I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

[Thief]

Ignorance is simply the "lack of knowledge or information". How would those that "choose to ignore" be classified accurately as "ignorant".

To ignore....is ignorance.
and it is profound...as it comes from a willful intent.

 

[Quintessence]

You skipped over a prior consideration....IS there a God.....

What cause have you....to say there is?

I don't understand why you think I "skipped" something. I skipped nothing. It's an obvious matter-of-fact that there are various aspects of our world that people and cultures deem worthy of worship, and that the word "god(s)" is used to describe that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is no reason to be an atheist. For answer of the question as to how life began one should see what is latest from science. For answers to the questions who created life and for what purpose, that is beyond science to inform anything. This is the domain of religions where truthful religions helps only.
Atheism does not help to solve any of the above so there is no case of Atheism.
Regards

You probably need to look a little beyond the surface of my comments. As mentioned, I was tackling a serious topic in a light-hearted manner to try and break some of the communication barriers that regularly occur here. I'll try and extrapolate my meaning, as it relates to your response.

1) In terms of the origin of life, and in terms of how it has evolved, I look to science. But science has no part in my atheism or lack thereof. As my analogy about the lost keys indicates, science's current best guesses (as if science is a single entity, but anyway...) about life's genesis and how it has evolved can be 100% correct, or 100% wrong, it really doesn't factor into my atheism. I'm ignorant of life's genesis in a slightly more profound way than science is, since I am not knowledgeable, or interested enough to understand and keep up with the latest cutting edge advances on a daily basis. I daresay that applies to every single person reading this thread as well. It's also entirely possible that science is wrong, and entirely likely that science will further develop it's knowledge in this area moving forwards.

2) In terms of WHO created life (nice way to superimpose your belief into the question posed) and for WHAT PURPOSE life was created, we're all ignorant. Some admit it, some don't. I'm not expecting you to come forth and admit your ignorance on the internet. If you like, as an alternative to admitting your own ignorance in the way I have, you could simply make me a list of the 'truthful religions'. No need for any details, I can do my own research. Just a short list of the truthful ones so I can prioritize future study.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm a touch confused. What does (a)theism have to do with what one feels about the origin of life? They are completely unrelated to me:

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began (nor do I really give a damn)
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence... well... yeah. That's it, really.

My theism comes from this:

1) Let us define "gods" as that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship
2) Let us understand "worship" to be showing respect and gratitude for something; holding something in high regard, in a position of honor, or as sacred
3) There are many things in this world that I find worthy of worth-ship, that I consider valued and sacred
4) Therefore, these things are my gods, and my gods are an expression of my values

Yup.
You're odd though, and I mean that (sincerely) with the greatest of respect.
I was going with a pretty light hand, and dealing with some more mainstream considerations, but I'll happily look more specifically at your points.

Let's see...

First off, kudos on admitting your ignorance re: how life began. I am also pretty much uncaring, at this point.
We are commonly grounded in our ignorance, but ignorance isn't in any sense a negative, despite how some muppets would try and portray it.

By not tying yourself to any specific creation myth, you very much cast yourself into the more unusual type of theist. I know generalizations which don't account for your style of theism annoy you, and I completely get why (since I find inaccurate generalizations of atheists as damn frustrating). But I was kinda pitching a message to the masses.

In truth I am an atheist because I am without theism. Consider the following, in the same order as you mentioned them;
1) I don't worship anything.
2) I wouldn't define worship as respect and gratitude. For example, I don't worship my mother. Sacred would be closer to my thoughts. And I can't think of anything I hold sacred.
3) Fair enough. Not me.
4) Fair enough. Not me.

If we blurred the lines enough on point 2 (ie. exactly what constitutes worship) then by definition all people would become theists. I just don't see it as a useful definition, personally.
But if we leave it as sacred, I can see completely how you can worship things without tying yourself to supernatural causes. I can (equally) see how you can worship these things without rejecting supernatural causes as well.

So in short, I'd say your brand of theism doesn't make unsupportable claims, and therefore doesn't appear any more at odds with ignorance than my atheism.

*shrugs*

I dunno if that makes us equally brilliant, equally doomed, or I'm missing your point...lol

 

[serp777]

Don't worry lewis, everyone is just as ignorant in these regards, even if they deny it. No one has a hotline to God or gets special knowledge from him/her about the facts of reality.

The one thing about atheism is that I think it is categorized as the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, I would call you the same thing I call myself: an undetermined agnostic. It means you don't have a clue whether God exists and you don't claim to know the probabilities including whether God is likely or unlikely. Its not a stance saying its a 50-50 probability either. Quite frankly its the only reasonable position possible in the entire forum because nobody has the answers and therefore nobody can claim to have knowledge that I don't have access do, at least not reasonably.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are mistaken. You are using an incorrect definition of the term "theism". The "A" prefix means without, I agree. "Theism" is a BELIEF in the existence of God. Thus "atheism" is being without a belief in the existence of God.

