Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[doppelganger]

Kinda like a grilled cheese sandwich with an image of the Virgin Mary on it.

Are you sure it's not the image of Sally Field?

 

[Copernicus]

That sounds like a verbose way of saying that you provisionally reject belief in the existence of gods. That fits my definition exactly, although I found it unnecessary to include the adverb "provisionally". When assessing an empirical claim, acceptance or rejection of belief is always provisional.

Perhaps you need to go and talk to some more "certain" atheists.

Why do you say that? All empirical claims are provisional no matter who makes them, be they theist or atheist. Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future. I would therefore call myself a "certain" atheist, since I do not expect any future evidence to contradict my belief that gods are imaginary beings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.

No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.

 

[Masourga]

Are you sure it's not the image of Sally Field?

For the sake of the poor schmu... er... respectable party who purchased said sandwich for $28,000, I actually hope not.

 

[Copernicus]

Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.

No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.

I see no substantive difference between us on the nature of certainty. Atheists are more or less certain that gods do not exist. Agnosticism is just the position that certainty in the matter of existence of gods can never be absolute. That is actually true of any empirical belief, is it not? So one can simultaneously be both an atheist--rejecting belief in the existence of gods--and an agnostic--rejecting absolute certainty in such matters. Atheism and agnosticism are not points on the same scale.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see no substantive difference between us ...

No, you don't. That's unfortunate (if not literally thoughtless).

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Perhaps we have a habit of happily following along in the trap of projecting thought without self-reflection that so many of the theists we tend to criticize also do.

I mean that in more than one way.

You literally took the words right out of my mouth. But you said it much more intellegently than I could have. lol.

 

[Functionless]

I think atheists are both people who don't believe in god and who reject the belief in god. A person may have nothing against believing in god but not believe in god personally, while a person may be against believing in god in general. The difference is the attitude objectively. Subjectively, atheism is the same.

Of course, I always wonder if atheists really exist...

 

[Panda]

Of course, I always wonder if atheists really exist...

Why is that?

 

[doppelganger]

Why is that?

Likely the product of confusing thoughts about "God" with thoughts about "theism." They aren't necessarily the same thing. See Baruch de Spinoza (or pretty much any philosopher worth his or her salt).

 

[Copernicus]

I see no substantive difference between us ...

No, you don't. That's unfortunate (if not literally thoughtless).

Sorry if you think I'm being thoughtless, but you snipped away some of my thoughts on why I thought there was little difference. Here they are again:

Atheists are more or less certain that gods do not exist. Agnosticism is just the position that certainty in the matter of existence of gods can never be absolute. That is actually true of any empirical belief, is it not? So one can simultaneously be both an atheist--rejecting belief in the existence of gods--and an agnostic--rejecting absolute certainty in such matters. Atheism and agnosticism are not points on the same scale.

Do you not agree with my statements? If not, why not?

 

[AllanV]

Something has power over us and causes every one to die. Whether consciously or not every one participates to give this something its way. What is worship? We give respect to death to survive, we honor the dead in a sense of recognition of the power. We cannot help but believe in death. Is there a God over the earth we inadvertantly worship and serve?

 

[Valjean]

There are atheists and there are athiests. They come in different flavors.
The basic, defining feature of atheism is non-belief in a personage for which there is no evidence.
There are some within this group that go a step further and make the positive assertion that the God for which there is no evidence does not, in fact, exist, but this is not essential atheism. This is a radical offshoot.

The essence of atheism remains a provisional lack of belief -- no assertions of existence or non-existence at all.

 

[AllanV]

There are atheists and there are athiests. They come in different flavors.
The basic, defining feature of atheism is non-belief in a personage for which there is no evidence.
There are some within this group that go a step further and make the positive assertion that the God for which there is no evidence does not, in fact, exist, but this is not essential atheism. This is a radical offshoot.

The essence of atheism remains a provisional lack of belief -- no assertions of existence or non-existence at all.

My understanding of God is as an energizing spirit indwelling an individual after a transformation and renewing of mind. Everyone is now energized by personal power and we get out of all interaction complimentary experience to what exists inside and gives us our ability to keep our place in the peeking order. This power is much like what is played out in nature, predatory and self protective, but in the mind, the self having ego and intellect and knowledge as developed in a lifetime. Science is showing that the brain can be modified by social and physical environment. An evolutionary step in the brain and mind may help some survive the dramas unfolding on the planet. Athiests are misinformed and are taking too much input from perceptions of religious groups and the false ideas they put across. I never went to church when I was young but read the bible when older and realized after some participation there is no ressemblance to how it could be. The traditions of men prevail.

