that I was wrong. This is a good thing. Most sources I found for the definition of atheism was simply a lack of belief "for" a god, but not to claim that God does not exist, that would be impossible.

My assumption was based on the hordes of written, audio, and video debates I have reviewed. Time and time again, the person who defends the "God" argument in the debate claims the atheist to willfully believe that there is "No God", and there fore shifting the burden of proof away from them selves. This seems to be a standard early defence tactic because the primary offence from an atheist for this type of debate would be that the believer bears the burden of proof to begin with since it is he who has laid the claim of God and/or God's Law which we must follow.

Also, there seems to be some discrepensie about deist vs theist... this is my understanding for those:
deist: Belief in God (in any way shape or fom in which that person chooses to believe.
theist: Beleif in a specific God in which a set of governing rules follows with that belief including, but not limited to, creation, morals and the general way in which you live your day to day life being maintained by a certain set of rules enforced by that doctrine.

More food for thought

(I use a lower case "g" for god because an Atheist does not simply not believe in your God, but we don't believe in ANY god.)

I found it amusing that my capitalization was corrected on "Atheism" when all I meant to do was to give more notice to the topic... when my assertion of why i used a lowercase "g" simply to not affend anybody and their God.

 

[gnomon]

I define my atheism as that the concept of God is irrelevant.

When I wake up I don't think of God. When I see myself I don't think of God. When I look at others I don't think of God. When I eat, defecate, breathe and sleep there is no God. My existence and that I view of others is independent of a concept of God. Even when others think otherwise.

Is there a God? Don't know. Don't care.

I find ascribing the existence of a God either an act taught from heritage or an act of self importance. I don't find fault with the former and find the latter .... bad thinking.

 

[Sunstone]

I define my atheism as that the concept of God is irrelevant.

I can get behind that. Especially if you put an emphasis on "concept". All ideas of god are irrelevant to the experience of deity. And even if it happens that it can be legitimately said there is no deity in any ontological sense.

 

[methylatedghosts]

To me, atheism is nothing more than simply not believing in God.

The issue I have though, is that "God" has certain... preconceptions. The concept comes with baggage. What I mean by the term God is not necessarily the same as what others mean. In my experience, the definition of God is the same to an athiest as what it is to a Christian (Not generalising here, I live in a western country. Christmas and easter are national holidays. Go figure). So when someone says "I'm an atheist", they quite often really mean to say "I don't believe in a Christian God (and likely any God of similar flavour, and perhaps some other gods like Thor and stuff)"

But when I say I don't believe in God, I mean to say I don't believe in God as the concept is commonly understood. But that doesn't make me an atheist. What I believe can potentially be slapped with the label "God", though you won't hear me say it. So... do I believe in God? No. Am I an atheist? No.

 

[gnomon]

I can get behind that. Especially if you put an emphasis on "concept". All ideas of god are irrelevant to the experience of deity. And even if it happens that it can be legitimately said there is no deity in any ontological sense.

I was about to get into something rather profound before I realized that I'm on my seventh beer.

Bookmark this because I want to get back to this.

I might take an attempt at ontology before I pass out.

edit: I so want to tackle ontology at this moment but I'm finding I'm not in the best condition.

One can assume that God exists because existence is perfection thus God is the definition of perfection. This is a logical fallacy because it is affirming the consequent. If God is perfection and existence is perfection thus God exists. It's a basic ontological fallacy. Not to mention that the definitions of either perfection, existence or God lack in this argument.

The second is that I can conceive of no greater being thus no greater being than which I can conceive cannot exist and that greater being is God. At least, for today. And that is my argument. Who can determine which is that of no greater being of that which can exist? Only a being of which I can determine of that which cannot exist. A circular argument based upon my own ego.

The next is the contingent argument which falls flat on it's face in not recognizing that it is quite possible that God not exist.

All the ontological arguments of God rely upon a rational argument that something must exist therefore it exists. All of these arguments also rely on a definition of perfection. The fallacy lies in defining the concept beyond that which we can conceive to define perfection. If we cannot define perfection how can we define something beyond perfection. Ontologists have reverted back to defining that which we cannot define as merely God. We can see this in certain traditions as defining God as the ineffable but that doesn't get around the ontological problem that if we cannot define concept A how can we describe concept beyond A. This is never minding the definition problems of perfection, existence, God, etc. Also that the definition of existence is not predicate to the definition of perfection.

In other words, ontology relies too much on assumption.

double edit: Thanks to the bimbo man for invigorating this swimming mind. I hope Sunstone doesn't take offense to the phrase bimbo man but talks about trampolining babes......

 

[methylatedghosts]

Aren't the two choices basically the same thing? You can't believe in something if you don't believe that it exists/

Ahh, but you can believe that something could exist, without having to believe in it.

 

[gnomon]

Aren't the two choices basically the same thing? You can't believe in something if you don't believe that it exists/

How can they be the same.

A belief that something exists is not the same as the disbelief in that said something. Careful now. You are entering the realm where theists propose that atheist must believe in a God by denying in it's existence and believing that the term God exists.

