How do you define "Athesim"?

[RedJamaX]

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.)

So does the, "sorry. couldn't resist." Imply that you are fully aware of the irony in your definition of atheism?

 

[RedJamaX]

For the record...

Every official definition I have found for atheism is stated similar to the following:

A lack of belief, or disbelief, in god(s).

So, technically, both definitions I provided are correct. However, I might suggest that those definitions were provided by a non-scientific individual. A scientist would never claim that saying "I don't think so", and "I know not", are exactly the same thing.

 

[Storm]

So does the, "sorry. couldn't resist." Imply that you are fully aware of the irony in your definition of atheism?

Typically, yes. Although that isn't strictly irony.

 

[Evensong]

I recently came across a definition I'd never heard of before:

"Atheism is not the disbelief in the existence of God - it is belief in the non-existence of God. "

 

[Draka]

Okay, I picked the second option and here's why:

At least to my understanding, atheism is a stance. One must be informed in order to have a stance on something. To say I do or do not believe this or that. If one is ignorant of a subject then they cannot possibly form a stance on it.

This makes it impossible for babies and small children yet uninformed of any concept of deity to be considered either atheist or theist, no matter how badly some atheists want to claim babies and small children as atheists (and lets admit it, some do do that).

Once someone has information enough to make some decision as to whether or not they believe that a deity exists THEN they have a stance...then it is most definitely clear that theism is a belief that deity exists and atheism is a belief that deity does not exist.

All this playing around with "disbelief" and "lack of belief" and so on is really just playing around with semantics as to some atheists "belief" apparently takes on the quality of a "dirty word" and they want to distance themselves from it as much as possible as to disassociate themselves from theists. At least, that's how it has always come across to me. It seems silly actually as logically, as I said, you can't honestly really claim babies and small children as atheists as they haven't got a clue. Once that is acknowledged then it just follows that "lack of belief" is not the real factor to being an atheist.

 

[Storm]

Okay, I picked the second option and here's why:

At least to my understanding, atheism is a stance. One must be informed in order to have a stance on something. To say I do or do not believe this or that. If one is ignorant of a subject then they cannot possibly form a stance on it.

This makes it impossible for babies and small children yet uninformed of any concept of deity to be considered either atheist or theist, no matter how badly some atheists want to claim babies and small children as atheists (and lets admit it, some do do that).

Once someone has information enough to make some decision as to whether or not they believe that a deity exists THEN they have a stance...then it is most definitely clear that theism is a belief that deity exists and atheism is a belief that deity does not exist.

All this playing around with "disbelief" and "lack of belief" and so on is really just playing around with semantics as to some atheists "belief" apparently takes on the quality of a "dirty word" and they want to distance themselves from it as much as possible as to disassociate themselves from theists. At least, that's how it has always come across to me. It seems silly actually as logically, as I said, you can't honestly really claim babies and small children as atheists as they haven't got a clue. Once that is acknowledged then it just follows that "lack of belief" is not the real factor to being an atheist.

Totally agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, I picked the second option and here's why:

At least to my understanding, atheism is a stance. One must be informed in order to have a stance on something. To say I do or do not believe this or that. If one is ignorant of a subject then they cannot possibly form a stance on it.

This makes it impossible for babies and small children yet uninformed of any concept of deity to be considered either atheist or theist, no matter how badly some atheists want to claim babies and small children as atheists (and lets admit it, some do do that).

Once someone has information enough to make some decision as to whether or not they believe that a deity exists THEN they have a stance...then it is most definitely clear that theism is a belief that deity exists and atheism is a belief that deity does not exist.

All this playing around with "disbelief" and "lack of belief" and so on is really just playing around with semantics as to some atheists "belief" apparently takes on the quality of a "dirty word" and they want to distance themselves from it as much as possible as to disassociate themselves from theists. At least, that's how it has always come across to me. It seems silly actually as logically, as I said, you can't honestly really claim babies and small children as atheists as they haven't got a clue. Once that is acknowledged then it just follows that "lack of belief" is not the real factor to being an atheist.

If we go by this definition, then no atheists actually exist.

There is no accepted definition of "god", so to reject belief in all gods, a person must become familiar with every god-concept in order to reject them. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I haven't encountered every god-concept in existence.


Also, if we consider a monotheist to be someone who is an atheist except with regard to one god, then this would mean that there are no monotheists either.

 

[Storm]

If we go by this definition, then no atheists actually exist.