 

[Valjean]

My understanding of God is as an energizing spirit indwelling an individual after a transformation and renewing of mind. Everyone is now energized by personal power and we get out of all interaction complimentary experience to what exists inside and gives us our ability to keep our place in the peeking order. This power is much like what is played out in nature, predatory and self protective, but in the mind, the self having ego and intellect and knowledge as developed in a lifetime. Science is showing that the brain can be modified by social and physical environment. An evolutionary step in the brain and mind may help some survive the dramas unfolding on the planet. Athiests are misinformed and are taking too much input from perceptions of religious groups and the false ideas they put across. I never went to church when I was young but read the bible when older and realized after some participation there is no ressemblance to how it could be. The traditions of men prevail.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Allan. But in response to your assertion that atheists are misinformed -- Atheists are taking no input from anyone. Is your disbelief in Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster based in input from religious groups?

Atheism is the intellectual default position. It is belief in something when there is evidence of it. The logical converse would be belief in everything till there is evidence against it. Obviously that would not be workable.

 

[Copernicus]

There are some within this group that go a step further and make the positive assertion that the God for which there is no evidence does not, in fact, exist, but this is not essential atheism. This is a radical offshoot.

Actually, the denial of the existence of gods is essentially what atheism means. People get confused when they take atheism to mean an assertion of knowledge that gods do not exist. It is an assertion of belief that gods do not exist, which is slightly different from an assertion of knowledge. That is why atheism tends to be considered a provisional belief. And the claim that there is "no evidence" is also slightly misrepresented. The claim is really that the things believers see as evidence either do not qualify as evidence, or they are unconvincing evidence--e.g. assertions of personal revelation by believers. Atheism cannot exist in the absence of theism.

The essence of atheism remains a provisional lack of belief -- no assertions of existence or non-existence at all.

I agree that atheism is provisional, but it is not mere lack of belief. Someone who is completely ignorant of God or gods can be said to lack belief in them, but it would be a real stretch to call such a person an atheist. The essence of atheism is rejection of belief in gods. What you describe is what some people would call agnosticism--a failure to take a position on the existence of gods. (Originally, though, agnosticism was more about denying the ability to know reality in an absolute sense.)

 

[Luminous]

Atheist Life ?

:sarcastic: by the way, Santa Claus DOES exist; why else would i get christmas presents? I think it takes more faith to believe Santa Claus does NOT exist than to believe he does.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, the denial of the existence of gods is essentially what atheism means. People get confused when they take atheism to mean an assertion of knowledge that gods do not exist. It is an assertion of belief that gods do not exist, which is slightly different from an assertion of knowledge. That is why atheism tends to be considered a provisional belief. And the claim that there is "no evidence" is also slightly misrepresented. The claim is really that the things believers see as evidence either do not qualify as evidence, or they are unconvincing evidence--e.g. assertions of personal revelation by believers. Atheism cannot exist in the absence of theism.

Where do you come up with all this? Atheism isn't a denial of anything, it's not an assertion of anything, and it's not a belief in anything. And in the absence of theism you're left with atheism.

I agree that atheism is provisional, but it is not mere lack of belief. Someone who is completely ignorant of God or gods can be said to lack belief in them, but it would be a real stretch to call such a person an atheist. The essence of atheism is rejection of belief in gods. What you describe is what some people would call agnosticism--a failure to take a position on the existence of gods. (Originally, though, agnosticism was more about denying the ability to know reality in an absolute sense.)

No, no, no! Obviously we're discussing two entirely different things. Why would it be a stretch to call someone completely ignorant of God or gods, or a baby, or a Cocker spaniel athiet? They're epitome of athiest!

What you're talking about is some kind of dogmatic Strong Atheism.
Some people split atheism into non-belief, or Weak Atheism and a positive disbelief, or Strong Atheism, but the basic, unadorned essence of atheism is a simple non-belief -- Weak Atheism.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I don't know whether my stand will generate any controversy, but let's see if there are any negative reactions. Here is my claim: Atheism is not mere lack of belief in gods. It is the rejection of belief in gods.

It is sometimes said that we are all born atheists, but that is just not true. We cannot be said to reject claims before we even consider them. Atheism can only be meaningful after one dismisses arguments in favor of God and/or gods. When an atheist claims that there is no evidence of God's existence, he means that the proofs offered so far have either not really been evidence, or it is insufficient evidence.

Now, I will go a step further and say that there is a difference between so-called weak and strong atheists. Strong atheists claim to have positive evidence against the existence of gods. Weak atheists tend to fall back on the claim that theists have so far failed to meet their burden of proof (meaning that all of their arguments fail).

BTW, the claim that atheism means just "not theism" because a- is a negative prefix in Greek is not a valid argument. It is an etymological fallacy. Word meanings are determined solely by usage, not by their etymological history.

Am I right to criticize the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in gods?

To reject something, you must have knowledge of it. To lack something means you do not have enough of it. Atheism as all religions is (faith process, belief attributed, knowledge based, etc.) by relevant experience and factual basic understanding of the person's conceptual perception of activities and/or perception of activities that can contribute to their or any one else's beliefs.

No; an Atheist should not be criticized any more than someone who has had an experience that was bad and would choose to not encounter that particular circumstance again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.

No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.

Sorry if you think I'm being thoughtless, but you snipped away some of my thoughts on why I thought there was little difference. Here they are again: ...

I 'snipped them away' because they had no relevance to the issue.