Atheism or atheisms?

[leibowde84]

Ok. True. I've met and talked to people (I think at least more than 5 on this site) who disagree with this "default atheist" label. So, granted, not the whole groups, but there are people in those groups who disagree with this simplified labels.


The simple thing is that atheism wasn't used as "lack of belief" in the older philosophical debates. Atheism had more of an umpfh. More of a "this I hold" position, rather than this agnostic view. It was called agnostic in the past to be agnostic. Personally, I think this widening of the terms is detrimental to the debate and undermines understanding.

1. I don't think you should make assumptions about entire populations simply by the remarks from members of this site. This is, obviously, a very outspoken group.
2. I disagree, and, while many people use the term "agnostic" incorrectly in this way, "agnosticism" deals with knowledge of God, not belief in God's existence. "Agnosticism" is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. I still fail to see what confuses you so much about my claim, though. Either you hold a belief or you don't. Either you have faith in something or you don't. That is why I feel that, first, the 2 general parent terms are best, and, second, that assuming specificities in belief from the terms "theism" and "atheism" is foolish.

Now, we know that, from the term "theist" we don't get much information as to what someone believes. The only thing that we gain from this term is that an individual believes in at least one deity. So, why do you expect so much more from the term "atheism"?

 

[leibowde84]

Nope. Too broad as in undefined is different from too broad for the context in which it is being used. Outside of this specific context, 'god', has a very broad meaning; in fact, one could argue that your definition is incorrect, easily.

Okie dokie.

So, do you think that the definitions I provided are more clear? Why did you say "okie dokie"? Were you just trolling?

 

[leibowde84]

No we are not. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist) and STRONG ATHEISM (presence of belief that gods don't exist) ARE OPPOSITE BELIEFS. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist and (WEAK) ATHEISM (absence of belief that god(s) exist) ARE NOT OPPOSITE BELIEFS one is a belief the other is the absence of this belief.

Well-put.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, do you think that the definitions I provided are more clear? Why did you say "okie dokie"? Were you just trolling?

Huh?
anyways, those definitions are fine for the context, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, it is a specific definition, or description, so, ''atheism'', is limited to that.




What did you want me to say?

 

[leibowde84]

Huh?
anyways, those definitions are fine for the context, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, it is a specific definition, or description, so, ''atheism'', is limited to that.




What did you want me to say?

I think that was my bad. I thought you were being facetious. Sorry about that.

 

[Ouroboros]

No we are not. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist) and STRONG ATHEISM (presence of belief that gods don't exist) ARE OPPOSITE BELIEFS. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist and (WEAK) ATHEISM (absence of belief that god(s) exist) ARE NOT OPPOSITE BELIEFS one is a belief the other is the absence of this belief.

Doesn't change the conclusion that a "weak" atheist(s) invented/created/made theism. Besides "not belief" is the opposite of "belief", is it not?

 

[ArtieE]

Doesn't change the conclusion that a "weak" atheist(s) invented/created/made theism. Besides "not belief" is the opposite of "belief", is it not?

The opposite of holding the belief that god(s) exist is holding the belief that god(s) don't exist. Theism and STRONG ATHEISM are opposites. Not theism and (WEAK) ATHEISM. That should be crystal clear from my post 239.

 

[Ouroboros]

1. I don't think you should make assumptions about entire populations simply by the remarks from members of this site. This is, obviously, a very outspoken group.

True. You're right. I shouldn't.

2. I disagree, and, while many people use the term "agnostic" incorrectly in this way, "agnosticism" deals with knowledge of God, not belief in God's existence. "Agnosticism" is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. I still fail to see what confuses you so much about my claim, though. Either you hold a belief or you don't. Either you have faith in something or you don't. That is why I feel that, first, the 2 general parent terms are best, and, second, that assuming specificities in belief from the terms "theism" and "atheism" is foolish.

I have many faiths, beliefs, and unbeliefs. I believe in some concepts of God. And I don't believe in some other concepts. But since there are many different version of God, some with and some without all these different concepts, there's no single definition of God that the group of theists can be said to believe in. And also, what follows, is that the atheists don't believe in a God of many different kinds, not just a single one. To just say "belief in God" or "unbelief in God" is too simplistic. The atheist has "lack of belief" in mostly the God or gods where he/she/it is described as being a person. The atheist doesn't have unbelief in all God/gods, but rather unbelief in a variation of specific concepts of God/gods.

