Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, yes it should.
-
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!
Atheism: A belief?
- Thread starter Orias
- Start date
Yes, yes it should.
After reading this thread, it seems to me that an atheist does not believe that no God exists. But Atheist knows that no God exists. Just as a Theist knows that God/s exists/exist. :sarcastic
...
"Belief" stands in contrast to "knowledge," but not in some relationship of mutual exclusivity. Knowledge is a belief that has been justified, but it doesn't stop being believed.
Further reading: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/#MenPro
Further reading: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/#MenPro
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed, belief, like many other words, has different sense and contexts. The mistake is when people incorrectly apply all senses of a word in all contexts that the word is used.
Seems to me the mistake made is one of exclusion, not inclusion.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Seems to me the mistake made is one of exclusion, not inclusion.
Mistakes can be made either way. That's why the important thing is to place meaning and context over semantics.
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, but "atheistic" as an adjective describes nothing about a world view except that deities play no part in it. Therefore, by itself, "atheist" does not describe a particular belief system or world view.
Would it be safe to interpret that as that there is a world view that deities play a part in, and that "atheist" is the world view that stands in contrast to it?
Alceste
Vagabond
Alceste
Vagabond
I think the root of my feeling of tackiness is linked to the likelihood of causing offense. I'm offended by the baptism ceremony (my United Church mother refused to say many of the words at the Anglican baptism of her god-daughter), and I have no doubt Christian parents would bristle if I called their baptized infant an atheist.
Everybody wants babies on their team, but they're just babies. They can't tell us what they think of anything. They're always staring into space and giggling as if something is there. They can't even distinguish between "self" and "other". They are startled and amazed by their own hands. It's presumptuous to claim that when they are happily babbling away in their crib, they are babbling to some kind of god, or not. How could we ever know?
Alceste
Vagabond
One can concede a slim possibility that gods might exist without believing in any. In fact, that is the position a strict empiricist must hold, as a skeptic believes nothing without conclusive evidence. I am not of the opinion the question of god's existence is insoluble, so I am not an agnostic. I do not believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist. I would become a theist tomorrow if conclusive empirical evidence of the existence of a god came to light.
Alceste
Vagabond
No. It would be safe to interpret that to mean that, of the six-odd billion human world views on this planet, the ones that include deities can be accurately described as "theistic" and all the rest can be accurately described as "atheistic".
Isn't that what I said?
Alceste
Vagabond
No, you said atheism is "in opposition" to theism. That implies knowledge and rejection of theistic world views, doesn't it?
Does something that stands "in contrast" to something else necessarily stand in a position of opposition?
Alceste
Vagabond
It's wrong-footed to interpret "theism" and "atheism" as opposites. Theism actually describes something. Atheism is the word that applies whenever that particular "something" is not present. You have atheistic Buddhists and theistic Buddhists, for example. It would be misleading to say they "oppose" one another: their world views are more similar than not.
Being both, and neither, I've no argument with that.
Isn't that "opposition"?
Haven't we seen all this so many times before? A theist takes exception to an atheist's criticism of his or her faith-based, doctrinal beliefs. The theist comes back with the charge that atheists, too, are blindly committed to an opposing doctrinal belief. A number of atheists immediately fall out with one another and engage in a protracted discussion about what it means to be an atheist - all of which completely misses the point!
If it is a question of what is believed then surely it is the nature of the belief that settles the matter? The theist holds to a belief dogmatically, as an article of faith (whereas the atheist does not) and if no evidence is necessary to affirm the faith then no evidence is going to disabuse the theist of his or her belief. In contrast, the atheists' position is entirely evidence based. If God exists were demonstrably true and factually evident then even the most ardent atheist or anti-theist must concede that truth. So it is specious to pretend that atheistic belief is the same as theistic belief when the latter by its very definition cannot accommodate doubt.
If it is a question of what is believed then surely it is the nature of the belief that settles the matter? The theist holds to a belief dogmatically, as an article of faith (whereas the atheist does not) and if no evidence is necessary to affirm the faith then no evidence is going to disabuse the theist of his or her belief. In contrast, the atheists' position is entirely evidence based. If God exists were demonstrably true and factually evident then even the most ardent atheist or anti-theist must concede that truth. So it is specious to pretend that atheistic belief is the same as theistic belief when the latter by its very definition cannot accommodate doubt.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Yet, by one definition, I am an atheist. I meet one of the criteria, which is that I lack a belief in deities. And that's all that's needed to qualify.
I don't believe you are reading the definition correctly, and that is what is causing you to be confused. Actually, I know you are not reading it correctly if you think one must meet all those criteria. One only needs to meet one of the criteria to be an "atheist".
Since atheism by the broadest definition is an 'absence of belief in deities', I fit that charateristic. Hence, I am an atheist under that condition.
As to your second point, I think that goes without saying. Why are you stating the obvious? Of course, the whole discussion here is about "atheism" which specifically addresses belief in gods.
To be candid, you may not realize it but such statements of the obvious are condecending and kind of insulting to others, at least they are to me. I don't need to be talked down to, especially by someone who is woefully confused and downright wrong about what they're saying. I know what we're talking about. I know we're not talking about beliefs in flying bicycles or beliefs in cave trolls or beliefs in giant talking donuts. So, your second point is insulting and it merely acts to further confuse the issue because it doesn't need to be said.
What I don't understand is why you post a Wiki article that clearly states "atheism" can be an absence of belief in gods, only to claim otherwise. How can I not be an atheist if I lack a belief in gods when that is clearly what your posted message indicated? Are you deliberately trying to make no sense? Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue? Are you deliberately making inconsistent statements?
According to some atheists, it's the nature of belief itself that settles the matter.