How do you define "Athesim"?

Photonic · Oct 11, 2012

I redirect everyone to here:

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words: Infants are implicit atheists.

People like me who specifically and coherently reject belief in deities are explicit atheists.

Falvlun · Oct 11, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Draka,

Using your definition of atheism, can you describe how a person could actually become an atheist?

And what about me? I don't believe in any gods. I've expicitly rejected some of the gods I've encountered, but not all: there are some that I merely fail to accept, feeling that they haven't met their burden of proof. I acknowledge that there are countless god-concepts I've never encountered.

I also reject the notion of an overall "concept of deity". The only commonality I've been able to find amongst all the various god-concepts I've encountered is that they're worshipped and called "gods" by people. (Edit: IOW, I've found one necessary criteria for a god but no sufficient ones) IMO, I do not have a "concept of deity".

Am I an atheist?

If I'm not an atheist, is anyone?

I think this sort of convoluted thinking could be applied to any sort of belief, or disbelief, and yet it's not. I've only encountered it among atheists regarding their atheism, and I find it rather strange and to be truthful, dishonest (though probably not intentionally so) and agenda driven.

Anybody who has an opinion about the existence of gods has a belief. That's what opinions are. You can only claim a simple "lack of belief" if you are either a) completely ignorant of the topic or b) have truly never formed an opinion. Sorry, Peng. You clearly have an opinion. And despite your protestations to the contrary, I'm pretty sure you, and most people, have a general understanding of what a god concept entails. Which means you believe that gods don't exist, just like you believe that fairies don't exist (even though there's likely some fairy concepts around that you've never read about before).

Photonic · Oct 11, 2012

Falvlun said:
I think this sort of convoluted thinking could be applied to any sort of belief, or disbelief, and yet it's not. I've only encountered it among atheists regarding their atheism, and I find it rather strange and to be truthful, dishonest (though probably not intentionally so) and agenda driven.

Anybody who has an opinion about the existence of gods has a belief. That's what opinions are. You can only claim a simple "lack of belief" if you are either a) completely ignorant of the topic or b) have truly never formed an opinion. Sorry, Peng. You clearly have an opinion. And despite your protestations to the contrary, I'm pretty sure you, and most people, have a general understanding of what a god concept entails. Which means you believe that gods don't exist, just like you believe that fairies don't exist (even though there's likely some fairy concepts around that you've never read about before).

Read what I said above your post.

Falvlun · Oct 11, 2012

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

Yes. The difference between belief and claims to knowledge is the degree of certainty. You can hold something to be true (belief) without being 100% certain that it is (claim to knowledge).

ImmortalFlame said:
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.

No argument there. I believe atheists believe that they must avoid a positive claim at all costs, in order to gain some upperhand over theists (especially in debate circumstances). But if it talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, simple refusal to call it a duck doesn't somehow make it not a duck.

Falvlun · Oct 11, 2012

Photonic said:
I redirect everyone to here:

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words: Infants are implicit atheists.

People like me who specifically and coherently reject belief in deities are explicit atheists.

I agree with that. The problem is that I think a whole lot of explicit atheists are trying to claim that they are only implicit atheists.

My other beef is that I don't think we should be calling babies or anyone else who hasn't voiced an opinion an atheist. While it may be technically correct, I don't think it's any better than calling infants theists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Pagans, or whatever. When the baby is old enough to make her own decision, that's when she can choose to label herself, or voice her own beliefs.

It waters down the word and makes it meaningless.

Willamena · Oct 11, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
But the definitions and concepts are central here.

I believe that the Sun exists. Some people believe that the Sun is a god. The thing that keeps me an atheist is that I don't think the definition of "god" includes stars. If someone somehow convinces me that my definition of "god" was wrong and it should include stars, I would become a theist. Not until then, though.

You talk about "a concept of deity" as if it's just one thing. In my experience, it's not.

While it's relative to an individual or group, it is just one thing.

Photonic · Oct 11, 2012

Falvlun said:
I agree with that. The problem is that I think a whole lot of explicit atheists are trying to claim that they are only implicit atheists.

My other beef is that I don't think we should be calling babies or anyone else who hasn't voiced an opinion an atheist. While it may be technically correct, I don't think it's any better than calling infants theists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Pagans, or whatever. When the baby is old enough to make her own decision, that's when she can choose to label herself, or voice her own beliefs.

It waters down the word and makes it meaningless.

True, and admittedly by far the most common form of atheism is explicit.

idav · Oct 11, 2012

Falvlun said:
No argument there. I believe atheists believe that they must avoid a positive claim at all costs, in order to gain some upperhand over theists (especially in debate circumstances). But if it talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, simple refusal to call it a duck doesn't somehow make it not a duck.

Something I would have a hard time with is visualization. It's easier to say I don't believe in unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster than to say I don't believe in "god" which doesn't even really give a good picture of what it is an atheist is not believing in. At least the fantasy type characters can be pictured.

Willamena · Oct 11, 2012

Photonic said:
I redirect everyone to here:

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words: Infants are implicit atheists.