Yes, the prefix a- negates, so for example "atypical" means "not typical". So "atheist" means "not theist", ie not having a belief in God.

 

[leibowde84]

To ignore....is ignorance.
and it is profound...as it comes from a willful intent.

"To ignore ... is ignorance."

- This is incorrect, due to the fact that ignoring information means that you have that information and are, thus, not ignorant or "without" said information. Just because the words have the same root, doesn't mean that they have the same meaning.

 

[Marisa]

Ignorance is simply the "lack of knowledge or information". How would those that "choose to ignore" be classified accurately as "ignorant".

In my book, those are the stupid people. But I'm guessing that Thief and I would classify what constitutes stupidity differently.

 

[Marisa]

That is no reason to be an atheist.

It's also no reason to be a theist.

For answer of the question as to how life began one should see what is latest from science.

With you so far.

For answers to the questions who created life and for what purpose, that is beyond science to inform anything.

Still hanging with you . . .

This is the domain of religions where truthful religions helps only.

And that's where you lose me and go full "god of the gaps". It's not proper to say "science cannot answer this question, therefore god". The fact that science has not answered a question yet does not mean that gods exists. If science never answers that question it still will not mean gods exist.

Atheism does not help to solve any of the above so there is no case of Atheism.

Given the history of religion, neither does religion. Therefore, I have no need of it. I am comfortable with "I don't know". You should try it.

Regards

Adios

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, the prefix a- negates, so for example "atypical" means "not typical". So "atheist" means "not theist", ie not having a belief in God.

Well-put. This thread was in response to one of my discussions with the OP. He erroneously thought that I was associating the prefix "a" with belief, but, in actuality, I was merely showing the necessary relationship between "theism" and "belief".

 

[leibowde84]

That is no reason to be an atheist. For answer of the question as to how life began one should see what is latest from science. For answers to the questions who created life and for what purpose, that is beyond science to inform anything. This is the domain of religions where truthful religions helps only.
Atheism does not help to solve any of the above so there is no case of Atheism.
Regards

You are making a huge asssuption there. Currently, the questions you associate with religion can't be satisfactorily answered via scientific means, but that is certainly not to say that things won't change in the future in regards to the extent of scientific inquiry. We don't know whether science will one day be able to answer those questions. Further, I don't think jumping to religious beliefs, settling an an answer that may or may not be true but is, nevertheless, not falsifiable is in the interest of intellectual progress.

 

[Quintessence]

First off, kudos on admitting your ignorance re: how life began. I am also pretty much uncaring, at this point.
We are commonly grounded in our ignorance, but ignorance isn't in any sense a negative, despite how some muppets would try and portray it.

The connotation of "ignorance" is overwhelmingly negative in our culture, and I think we should bear that in mind. Other than that, I think it's worth thinking about what creation mythology is really about. On the superficial level, a level that a fair number of people never move past thinking about, origin stories are about explaining the reasons for something. This is the manner of thinking about mythos that literalism originates from, but it is also the manner of thinking that ends up considering mythos as if it is some sort of proto-science. On the deeper level, what these stories are really about is conveying lessons about our relationship with the world around us, or how different parts of the world relate to each other. That manner of thinking is non-literal, and instead more aesthetic, symbolic, or ethical. Ideally, all who hold to creation mythos should move on to this way of understanding the stories, because it's that level that produces the deeper meaningfulness that is characteristic of a useful religion, or way-of-life/seeing.

By not tying yourself to any specific creation myth, you very much cast yourself into the more unusual type of theist. I know generalizations which don't account for your style of theism annoy you, and I completely get why (since I find inaccurate generalizations of atheists as damn frustrating). But I was kinda pitching a message to the masses.

Oh, I understand. You know I can't resist throwing a spanner into the works, though.

I think it would be worth investigating how "unusual" flexible approaches really are, though. Within my peer group, it's the norm. It's normal in contemporary Paganism, and it is normal in Unitarian Universalism, and it was even normal with respect to how my parents (both of whom hold to one of the Abrahamic religions) approached mythology. I know that for one of my parents, God represents the numinous qualities of existence, and that would stand regardless of creation mythos (this parent holds more to evolutionary science as "creation mythos" than the Bible in any case). Maybe that brings up another important point - how evolution fits into this. For the theists who accept evolution, it seems necessary that their acceptance of a god-concept into their lives would be less connected to their acceptance of mythic creation stories. Which again, may not be as uncommon as we sometimes think?

