All atheists have these characteristics?

[Desert Snake]

Like with theists, it is unhelpful to lump atheists altogether in neat little boxes. You can try, but, "Meh!"

I would add " all atheists disbelieve the Bible".

Hmmm


Happy holidays

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The essential definition, lack of belief, is the one used by most modern atheists and atheist groups.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

In practice, some sort of "lack of belief in gods" definition is also used by every single person - theist or atheist - who believes that atheists actually exist in reality and not just theoretically .

 

[YmirGF]

I would add " all atheists disbelieve the Bible".

Hmmm


Happy holidays

And Harry Pothead too!

 

[Desert Snake]

And Harry Pothead too!

The 'secular' symbols of xmas aren't secular. It seems if one wants to celebrate without Jesus, then a date change would be in order. (For saturnalia, the winter season etc).

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, the OP was a poll which indicates opinion.

But now we're beyond opinions and we are debating. Debating cannot be concluded based simply on opinions.

You're right. But, I feel like the meaning of the term "atheism" is pretty clear cut, as it is necessarily an extremely general term.

Atheism merely means "without theism". It includes every person who lacks belief in the existence of deities.

Is there any reason this would not be the case?

 

[leibowde84]

I agree that the definition of atheism like many words should be very simple.

But I deferred that definition to a source.

Practically every source available agrees that atheism is the lack of belief in deities, though.

 

[suncowiam]

Practically every source available agrees that atheism is the lack of belief in deities, though.

If I had to interpret the sources than yes I agree.

 

[syo]

ok. all atheists want an observable god who can fulfill the atheists' experiments.

 

[leibowde84]

If I had to interpret the sources than yes I agree.

Interpret the sources? What do you mean?

 

[Willamena]

In practice, some sort of "lack of belief in gods" definition is also used by every single person - theist or atheist - who believes that atheists actually exist in reality and not just theoretically .

Well, it's correct. The fellow on the desert island lacks belief in gods in precisely the way that I do, and that's that there are "no gods" in our respective worldviews.

 

[LuisDantas]

ok. all atheists want an observable god who can fulfill the atheists' experiments.

Uh? What do you mean?

Why would "all" atheists "want" such a god? Why would even a single atheist want it?

 

[suncowiam]

Interpret the sources? What do you mean?

We're not defining these ourselves, are we?

We are interpreting a definition based on the semantics.

"Lack of belief"

We're all asking ourselves what does it mean to have a "lack of belief."

lack: the state of being without or not having enough of something.
belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

So, does this answer if a baby is an atheist.

Well, it boils down to the definition of acceptance.
acceptance: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.

Acceptance is an action. A baby will not have an action of consent on the existence of God. God is too complex of an ideal for a baby to ever reach such action of consent.

Again. I'm not defining any of these words or concepts. I deferred the definitions and then interpreted to the best of my abilities their meanings to come to a conclusion.

 

[leibowde84]

We're not defining these ourselves, are we?

We are interpreting a definition based on the semantics.

"Lack of belief"

We're all asking ourselves what does it mean to have a "lack of belief."

lack: the state of being without or not having enough of something.
belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

So, does this answer if a baby is an atheist.

Well, it boils down to the definition of acceptance.
acceptance: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.

Acceptance is an action. A baby will not have an action of consent on the existence of God. God is too complex of an ideal for a baby to ever reach such action of consent.

Again. I'm not defining any of these words or concepts. I deferred the definitions and then interpreted to the best of my abilities their meanings to come to a conclusion.

Lack means to be "without" something. Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Agreed.

Does this answer if a baby is an atheist? Of course it does! You admit that a baby will not have an action of consent on the existence of God. Therefore, babies are necessarily "without" belief in the existence of God, as they are not able to accept the truthfulness of the proposition. Actually, they aren't even familiar with the concept.

Consideration of the belief is not required in order to be "without" it. In actuality, everyone who is not familiar with a concept will necessarily be without belief in that concept.

 

[Jesster]

ok. all atheists want an observable god who can fulfill the atheists' experiments.

Not necessarily. I want to believe what is true. If I can't determine whether something is true, I do my best to filter it out of my beliefs until better evidence for it comes along.

 

[Augustus]

Why even have semantics and proper definitions for objects in the first place?

This is the proper definition of an atheist from a dictionary:
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

If all parties are redefining these definitions and logic, then no conclusion can be made. One can personalize their definitions. That's fair, but in regards to communication with others not having all personal context, we should default to a proper universal definition.

The problem with this argument is that if we were discussing this 30 years ago, the 'proper' definition of atheism wouldn't include the 'lack of belief' option.