There is no accepted definition of "god", so to reject belief in all gods, a person must become familiar with every god-concept in order to reject them. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I haven't encountered every god-concept in existence.


Also, if we consider a monotheist to be someone who is an atheist except with regard to one god, then this would mean that there are no monotheists either.

You can disprove any reasonable argument by adding unreasonable conditions.

Or, you could play fair.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can disprove any reasonable argument by adding unreasonable conditions.

Or, you could play fair.

It's not an unreasinable condition; it's a logical consequence.

If we can't say that a baby is an atheist because he hasn't considered God in order reject him, then how can we say that I'm an atheist? There are all sorts of god-concepts out there I've never heard of. Heck - every believer has their own concept with particular nuances unique to them. I can't have rejected all of them... how could I have? I haven't even heard of most of them.

If I have to reject all gods to be an atheist (and I would say I had to, since even a polytheist with a huge pantheon still rejects *most* gods), then I'm not an atheist.

So... do you agree that I'm an atheist? I don't believe in any gods, but apparently that's not enough by itself. How many gods does a person have to reject before they're an atheist? It's more than zero, because you're excluding babies. It's less than "all of them", because it seems like you do think that being an atheist is physically possible. So where's the threshold?

 

[Storm]

It's not an unreasinable condition; it's a logical consequence.

If we can't say that a baby is an atheist because he hasn't considered God in order reject him, then how can we say that I'm an atheist? There are all sorts of god-concepts out there I've never heard of. Heck - every believer has their own concept with particular nuances unique to them. I can't have rejected all of them... how could I have? I haven't even heard of most of them.

If I have to reject all gods to be an atheist (and I would say I had to, since even a polytheist with a huge pantheon still rejects *most* gods), then I'm not an atheist.

So... do you agree that I'm an atheist? I don't believe in any gods, but apparently that's not enough by itself. How many gods does a person have to reject before they're an atheist? It's more than zero, because you're excluding babies. It's less than "all of them", because it seems like you do think that being an atheist is physically possible. So where's the threshold?

Uh huh. Do you remember what you said to me when we first started discussing my theology? "I don't consider that a God." It doesn't matter if someone else considers something a God, only whether you do.

If I say my tea cup is God, and I can prove to you my tea cup exists, does that make you a theist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, I picked the second option and here's why:

At least to my understanding, atheism is a stance. One must be informed in order to have a stance on something. To say I do or do not believe this or that. If one is ignorant of a subject then they cannot possibly form a stance on it.

I don't think so. I know people who are "vegetarian", but they haven't made a "stance" about it. Meat either makes them ill due to some medical condition or they just don't like the taste of it. They are not idealogically vegetarian in the sense that they don't believe it is wrong to eat meat, but they are vegetarian in the sense that they don't practice eating meat. In a similar way, you don't have to be familiar with or formulate a stance with regards to a God-concept in order to lack a belief in that concept.

This makes it impossible for babies and small children yet uninformed of any concept of deity to be considered either atheist or theist, no matter how badly some atheists want to claim babies and small children as atheists (and lets admit it, some do do that).

I certainly would. By definition, if someone or some thing is unaware of any God concepts I see absolutely no problem at all defining them as being atheists. What's the problem with doing so? I don't think I'm trying to gain any theological ground in the name of the "atheist movement" by doing so, and I think anybody who argues such a point as "we're all born atheists" isn't really making a successful point about anything. That doesn't make it any less a statement of fact, however.

Once someone has information enough to make some decision as to whether or not they believe that a deity exists THEN they have a stance...then it is most definitely clear that theism is a belief that deity exists and atheism is a belief that deity does not exist.

But the absence of a belief does not mean you believe in the absence of something. There is a difference between "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false". One is a reaction to position, the other is a position in and of itself.

All this playing around with "disbelief" and "lack of belief" and so on is really just playing around with semantics as to some atheists "belief" apparently takes on the quality of a "dirty word" and they want to distance themselves from it as much as possible as to disassociate themselves from theists.

That's extremely unfair and insulting. It's really far simpler than that. It's simply what the word literally means.

At least, that's how it has always come across to me. It seems silly actually as logically, as I said, you can't honestly really claim babies and small children as atheists as they haven't got a clue.

Yes, you can.

Once that is acknowledged then it just follows that "lack of belief" is not the real factor to being an atheist.

But it's exactly what the word means.

Uh huh. Do you remember what you said to me when we first started discussing my theology? "I don't consider that a God." It doesn't matter if someone else considers something a God, only whether you do.

