Go for it. The rocks and babies stuff was always just a sideshow, anyway.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lack of belief (yet again)
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Your definition of atheism is something like "rejection of the existence of all gods," right?
Edit: my point wasn't about the definition; it was about putting the definition into practice. How does someone go about rejecting all gods, in your view?
Augustus
…
The only thing important is what the individual subjectively views as gods and what they believe regarding them.
It's about ideas, not a checklist of every single individual god known across the entire spectrum of human history.
It's a statement of belief, not objective fact.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Atheism is the absence of a belief in God or gods. The absence of theism. That's all it means, as it is an extremely general term (like "theism").
What position is it?
You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't necessarily mean the position that God cannot exist. Many (if not most) atheists merely haven't been convinced that God exists. At the same time, they haven't necessarily been convinced that God does not exist, as "atheism" only requires the absence of belief in gods.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It is the absence of belief.
Hmmm... people who are not theists and call themselves atheists disagree that people who are not theists should be called atheists?
That's right. Each person can ask themselves "if I accept claim X, will that mean I believe in a god?" ... and the answer might be "no" for some god-beliefs. For instance, even though I consider Sun-worshippers and Rastafarians to be theists, I don't think that my acceptance of the existence of the Sun and Haille Selassie makes me a theist.
Even so, there are plenty of god-claims where I would say to myself "yes, if I accepted that claim, I'd be a theist." I also think it's a virtual certainty that this is true about an uncountable number of god-claims I've never even heard of. Edit: I think the same is true for the vast majority of atheists.
If atheism is about rejecting all gods, then you need to reject all gods to be an atheist. If you can figure out a way to do this that doesn't end up being a checklist of gods, I'm all ears.
You can't believe what you haven't even conceived. The statement "I believe that doesn't exist" is meaningless if "that" doesn't refer to anything.
And even considering the god-concepts we are aware of, there's a difference between "I have seen no reason to accept the claim you're making" and "I have concluded that the claim you're making is false."
You can just reject anything that fits the definition of a god.
- 1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. - 2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
You can? Explain how you do that.
BTW: since your definition includes "a deity" as part of the definition of "god", it strikes me as a bit circular.
Simple. An atheist can simply point to the definition I posted and say: "I don't believe any of the entities covered by this definition exists."
Let me rephrase: how do they come to that conclusion?
Ask them...
No, it means that they should have what they believe to be "a coherent definition of god." I believe "preternatural agency" is such a definition.
A god is a preternatural agent but preternatural agents don't have to be gods. Some regard fairies and trolls to be preternatural agents.
Wouldn't "preternatural agency" include ghosts, angels, etc.?
In my experience, atheists often don't outright reject all the things they believe would qualify as gods.
He has a valid point.
Whenever we get into these discussions, I find that people end up putting forward definitions of "god" that don't reflect how the word "god" is used in order to make "rejection of gods" work.
Augustus
…
It's not about rejecting all gods ever, just whatever meets your personal idea of gods.
IMO, anything that you don't consider to be gods doesn't matter one bit regarding your disbelief in gods.
We are talking about different things
Me: Someone who disbelieves in the existence of whatever they consider to be gods. [Just as an example, perhaps they have only considered Abrahamic God and generic polytheist gods and believe both are mythical]
You: Someone who disbelieves in the existence of every single god and god concept ever created whether they are aware of them or otherwise and has individually crossed each of their names and definitions off a list.
This is why you keep thinking people don't use the word the way they claim they do. You misunderstand the way they are using it.
When talking about claims regarding existence, I see no difference between false and not true.
For me, the difference between I don't believe that exists and I believe that doesn't exist is grammatical. Others believe it is cognitive.
Each to their own.
I would assume so.
I'm far from an expert on what "atheists often don't outright reject," but I would think that a fair number of coherent atheists are *metaphysical naturalists who would, in fact, reject ghosts and angels for much the same reason that they would reject god(s).
*btw, I continue to find the Barbara Forrest article well worth reading.
"Metaphysical naturalism often accompanies atheism" does not imply "atheism requires metaphysical naturalism."
The question isn't whether some (or even many) people reject everything preternatural as a class; it's whether they would consider "an atheist who believes in ghosts" to be a contradiction in terms. I've never met a single person who holds this position. Have you?
If people generally though that "god" just meant "a preternatural agency", then we would generally consider "an atheist who believes in ghosts" to be an oxymoron and we would generally consider people who believe in angels to be polytheists. This isn't how the word "god" is actually used, so your definition is wrong... or at least incomplete.