Unless I misunderstand your statement.

 

[ChristineES]

To me, atheism is nothing more than simply not believing in God.

The issue I have though, is that "God" has certain... preconceptions. The concept comes with baggage. What I mean by the term God is not necessarily the same as what others mean. In my experience, the definition of God is the same to an athiest as what it is to a Christian (Not generalising here, I live in a western country. Christmas and easter are national holidays. Go figure). So when someone says "I'm an atheist", they quite often really mean to say "I don't believe in a Christian God (and likely any God of similar flavour, and perhaps some other gods like Thor and stuff)"

But when I say I don't believe in God, I mean to say I don't believe in God as the concept is commonly understood. But that doesn't make me an atheist. What I believe can potentially be slapped with the label "God", though you won't hear me say it. So... do I believe in God? No. Am I an atheist? No.

I see a lot of that myself. As I said earlier, I take it [atheism] to mean a person doesn't believe in any God whatsoever- and any concept of God- such as monotheism, pantheism, etc. I think to make it clear, people who follow a different God concept than Abrahamic/Monotheism variety have to give a more detailed response- depending on where you live. Because if someone says they are an atheist, I see them, as I said, as a non-believer in any God whatsoever and any God concept.

 

[Falvlun]

Aren't the two choices basically the same thing? You can't believe in something if you don't believe that it exists/

Many atheists, particularly those who have way to much time on their hands, very much believe that they are different statements, and are very careful to only phrase their atheism in terms of the first definition: lack of belief.

 

[gnomon]

Many atheists, particularly those who have way to much time on their hands, very much believe that they are different statements, and are very careful to only phrase their atheism in terms of the first definition: lack of belief.

Too much time on their hands?

How does an atheist have any more time on their hands than a theist?

 

[Falvlun]

Too much time on their hands?

How does an atheist have any more time on their hands than a theist?

Oh, I didn't make any distinction over which group had more time. I'm just talking about atheists who do have too much time on their hands. You know who you are.

 

[gnomon]

Oh, I didn't make any distinction over which group had more time. I'm just talking about atheists who do have too much time on their hands. You know who you are.

No.

They don't.

And you don't either.

 

[averageJOE]

Atheism is the religion that believes that there is no god, monkeys gave birth to humans, and that the universe was created by the big bang.


(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My purpling for the points I wanted to address. The second definition doesn't indicate strong atheism. That's the confusion, and why I think so many atheists have been brainwashed into thinking they can't embrace that second definition.

Strong atheism is the assertion that god does not exist. The second definition makes no such claim.

Isn't that precisely what "belief" means? To hold a proposition as being true - in this case, the proposition being the nonexistence of God.

You can believe that god does not exist, without claiming that you know this to be true.

Now we're talking about agnosticism and gnosticism. Perhaps I was wrong to call the second position "gnostic" atheism, but I've heard it referred to taht way in the past. As far as I am aware, the words "atheist" and "theist" deal exclusively with what is believed or not believed - not what is known or unknown. A claim of belief doesn't have to be a claim of knowledge for it to still be a positive claim.

The second definition only indicates "agnostic atheism" just as much as the first definition does. Claims of belief does not equate to claims of knowledge.

While that is true, a claim of belief is still a positive claim in the truth value of something. It doesn't indicate that they absolutely know, but it does indicate that they hold the proposition to be true.

Atheism is the religion that believes that there is no god, monkeys gave birth to humans, and that the universe was created by the big bang.


(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm gonna go with that from now on.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Depending on one's personal beliefs, I think both definitions are valid.

• The first definition seems to imply that the position one is speaking from is that there is no reason to believe in a god, or that there's no reason to believe by default, so not believing in a positive claim that a god exists (i.e., not taking a step away from the "default" position) is defined as a lack of something rather than a belief that there is no god (a positive claim that a god doesn't exist), which I think is an accurate definition in this context.

• I think the second definition implies that one is mainly speaking from a believer's point of view: a god exists, or at least there is a reason to believe that one exists, so not believing in a god becomes a belief in and of itself due to the perspective that one needs to take an extra step to "deny" or reject available input in order to be called an atheist, or at least divert from the "default" position of belief in a god to become an atheist.

I don't think that all people necessarily believe the word 'default' to be a synonym for 'correct', though; what I mean by 'default' is what one perceives to be the correct stance to assume based on logical reasoning and available evidence so that assuming any other stance is seen as unnecessary/unjustified from what one perceives to be a rational/logical point of view.

So I view both definitions as equally valid, but only in different contexts. I personally lean more toward the first definition, although I don't know whether there is a 'default' position when it comes to belief vs. non-belief in a deity/deities.

 

[RedJamaX]

How about this:
Theism - Simply a belief in God.
Theism- A belief that there is a God.

Take the word "lack" out and that is what you are saying. Think about it.

I assume your point is to say that my provided definitions for atheism are one-in-the-same... However, you are ignoring the fact that perception is everything, and therefore, my provided definitions are two very different points of view.