If I say my tea cup is God, and I can prove to you my tea cup exists, does that make you a theist?

Aha, now we're getting into the really difficult stuff about the definition of atheist (and the definition of theist, for that matter). Would you consider an atheist to be someone who doesn't define anything as "God", or do atheism and theism deal only with the specific definition of "God" being an all-powerful (or somewhat powerful) creative figure or force in the Universe?

For practical purposes I usually opt for the latter, but when I debate more nuanced beliefs I can tend to dip into the former definition.

 

[Draka]

If we go by this definition, then no atheists actually exist.

There is no accepted definition of "god", so to reject belief in all gods, a person must become familiar with every god-concept in order to reject them. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I haven't encountered every god-concept in existence.


Also, if we consider a monotheist to be someone who is an atheist except with regard to one god, then this would mean that there are no monotheists either.

If we go by the other definition then to be an atheist means to wallow in ignorance and to be nothing more than infants who know no more than how to scream for a boob to be put in their mouth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we go by the other definition then to be an atheist means to wallow in ignorance and to be nothing more than infants who know no more than how to scream for a boob to be put in their mouth.

No, it doesn't. You're comitting a logical fallacy. "Babies are atheists" doesn't imply "atheists are babies."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we go by the other definition then to be an atheist means to wallow in ignorance and to be nothing more than infants who know no more than how to scream for a boob to be put in their mouth.

Yeah, you just kind of flew out of the ballpark, there...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Uh huh. Do you remember what you said to me when we first started discussing my theology? "I don't consider that a God." It doesn't matter if someone else considers something a God, only whether you do.

If I say my tea cup is God, and I can prove to you my tea cup exists, does that make you a theist?

A baby who doesn't even recognize that his limbs belong to him probably doesn't "consider anything a god" either.

BTW, I find your capitalization of "God" interesting, especially since I think that the definition you and Draka are arguing for is based on some very monotheistic thought processes.

 

[Draka]

No, it doesn't. You're comitting a logical fallacy. "Babies are atheists" doesn't imply "atheists are babies."

No, but if you're claiming that "lack of belief" is what it takes to make an atheist then how is the ignorance and simplicity of a baby any different then that that is required of anyone else proclaiming to be an atheist? If that "Lack" is all there is to it then the mental capacity required to make an atheist isn't very great is it? And yet we keep hearing arguments that atheists are so much smarter than theists.

Sorry, little touchy here, been to other sites lately where the "atheists are so much smarter than theists" attitude has been prevalent a lot. Just finding the irony meter blown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but if you're claiming that "lack of belief" is what it takes to make an atheist then how is the ignorance and simplicity of a baby any different then that that is required of anyone else proclaiming to be an atheist? If that "Lack" is all there is to it then the mental capacity required to make an atheist isn't very great is it? And yet we keep hearing arguments that atheists are so much smarter than theists.

Sorry, little touchy here, been to other sites lately where the "atheists are so much smarter than theists" attitude has been prevalent a lot. Just finding the irony meter blown.

I wouldn't argue that atheists are smarter than theists myself, but I think you're confusing two different things:

-the state of being an atheist, which doesn't necessarily take any effort at all. When I was born, I was Canadian, male, and atheist. None of this was the consequence of any thought on my part.
- the processes by which people reject religious beliefs, which results in them being atheists.

 

[Willamena]

If we go by this definition, then no atheists actually exist.

There is no accepted definition of "god", so to reject belief in all gods, a person must become familiar with every god-concept in order to reject them. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I haven't encountered every god-concept in existence.

It's not necessary to have definition to have belief or knowledge of a thing. Do babies know definitions?--no. Do they know stuff?--yes.

 

[Draka]

I wouldn't argue that atheists are smarter than theists myself, but I think you're confusing two different things:

-the state of being an atheist, which doesn't necessarily take any effort at all. When I was born, I was Canadian, male, and atheist. None of this was the consequence of any thought on my part.
- the processes by which people reject religious beliefs, which results in them being atheists.

On the flip side, I would not say that I was ever an atheist. Not even when I was a baby. Simply because I claim babies to be ignostic/igtheistic. I would say simply that I did not know what I believed. I could not say that I did not believe, or did believe, specifically, in anything...I was ignorant. I could not be atheist, theist, agnostic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Draka, I think it's worth noting that being an atheist is different from recognizing onesself as an atheist.

As an analogy, I was male at birth, but I was probably a fair bit older than that before I could formulate the thought "I'm male" and express it in a meaningful way.