Atheism or atheisms?

[ArtieE]

For the first theist to come about into existence, he/she must've been an atheist and must've gotten the idea from another atheist or invented/created him/herself. In other words, theism came from one or more atheists. That's the only observation I was curious about.

And? Of course everybody were not theists before theism were invented. Everybody had an absence of belief in god(s) before god(s) were invented. Why do you treat this obvious fact as something amazing?

 

[leibowde84]

Where would you put ignosticism? Atheism?

And if someone provides their definition of God, but you reject that definition even if the object it references in actuality do exist, would you call them atheist or theist or just that they're playing with words and that we must follow some standard of what God is?

Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So, I'm not sure it belongs under either, but it seems that ignostics would, more than not, be "atheist", simply because they aren't willing to consider the question and would, thus, "lack belief in the existence of God".

 

[Ouroboros]

And? Of course everybody were not theists before theism were invented. Everybody had an absence of belief in god(s) before god(s) were invented. Why do you treat this obvious fact as something amazing?

Because I think it is. Why are you attacking me personally? What does that have to do with the actual discussion? Isn't this a free forum for any discussion as long as we avoid personal attacks?

 

[Ouroboros]

Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So, I'm not sure it belongs under either, but it seems that ignostics would, more than not, be "atheist", simply because they aren't willing to consider the question and would, thus, "lack belief in the existence of God".

And they would consider this "default atheist" labelling to be ridiculous (as do many other in-between groups).

 

[leibowde84]

Because I think it is. Why are you attacking me personally? What does that have to do with the actual discussion? Isn't this a free forum for any discussion as long as we avoid personal attacks?

You are correct on that one. Let's keep it clean guys. No need to get snarky.

 

[ArtieE]

Because I think it is. Why are you attacking me personally? What does that have to do with the actual discussion? Isn't this a free forum for any discussion as long as we avoid personal attacks?

I just asked you what you find so amazing and interesting about this obvious fact. Why do you "think it is" amazing?

 

[leibowde84]

And they would consider this "default atheist" labelling to be ridiculous (as do many other in-between groups).

I can't think of a reason why they would think it ridiculous, as it is being assigned implicitly, or merely according to the definition of the term. I would assume that they would welcome the label "weak atheist", as they consider the very proposition not worth thinking about. But, do you have any support for this claim that you make about ignostics?

 

[leibowde84]

And they would consider this "default atheist" labelling to be ridiculous (as do many other in-between groups).

Wait a tick ... are you actually attempting to speak for these groups, because I have not heard of any such outcry, and you haven't provided a shred of supporting evidence for this seemingly outlandish claim, so I have to assume you are basing this on nothing more than speculation.

Is there some negative connotation associated with the term "atheism" or something?

 

[Ouroboros]

I just asked you what you find so amazing and interesting about this obvious fact. Why do you "think it is" amazing?

I mentioned it in bypassing earlier. Dawkins had this TV series "root of all evil", I think it was. I loved it. I was a hard-core atheist at the time. I used to argue the same position as you're doing right now that atheism is "just lack of belief in God". I learned since that things are far more complex than this silly simplification. Anyway, when I just discovered this conclusion that atheists invented theism, it put a new spin on the "root of all evil". It suggests rather that atheism is the root of all evil... (Of course I don't think it is, and I don't think religion or theism is either. Just an interesting twist of things.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Systems of belief regarding God or gods, or "religions", are subcategories of "theism". They are varieties of belief in the existence of God or gods. Please enlighten me, as I'm not sure what error in reasoning you are referring to. Also, you failed to explain why my not providing the definition of "God or gods" makes my definition "strict". In actuality, it seemingly makes it more liberal.

If the definition is too broad, it loses any practical meaning, in this context. This current debate is contextual, not simply definitional.

Are you claiming that adherents to the religions I named aren't "theists"? Because, that is the only way your criticism would make any sense. Either that, or you are creating another straw man. By the way, here is the definition of "deity" or "God" in this context. Hope this helps.

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"

By those specifications, I would never have been, and am not, a theist.
That is precisely why we need these definitions, so we know what we're supposedly debating about.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can't think of a reason why they would think it ridiculous, as it is being assigned implicitly, or merely according to the definition of the term. I would assume that they would welcome the label "weak atheist", as they consider the very proposition not worth thinking about. But, do you have any support for this claim that you make about ignostics?

I don't. I consider myself a "weak atheist" but also a pantheist and some forms of theism as well. The labels don't fit that well.

 

[ArtieE]

I mentioned it in bypassing earlier. Dawkins had this TV series "root of all evil", I think it was. I loved it. I was a hard-core atheist at the time. I used to argue the same position as you're doing right now that atheism is "just lack of belief in God". I learned since that things are far more complex than this silly simplification. Anyway, when I just discovered this conclusion that atheists invented theism, it put a new spin on the "root of all evil". It suggests rather that atheism is the root of all evil... (Of course I don't think it is, and I don't think religion or theism is either. Just an interesting twist of things.)

