Atheist Activism

A belief doesn't have to be a belief system. To believe a particular belief system is false doesn't require a counter-system, but it still requires a counter-belief.

Not having a belief is not the same as believing something is false.

Rival said:

Uh, no, no they don't.

Welcome to the wonderful world of this isn't just the USA.

Click to expand...

Uh, OK. Welcome to England, where all but one of Britain’s six prime ministers in the past four decades have been practicing Christians. Their decisions are influenced by their beliefs just like everyone else. For example, in Theresa May's words, Christianity gives her "a moral backing to what I do, and I would hope that the decisions I take are taken on the basis of my faith". Just because others do not parade it around as much as the U.S., doesn't mean it isn't there.It may be better controlled in some areas than others. Do you have a lot of "Atheist Activism" where you are? I'm thinking probably not. I wonder, why?

kittykittyhatesme said:

Uh, OK. Welcome to England, where all but one of Britain’s six prime ministers in the past four decades have been practicing Christians. Their decisions are influenced by their beliefs just like everyone else. For example, in Theresa May's words, Christianity gives her "a moral backing to what I do, and I would hope that the decisions I take are taken on the basis of my faith". Just because others do not parade it around as much as the U.S., doesn't mean it isn't there.It may be better controlled in some areas than others. Do you have a lot of "Atheist Activism" where you are? I'm thinking probably not. I wonder, why?

Click to expand...

Atheists tend not to group based upon atheism. I know many
believers who associate & act together based upon their religion,
but I don't know a single atheist who does that.
We tend to be in secular groups which include others.
A secular orientation is enuf for us, eh.

Revoltingest said:

Atheists tend not to group based upon atheism. I know many
believers who associate & act together based upon their religion,
but I don't know a single atheist who does that.
We tend to be in secular groups which include others.
A secular orientation is enuf for us, eh.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to group and act upon a lack of belief. Atheists just often share similar world views and are passionate about similar issues. I was only using OP's words.

kittykittyhatesme said:

Ofcourse, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to group and act upon a lack of belief. Atheists just often share similar world views and are passionate about similar issues. I was only using OP's words.

Click to expand...

Getting us to organize would be like herding cats.

Btw, I'm sorry that kittykitty hates you.

kittykittyhatesme said:

Uh, OK. Welcome to England, where all but one of Britain’s six prime ministers in the past four decades have been practicing Christians. Their decisions are influenced by their beliefs just like everyone else. For example, in Theresa May's words, Christianity gives her "a moral backing to what I do, and I would hope that the decisions I take are taken on the basis of my faith". Just because others do not parade it around as much as the U.S., doesn't mean it isn't there.It may be better controlled in some areas than others. Do you have a lot of "Atheist Activism" where you are? I'm thinking probably not. I wonder, why?

Click to expand...

You mean like Dawkins and his atheist bus campaign nonsense?

All buses are atheists.
(The weak variety.)

Thermos aquaticus said:

What would you classify your non-belief in Leprechauns as? Is it a belief system?

Click to expand...

I would find it impossible to classify any "non-"item of any sort in that sense (except, of course, as a negation). The world is positive.

Willamena said:

I would find it impossible to classify a "non-" of any sort in that sense (except, of course, as a negation). The world is positive.

Click to expand...

I also find it impossible. Personally, I think it is much more productive to talk about the positive beliefs that people hold instead of trying to define them by what they don't believe. I tend to think that theists and atheists agree on a lot if we start talking about how both groups view the world.

Thermos aquaticus said:

I also find it impossible. Personally, I think it is much more productive to talk about the positive beliefs that people hold instead of trying to define them by what they don't believe. I tend to think that theists and atheists agree on a lot if we start talking about how both groups view the world.

Click to expand...

Trying to define them by what they don't believe is simple. Trying to classify them by non-beliefs is what is impossible: non-beliefs don't exist--it's just an abuse of the English language to promote lack of belief as some sort of eliminated belief.

Thermos aquaticus said:

A- means without. Amoral means without morals. Afebrile means without fever. Atonal means without tone. Atheism means without theism. Theism is a belief in gods. Atheism is therefore "without a belief in gods". That's how English works.

Click to expand...

It's certainly not how English works. Meaning is simply a product of usage and cannot be definitively identified merely from the letters which make up a word (and certainly not from the letters that make up other words).

Theism used to mean deism, by your logic atheism used to mean 'without deism', despite the fact we know this has never been the case.

The 'argument from letters' is simply wrong, and that's before pointing out that its etymology doesn't even reflect the addition of the prefix a- to the word theism, but the addition if the suffix -ism (designating belief) to atheos.

Augustus said:

It's certainly not how English works. Meaning is simply a product of usage and cannot be definitively identified merely from the letters which make up a word (and certainly not from the letters that make up other words).

Theism used to mean deism, by your logic atheism used to mean 'without deism', despite the fact we know this has never been the case.

The 'argument from letters' is simply wrong, and that's before pointing out that its etymology doesn't even reflect the addition of the prefix a- to the word theism, but the addition if the suffix -ism (designating belief) to atheos.

Click to expand...

So words can mean whatever you want them to mean?

Thermos aquaticus said:

So words can mean whatever you want them to mean?

Click to expand...

Technically yes (think about slang for example, or codes for a more extreme example), although if you want to be understood there better be at least one other person who understands how you are using words. Words are just symbols, their meaning is the referent that they represent.

Pertinent to this thread, the word atheists was redefined quite recently to add a new definition (lack of belief) in addition to the older one. Some people just decided they wanted to use a word differently and as enough people agreed it became part of common usage.