People like me who specifically and coherently reject belief in deities are explicit atheists.

I reject implicit atheists.

Draka · Oct 11, 2012

The idea of "implicit atheists" to me just seems like a way of garnering numbers for atheism really. A way of saying that there are more atheists than statistically there are in some numbers battle with theists, by having the ability to claim babies and little innocent children. Seems manipulative to me really. They haven't even really had any opportunity to learn enough to make up their own minds and are already being claimed by a group in a numbers battle.

idav · Oct 11, 2012

Draka said:
The idea of "implicit atheists" to me just seems like a way of garnering numbers for atheism really. A way of saying that there are more atheists than statistically there are in some numbers battle with theists, by having the ability to claim babies and little innocent children. Seems manipulative to me really. They haven't even really had any opportunity to learn enough to make up their own minds and are already being claimed by a group in a numbers battle.

LOL, better get them babies to the Polls cause they don't get their voice heard.

Photonic · Oct 11, 2012

Willamena said:
I reject implicit atheists.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Willamena · Oct 11, 2012

My problem with implicit atheism is just that atheism just isn't implicit in it. Taking atheism as "disbelief," it simply isn't implied for the person who has never heard of "god" that he disbelieves in that thing. Taking atheism as "lack of belief," it isn't implied for the person who has never heard of "god" that he lacks belief in that thing--it's quite explicit, in fact! And, lastly, taking atheism as "having an opinion that there is no god," it is not implicit for the person who has never heard of god that he has that opinion.

Photonic · Oct 11, 2012

Willamena said:
My problem with implicit atheism is just that atheism just isn't implicit in it. Taking atheism as "disbelief," it simply isn't implied for the person who has never heard of "god" that he disbelieves in that thing. Taking atheism as "lack of belief," it isn't implied for the person who has never heard of "god" that he lacks belief in that thing--it's quite explicit, in fact! And, lastly, taking atheism as "having an opinion that there is no god," it is not implicit for the person who has never heard of god that he has that opinion.

So, you lack a belief in any number of deities you've never heard of. What exactly would you call that?

idav · Oct 11, 2012

Draka said:
How can one claim that such a person was an atheist just because they could not define and was ignorant to the definitions and the concepts?

The person would still know what they believe even if they don't know the term. We are talking about believing in something regardless of what you want to label it.

When anyone asks "do you believe in god" it is too ambiguous. Lack of belief is a good term for ambiguity. Now if you were to be more specific like, do you believe in Krishna, Allah, Yahweh etc then that is not believing or even rejecting belief.

People need more specifics in order to reject something and that would mean caring enough about the subject enough to give it serious consideration.

Willamena · Oct 11, 2012

Photonic said:
So ... any number of deities you've never heard of. What exactly would you call that?

Ignorance.

Storm · Oct 11, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
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.

Dude, I always capitalize God. I capitalize Godless. It's a linguistic convention.

Falvlun · Oct 11, 2012

idav said:
The person would still know what they believe even if they don't know the term. We are talking about believing in something regardless of what you want to label it.

When anyone asks "do you believe in god" it is too ambiguous. Lack of belief is a good term for ambiguity. Now if you were to be more specific like, do you believe in Krishna, Allah, Yahweh etc then that is not believing or even rejecting belief.

People need more specifics in order to reject something and that would mean caring enough about the subject enough to give it serious consideration.

When people ask you whether you believe in Santa Claus, do you need to reject, individually, Santa Claus, Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Tomte, Dun Che Lao Ren, Sinterklaas, La Bafana, Pere Noel, etc? Do you need to know all of these various and variant forms of the concept of a person/being that goes around and gives kids presents on or around Christmas in order to claim that you don't, in fact, believe in Santa Claus?

Of course you don't. You have a general concept of what a Santa Claus is, just like you have a general concept of what a god is. The general concept is what is being rejected, not the individual expressions of the concept.

Draka · Oct 11, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
especially since I think that the definition you and Draka are arguing for is based on some very monotheistic thought processes.

I hadn't even caught this before, but just to clarify, if you hadn't noticed, I only use the term "deity" because I refer to any concept of deity. Why you would think a Pagan would refer to just monotheistic concepts I have no idea.

idav · Oct 11, 2012

Falvlun said:
Of course you don't. You have a general concept of what a Santa Claus is, just like you have a general concept of what a god is. The general concept is what is being rejected, not the individual expressions of the concept.

I think it is safe to say that if the person at least has a decent grasp that they can reject but God is far more ambiguous than characters from any fiction or non-fiction story. It is so bad that people who actually "reject" god are merely rejecting bible version god so I'm not so sure a "general concept" exists.

How do you define "Athesim"?

How do you define Atheism?

I am an Atheist: Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god.

I am an Atheist: Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

I believe in a God: Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god.

I believe in a God: Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Ad astra!

Earthbending Lemur

Ad astra!

Earthbending Lemur

Earthbending Lemur

Just me

Ad astra!

Being

Just me

Wonder Woman

Being

Ad astra!

Just me

Ad astra!

Being

Just me

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Earthbending Lemur

Wonder Woman

Being