OK.

 

[leibowde84]

I mentioned it in bypassing earlier. Dawkins had this TV series "root of all evil", I think it was. I loved it. I was a hard-core atheist at the time. I used to argue the same position as you're doing right now that atheism is "just lack of belief in God". I learned since that things are far more complex than this silly simplification. Anyway, when I just discovered this conclusion that atheists invented theism, it put a new spin on the "root of all evil". It suggests rather that atheism is the root of all evil... (Of course I don't think it is, and I don't think religion or theism is either. Just an interesting twist of things.)

I'm confused. You claim that we are saying that "atheism is just a lack of belief in God". This is not the case. Our argument is that, by definition, lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is all that is REQUIRED for one to be accurately classified as an "atheist". No one here is claiming that there aren't different forms of atheism just as there is with theism.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't. I consider myself a "weak atheist" but also a pantheist and some forms of theism as well. The labels don't fit that well.

Do you believe in God or any deities?

 

[Ouroboros]

Wait a tick ... are you actually attempting to speak for these groups, because I have not heard of any such outcry, and you haven't provided a shred of supporting evidence for this seemingly outlandish claim, so I have to assume you are basing this on nothing more than speculation.

Ok. True. I've met and talked to people (I think at least more than 5 on this site) who disagree with this "default atheist" label. So, granted, not the whole groups, but there are people in those groups who disagree with this simplified labels.

Is there some negative connotation associated with the term "atheism" or something?

The simple thing is that atheism wasn't used as "lack of belief" in the older philosophical debates. Atheism had more of an umpfh. More of a "this I hold" position, rather than this agnostic view. It was called agnostic in the past to be agnostic. Personally, I think this widening of the terms is detrimental to the debate and undermines understanding.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm confused. You claim that we are saying that "atheism is just a lack of belief in God".

Not you personally, but several people have said this on this website. I think even in this thread earlier it was stated by someone (not you) that "atheism is just lack of belief in God." So basing an argument or syllogism from that as a premise, then I found the conclusion that I thought was interesting to look into.

This is not the case. Our argument is that, by definition, lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is all that is REQUIRED for one to be accurately classified as an "atheist". No one here is claiming that there aren't different forms of atheism just as there is with theism.

If the lack of belief is what labels an atheist, and existence of belief labels a theist, then we are back to a polarity. Two options, opposing each other.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you believe in God or any deities?

I don't believe in deities. I believe there's a reality far greater and beyond the universe we can see. I don't see it as a personal God. It is, however, the foundation for existence, force, energy, time, space, and consciousness. I see the totality of that, including this that we have here, experiencing right here and now, all of it as God. It has many of the features of the theistic God, except being a creature or a supernatural being with thought and will. It's more akin to Spinoza and many of the non-theist/non-atheist philosophers and theologians in the past. More of Einstein's God than the atheist's idea of what God is supposed to be.

 

[leibowde84]

If the definition is too broad, it loses any practical meaning, in this context. This current debate is contextual, not simply definitional.


By those specifications, I would never have been, and am not, a theist.
That is precisely why we need these definitions, so we know what we're supposedly debating about.

1. You contradicted yourself with your first point. Now you are claiming that my definition of "theism" is too broad? My entire arugment is that both "theism" and "atheism" are and should remain general parent terms. Because there are so many different kinds of Atheists and Theists, it is foolish to assign specifics to either.
2. Here is a better set of definitions, as I see that my last one is a bit convoluted. If you don't believe that examples of either of these exist, then you are, in fact, an "atheist"

"God": the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
"god": a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

 

[ArtieE]

If the lack of belief is what labels an atheist, and existence of belief labels a theist, then we are back to a polarity. Two options, opposing each other.

No we are not. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist) and STRONG ATHEISM (presence of belief that gods don't exist) ARE OPPOSITE BELIEFS. Theism (presence of belief that god(s) exist and (WEAK) ATHEISM (absence of belief that god(s) exist) ARE NOT OPPOSITE BELIEFS one is a belief the other is the absence of this belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

1. You contradicted yourself with your first point.

Nope. Too broad as in undefined is different from too broad for the context in which it is being used. Outside of this specific context, 'god', has a very broad meaning; in fact, one could argue that your definition is incorrect, easily.

Now you are claiming that my definition of "theism" is too broad? My entire arugment is that both "theism" and "atheism" are and should remain general parent terms. Because there are so many different kinds of Atheists and Theists, it is foolish to assign specifics to either.
2. Here is a better set of definitions, as I see that my last one is a bit convoluted. If you don't believe that examples of either of these exist, then you are, in fact, an "atheist"

"God": the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
"god": a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Okie dokie.