I dunno if that makes us equally brilliant, equally doomed, or I'm missing your point...lol

Both?

Really, the main point is to understand that there are many reasons why someone may or may not accept a god-concept into their lives. The more and more I've looked at it, the more and more it seems purely semantic, as shaped by the overculture. Beneath all the words and the language, it seems to me that the fundamental stuff we all do holds a common grounding. It expresses itself in all sorts of wild and wondrous ways, which are frequently not held in common, though. I think we fuss far too much over words sometimes, and I feel this urge to physically facepalm every time I see another one of those threads around here arguing about how theism-atheism are defined. Blargity blarg blarg blah...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"A" prefix means without. SOOO an A-theist is without a God.

Chart of English Language Roots - PrefixSuffix.com

No, because "theism" doesn't mean "God". It is a combination of "theos", meaning "God"; and the suffix "ism", meaning "belief". Theism therefore means "God-belief". As you say, adding a prefix of "a" means "without-", and so the full translated word means "without god-belief".

 

[1robin]

Finally something we can all agree on! @lewisnotmiller is ignorant.

I'm kinda loosely responding to some weird false equivalency stuff I've seen floating around here in the last month or two. Its always happened, but seems like flavour of the month in some ways.

So...

1) I haven't got much of a clue how life began.
2) I don't reckon you do either
3) Hence I'm an atheist

There. Simple, right? For any who aren't simply nodding along with my brilliantly succinct argument, I'll break down a few of it's points. Keep in mind that it's self-evidently true though. I am ignorant.
I'm also trying to deal with a serious topic in a light-hearted-ish manner, so we'll see how that plays. But anything to break the current cycle of miscommunication I seem to be seeing between 'different' groups.

FAQS

You're not an atheist, you're agnostic! You just admitted you haven't got a friggin' clue!!!

Me not having a clue is (frankly) self-evident. I have at times briefly wrestled with this question. But ultimately I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't prove there is no God, and frankly have no interest in doing so. I find God unlikely, but you can claim that's a position of faith if you like. That's fine with me, although I'd make the point then that not all 'faiths' are equal.

But what I find useless (at best) are any claims to know God, or to understand God, or to be able to predict the 'right' actions to take to please said God. I don't believe anyone holds this knowledge. I don't believe anyone knows how we were created. Therefore, atheist. God's existence, frankly, is almost un-involved in this decision. Please consider why I say that before rejecting what obviously looks like a nonsense at first glance. I have a strange sense of humour, but do have some measure of intelligence.

If you're ignorant, you're saying theism and atheism are equally likely.

First off, that's NOT a question, it's a statement. Please try and do better next time. Secondly, no, I'm not. When given a list of possible responses to a question, these should not falsely be considered equally likely. And when one of those answers is as flat out non-committal as atheism, you're kinda stacking the odds. I like stacked odds, so I'm placing my bet there.

Woah, there. Back it up. Since when is atheism non-committal?

Since...well...forever. The meaning has changed, but ultimately it only states what you don't believe. Originally, it was non-belief in certain paganisms, and now it commonly (but not universally) relates to non-belief in anthropomorphic Gods, although many atheists go further than this, obviously (including me, case you're wondering).

I blame the anti-theists here (kinda), but let's just put it on the table;
1) Atheism is a lack of theism, not a positive claim of ANYTHING
2) All atheists make positive claims of some sort. Even non-committal buggers like me. But that is atheists making claims. Atheism is NOT a claim.

I see weird conflations between atheism and science, atheism and rationalism, atheism and materialism, atheism and anti-religion...
These are, at best, over-generalizations.

Go back to that crap you wrote about atheism and stack odds. That made no sense at all.

Yeah, I just re-read it, and I haven't quite got my message down effectively. Let's look at it a slightly different way.
I am yet to meet a theist who doesn't make claims above and beyond mere theism. I mean, deists would be the closest, and I have almost no interest or inclination in debating them.
What I generally have issue with is not theism, but instead the various forms it takes. These forms make claims about how we should live. About what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. About how we were created. About who and what and why we should worship.

So, you are an anti-theist after all!!

Nope. See, religion is a culture transmitter, in my opinion. Culture isn't 'good' or 'bad'. Nobody is 'anti-culture'. But you can certainly be anti-certain cultures or aspects of culture, and that's kinda where I sit with religion.
Hopefully, for any who have persevered to this point despite thinking my characterization of religion was unfair, this is somewhat redeeming for me. I don't see religion as 'good' or 'bad'. I see it as a culture-carrier, and, just like culture, there are vast differences, and all sortsa different stuff I see as 'good' or 'bad'.

I would defend the right of Latvian Folk Dances to keep on truckin' despite having no interest in Latvian Folk Dancing.
But if they are baiting polar bears as part of the act, I'm probably changing my mind.