This arose relatively recently because some people had a philosophical disagreement with the 'proper' definition. I personally prefer the 'disbelief' usage than the 'lack of belief', but I understand why certain atheists wanted to redefine the term to include the latter. People often disagree with common usages for philosophical or ideological reasons, and negating their ability to do so locks in hegemonic power to language usage.

Disagreements here are rarely the result of one group misunderstanding the other, but different groups adopting different philosophical positions in regard to a real world phenomenon. There's no substantive difference between disagreements regarding this and disagreements between opposing political positions, ethical positions, etc.

 

[Valjean]

Ok... I'm fine with that. But you deferred to another organization with supposed authority on the matter.

I was just using it as an example of a group of self avowed atheists who agreed on a basic definition. I'd say the vast majority of atheists who have actually thought about the matter agree that lack of belief is the definitive LCD.

It isn't the actual definition that I'm debating. It is the process. This thread is a great example of why we cannot have personal definitions of a word.

I don't follow. Process? How is a definition a process?
I agree that when everyone has his own, personal definitions of words, communication is compromised. But absent some 'official' academy of definitions this is unlikely to happen. There usually are, though, common definitions understood amongst actual practitioners of various disciplines and crafts.

Again, that "agreement" is between you two. There is no diffulcty there. The issue lies when a newcomer enters and disagrees with either one or both of your definitions. Then all parties again have to come to an "agreement". Then again, this can happen with another newcomer. It will continue to happen indefinitely unless all parties current or new simply defers to a precedent or an arbitor for the definition.

But that's the case with any subject, though. Here in RF, new posters are always weighing in with eccentric opinions and misunderstandings. Witness the evolution debates and the eternally resurgent misunderstanding of "theory," the watchmaker agruments, &c.

I'm never going to be convinced that atheism is defined as, "ignorance of God or gods."

how would you define it without excluding lots of people with no belief in god or Gods?

 

[Valjean]

leibowde84 said: ↑
Practically every source available agrees that atheism is the lack of belief in deities, though.

If I had to interpret the sources than yes I agree.

Interpret sources? Most people actively identifying as atheists make their understanding of the term very clear.

Why would "all" atheists "want" such a god? Why would even a single atheist want it?

I think syo refers to disbelievers' deferral of belief till 'observable' evidence appears, but I don't see most atheists actually hungering for such a development.

The problem with this argument is that if we were discussing this 30 years ago, the 'proper' definition of atheism wouldn't include the 'lack of belief' option.

This arose relatively recently because some people had a philosophical disagreement with the 'proper' definition. I personally prefer the 'disbelief' usage than the 'lack of belief', but I understand why certain atheists wanted to redefine the term to include the latter. People often disagree with common usages for philosophical or ideological reasons, and negating their ability to do so locks in hegemonic power to language usage.

Disagreements here are rarely the result of one group misunderstanding the other, but different groups adopting different philosophical positions in regard to a real world phenomenon. There's no substantive difference between disagreements regarding this and disagreements between opposing political positions, ethical positions, etc.

In common parlance, bats were once birds, and whales, fish. Once groups rose that looked at these closely, though, definitions were tightened and codified.[/QUOTE]

 

[Willamena]

how would you define it without excluding lots of people with no belief in god or Gods?

Inclusively. No one is excluded: the man on the island is as you describe. As am I.

 

[Willamena]

The problem with this argument is that if we were discussing this 30 years ago, the 'proper' definition of atheism wouldn't include the 'lack of belief' option.

This arose relatively recently because some people had a philosophical disagreement with the 'proper' definition. I personally prefer the 'disbelief' usage than the 'lack of belief', but I understand why certain atheists wanted to redefine the term to include the latter.

Perhsps you can explain, because it's beyond
belief that a whole generation of arm-chair philosophers accept reifying negation.

 

[suncowiam]

The problem with this argument is that if we were discussing this 30 years ago, the 'proper' definition of atheism wouldn't include the 'lack of belief' option.

This arose relatively recently because some people had a philosophical disagreement with the 'proper' definition. I personally prefer the 'disbelief' usage than the 'lack of belief', but I understand why certain atheists wanted to redefine the term to include the latter. People often disagree with common usages for philosophical or ideological reasons, and negating their ability to do so locks in hegemonic power to language usage.

Disagreements here are rarely the result of one group misunderstanding the other, but different groups adopting different philosophical positions in regard to a real world phenomenon. There's no substantive difference between disagreements regarding this and disagreements between opposing political positions, ethical positions, etc.

You are addressing exactly my issue with personal definitions and why it is important to have one universal definition.