Now, we know that, from the term "theist" we don't get much information as to what someone believes. The only thing that we gain from this term is that an individual believes in at least one deity. So, why do you expect so much more from the term "atheism"?

I don't expect anything from the term "atheism". I wish, however, that the term "atheism" could be used more the way it was used to. It's definition has changed, and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not expecting anything, but I do think it can be discussed.

 

[Ouroboros]

The opposite of holding the belief that god(s) exist is holding the belief that god(s) don't exist. Theism and STRONG ATHEISM are opposites. Not theism and (WEAK) ATHEISM. That should be crystal clear from my post 239.

Theism and weak atheism are not in opposites? Hm... Ok. If you say so. (I assume that you speak for all atheists.)

 

[Willamena]

And? Of course everybody were not theists before theism were invented. Everybody had an absence of belief in god(s) before god(s) were invented. Why do you treat this obvious fact as something amazing?

For one thing, because it's horridly atheistic. To many theists, god(s) are eternal.

 

[Willamena]

I'm confused. You claim that we are saying that "atheism is just a lack of belief in God". This is not the case. Our argument is that, by definition, lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is all that is REQUIRED for one to be accurately classified as an "atheist". No one here is claiming that there aren't different forms of atheism just as there is with theism.

Do you mean sufficient rather than required? Because a requirement would make it necessary, and not all atheists lack belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you mean sufficient rather than required? Because a requirement would make it necessary, and not all atheists lack belief in the existence of God or gods.

Of course they do that's what makes them atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

I beginning to think that the scientific pursuit of naturalistic explanations limits the definition of what is possible to prove. Whilst science isn't offically biased and openly atheist, scientific and theological explanations are interpretations of the same pheneomena. As science increases the scope of rational knowledge of the universe, so we need theological explanations less. To some extent, the two seem to be mutually exclusive. science can't prove gods existence without ceasing to be science as we understand it.

Well I really don't know why science would be tasked with proving God, but sure.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not arguing specifically about what it means, I'm arguing that as a concept it is problematic.

'Babies are born without religious beliefs or affinity for a particular religion' is something I can easily agree with. 'Atheism is the default' is a much more complex statement that makes several assumptions and value judgements.

Even if we assume the truth of the statement 'babies don't believe in god', this is not the same as saying 'atheism is the default'.

Well yes, they are different statements. So what?

 

[Bunyip]

Laika

I don't think proof is really relevant. Hebrews 11 speaks of a leap of faith, and science doesn't go past best explanations.

 

[psychoslice]

Atheist are just normal people, without silly beliefs, that simple.

 

[Augustus]

Well yes, they are different statements. So what?

What is the problem about mistaking your own opinion for fact you mean? Or what is the problem about using flawed reasoning? Or what is the problem about using unclear/ambiguous terminology?

 

[Bunyip]

What is the problem about mistaking your own opinion for fact you mean? Or what is the problem about using flawed reasoning? Or what is the problem about using unclear/ambiguous terminology?

What are you referring to? I will happily clarify.

 

[Augustus]

The 'so what?' in your reply. It goes back to the expression 'atheism is the default', and why using an alternative expression is better. [Was really a general point rather than referring to you specifically.]

When stated, it is usually as a fact free of subjective judgements; uses the flawed reasoning that babies don't believe in god therefore atheism must be considered the default; and saying anything is the default seems to carry connotations that it alone is normal so other things are artificial and imposed.

Any intended meaning that is conveyed by the statement 'atheism is the default' could be done much better using an alternative wording.

 

[leibowde84]

True. You're right. I shouldn't.


I have many faiths, beliefs, and unbeliefs. I believe in some concepts of God. And I don't believe in some other concepts. But since there are many different version of God, some with and some without all these different concepts, there's no single definition of God that the group of theists can be said to believe in. And also, what follows, is that the atheists don't believe in a God of many different kinds, not just a single one. To just say "belief in God" or "unbelief in God" is too simplistic. The atheist has "lack of belief" in mostly the God or gods where he/she/it is described as being a person. The atheist doesn't have unbelief in all God/gods, but rather unbelief in a variation of specific concepts of God/gods.


I don't expect anything from the term "atheism". I wish, however, that the term "atheism" could be used more the way it was used to. It's definition has changed, and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not expecting anything, but I do think it can be discussed.

The atheist "lacks belief" or is "without belief" in all gods/deities. Any God notion that they aren't familiar with, they would necessarily lack belief in.