(Ultimately I'm a secularist.)

Meh. More to come as my brain vomits it up, I guess, but I'll leave it there. Feel free to shred my points as you see fit, but grumpiness is banned. I wanna see creative destruction of my ignorance here, people!!

I think you would be an agnostic. Atheism is the positive case that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the neutral case that you do not have enough evidence to be persuaded there is a God. If Atheism is not a positive claim then it is a redundant word and either it or Agnostic should be done away with. Ant-theism implies your resentful of the concept of God. I do no think that you are that one. Then of course to make a position seem less embarrassing or more emphatic people invent soft atheism, and hard atheism labels but I think that's overkill.

 

[leibowde84]

I think you would be an agnostic. Atheism is the positive case that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the neutral case that you do not have enough evidence to be persuaded there is a God. If Atheism is not a positive claim then it is a redundant word and either it or Agnostic should be done away with. Ant-theism implies your resentful of the concept of God. I do no think that you are that one. Then of course to make a position seem less embarrassing or more emphatic people invent soft atheism, and hard atheism labels but I think that's overkill.

Why do you think that terms such as these should not have overlapping meanings? Agnostics are atheists, by definition, because all that is required to be classified as an atheist is a "lack of belief in the existence of God", which agnostics surely do. There are many terms in the english language with overlapping meanings, and there is no requirement that atheism and agnosticism be mutually exclusive.

Agnostics make up a subcategory of Atheism just as Deists make up a subcategory of Theism. Agnosticism really does not battle atheism in any way due to the fact that agnosticism is based on a lack of or impossibility of knowledge, whereas atheism is based on a lack of belief.

 

[Marisa]

I think you would be an agnostic. Atheism is the positive case that God does not exist.

Oh lawsy . . .that tired old tripe again? Theism = the BELIEF that a god or gods exist. Atheism = the LACK OF A BELIEF that any god or gods exist. It is no more a positive statement than merely stating what you believe is.

Agnosticism is the neutral case that you do not have enough evidence to be persuaded there is a God.

Gnostic means what you know. Most agnostics (as pertains to religion) are so because they say that "god" has not been defined such that we can know what we are talking about.

If Atheism is not a positive claim then it is a redundant word and either it or Agnostic should be done away with. Ant-theism implies your resentful of the concept of God. I do no think that you are that one. Then of course to make a position seem less embarrassing or more emphatic people invent soft atheism, and hard atheism labels but I think that's overkill.

You may be interested to know that many atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists", meaning that have no knowledge that gods do not exist, but they do not believe that gods exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If Atheism is not a positive claim then it is a redundant word and either it or Agnostic should be done away with.

I don't see why this should be the case. Just because something is not a positive claim doesn't mean it isn't a position - lacking a belief and not making a claim are still positions with regards to a particular issue, just as finding a defendant in a case "not guilty" rather than a positive assertion of "innocent" is a perfectly viable conclusion to reach.

Ant-theism implies your resentful of the concept of God. I do no think that you are that one.

Actually, ant-theism is the belief in the almighty ant-god Pincerus Maximus, who rules the Universe from his cosmic hive.

I kid, of course.

To be honest, I've never really come across a particularly consistent definition of anti-theism. I'd define it as an opposition to theism (i.e: being against the idea of BELIEVING in God), while others seem to define it as the positive negation of theism (i.e: the BELIEF that there is no God). Unfortunately, it's yet another one of those terms in this debate that needs to be more accurately defined before it can be meaningfully debated as a concept. As if we didn't have enough of those already...

 

[leibowde84]

Oh lawsy . . .that tired old tripe again? Theism = the BELIEF that a god or gods exist. Atheism = the LACK OF A BELIEF that any god or gods exist. It is no more a positive statement than merely stating what you believe is.


Gnostic means what you know. Most agnostics (as pertains to religion) are so because they say that "god" has not been defined such that we can know what we are talking about.


You may be interested to know that many atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists", meaning that have no knowledge that gods do not exist, but they do not believe that gods exist.

I feel like this has already been explained to this contributer several times.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I quite like Dawkin's scale because it represents belief and disbelief as a continuum. I'm not sure about the validity of positions 1 and 7 though, since I don't understand how there can be that kind of certainty about God either way.

 

[leibowde84]

I quite like Dawkin's scale because it represents belief and disbelief as a continuum. I'm not sure about the validity of positions 1 and 7 though, since I don't understand how there can be that kind of certainty about God either way.

I agree. Anyone who claims to "know" that God exists is, in actuality, saying that they have a strong belief that God exists. "Knowing" that God exists is merely an illusion brought about by overconfidence.