Meaning generally becomes standardised by convention, although this doesn't reify meaning. Enormity used to mean great evil, now it's normal meaning relates to scale. Cool and hot could mean the same thing, bad and good can mean the same thing what is this but words meaning whatever people want them to mean?

Meaning comes from context also, you interpret poetic language differently than rhetorical than instructional. A metaphor often relies on 'redefining' on the fly, as does irony.

Wittgenstein even argued that the basic unit of meaning is not the word, but the sentence.

Augustus said:

Technically yes (think about slang for example, or codes for a more extreme example), although if you want to be understood there better be at least one other person who understands how you are using words.

Pertinent to this thread, the word atheists was redefined quite recently to add a new definition (lack of belief) in addition to the older one. Some people just decided they wanted to use a word differently and as enough people agreed it became part of common usage.

Meaning generally becomes standardised by convention, although this doesn't reify meaning. Enormity used to mean great evil, now it's normal meaning relates to scale. Cool and hot could mean the same thing, bad and good can mean the same thing what is this but words meaning whatever people want them to mean?

Meaning comes from context also, you interpret poetic language differently than rhetorical than instructional. A metaphor often relies on 'redefining' on the fly, as does irony.

Wittgenstein even argued that the basic unit of meaning is not the word, but the sentence.

Click to expand...

When atheists use the term "atheist" to describe themselves they mean "without a belief in gods", just as the a- and -theist parts of the words would indicate.

Augustus said:

It's certainly not how English works. Meaning is simply a product of usage ....

Click to expand...

Well. Can I have a lack of belief in usage, please?

Thermos aquaticus said:

When atheists use the term "atheist" to describe themselves they mean "without a belief in gods", just as the a- and -theist parts of the words would indicate.

Click to expand...

Back to the "meaning from letters" fallacy already I see. If meaning does indeed come from letters, can you think of another -ism that doesn't relate to some kind of belief/thought btw?

Anyway, me and many other atheists don't use atheist the way you describe it. I also prefer not to operate under the conceit that I speak for all atheists everywhere.

There are more than 1 definition of the word atheist in common usage, that is a fact whether you find it convenient to accept it or not.

Augustus said:

Back to the "meaning from letters" fallacy already I see. If meaning does indeed come from letters, can you think of another -ism that doesn't relate to some kind of belief/thought btw?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that words meaning things was a fallacy. Perhaps it is my science background that makes the a- prefix stand out more so than it does for other people. When I see a term like febrile and afebrile I know it means fever and without fever. When I see term like leukocytopenia I know that leuko=white, cyto=cell, and penia=deficiency. Therefore, leukocytopenia means a white blood cell deficiency, or a low white blood cell count. Letters do mean things, at least in my world.

Anyway, me and many other atheists don't use atheist the way you describe it. I also prefer not to operate under the conceit that I speak for all atheists everywhere.

Click to expand...

One of the largest atheist organizations in the US describes atheism thusly:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. . .

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

It's not as if I am just pulling this out of my hat.

Thermos aquaticus said:

I wasn't aware that words meaning things was a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Arguing against a misrepresentation of someone's argument is also a fallacy.

Thermos aquaticus said:

Perhaps it is my science background that makes the a- prefix stand out more so than it does for other people. When I see a term like febrile and afebrile I know it means fever and without fever. When I see term like leukocytopenia I know that leuko=white, cyto=cell, and penia=deficiency. Therefore, leukocytopenia means a white blood cell deficiency, or a low white blood cell count. Letters do mean things, at least in my world.

Click to expand...

Hydro = water
phobia = fear
hydrophobia = rabies

Letters can mean things, the problem is we only know whether they do in fact mean what they may seem to suggest via convention and usage.

You seem to be arguing that exceptions don't exist, while also claiming that atheism is a unique exception to the suffix -ism. Don't you think it is somewhat incongruous to claim letters are a definitive carrier of meaning while also arguing that the suffix -ism which denotes a belief/principle/theory/etc doesn't actually mean that in the word atheism?

Thermos aquaticus said:

One of the largest atheist organizations in the US describes atheism thusly:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. . .

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

It's not as if I am just pulling this out of my hat.

Click to expand...

www.atheists.org also do not speak on behalf of all atheists everywhere.

I'm consistently told atheism is a non-position, a vacuum that has no consequences or influences, yet also that as I am an atheist I'm supposed to follow an 'orthodoxy' prescribed by some New Atheist types with a website. They alone define the 'correct' way to be an atheist which, based on their sites, apparently seems to require one to be a scientistic Secular Humanist who lacks historical and philosophical curiosity and has uncritically swallowed every outdated Conflict Thesis myth.

Other atheists constantly tell me what I'm supposed to think, then, when I disagree, they generally decide I'm a fake atheist who is really a Christian, Muslim, etc. in disguise (I'm not saying you've done this, many others have though).

Thermos aquaticus said:

One of the largest atheist organizations in the US describes atheism thusly:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. . .

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

It's not as if I am just pulling this out of my hat.

Click to expand...

Some of us aren't from the United States. (Most of the world isn't, actually.)

Thermos aquaticus said:

A- means without. Amoral means without morals. Afebrile means without fever. Atonal means without tone. Atheism means without theism. Theism is a belief in gods. Atheism is therefore "without a belief in gods". That's how English works.

Click to expand...

without theism is a belief.

now not only are you without a god you're recognizing that you are opposed to theism.

amoral is a qualitative judgement. what is moral for someone may be considered amoral for another. in fact everyone has values of service. either the service is to self or to others as self.

amoral means licentious, wicked, bad..... in other words attributes usually associated with the negative