SOME dictionaries actually define atheism as “the belief that no gods exist”…so there is not unanimity of opinion on how it IS used. — Frank Apisa
You havent demonstrated a very deep understanding of the word, certainly your use of “CLEARLY” Is erroneous here. — DingoJones
If it was clear from the epistemology alone you wouldnt need to bring it up.
You also fail to justify claims you make, such as that defining atheism as lacking belief in god is an insult to reason and logic. How?
Even if you think thats the wrong definition, that doesnt mean its an insult to logic and reason. Anyway, I have some questions if your actually interested in a discussion.
First, you didnt provide a definition of what you think atheism is, so lets hear that.
Also, What is the difference, in your mind, between “being without a god” and “being without a belief in god?”. Im curious to know what being without god would even mean if not being about belief.
Hi Frank!
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but thought that the quoted definition was intriguing. Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion. — 3017amen
So, if someone says: Atheism is just another Religion, would they be incorrect?
Such an emotionally charged issue I know. However, the irony for the Atheist is that if emotive phenomena is metaphysical in nature, they need to reconcile the paradoxical nature of their own said emotional belief system from the lack thereof.
:roll:“being without a god” ... lacking a belief (in) god ... “the belief that no gods exist” — Frank Apisa
Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion — 3017amen
Atheism is NOT a religion...but for the most part it IS a "belief system." — Frank Apisa
↪Frank Apisa
I asked what YOU think atheism means, not anything about atheists you know and how they may or may not describe themselves...or about how you choose to describe them using theistic semantics
I would like a clear, concise definition for atheism from you. Im asking you that because I want to know if I agree with your definition and to keep this from going into the weeds. Please, just give me a short, concise definition without reiterating your problem with some peoples use of the term.
My second question may have been a bit clumsy, so lets just start with my first one. It will be easier to communicate if we keep things short and to the point, dealing with one thing at a time. — DingoJones
↪Frank Apisa
Here's my thoughts.
Over the years, I've seen many pointless debates about the meaning of the term "atheist". For example, I've encountered Christians who insist that to be an "atheist", one must hold the belief:no god(s) exist, and argue that "lack of belief in god" doesn't mean much (they counter: "I'm a theist because I lack belief in God's non-existence"). Their motivation seems to be a desire to argue against a strawman.
I therefore think the the term should be only be used to convey a general, vague sense of a person's position. One should make no specific assumptions about what any self-labelled atheist means. It's fair to assume he probably doesn't think there is a God, in the traditional sense of the term. If you want to know more specifically what he believes, set the label aside and ask.
BTW, as a point of trivia, the Roman empire labelled Christians as "atheist", because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. — Relativist
Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion
— 3017amen
Atheism is NOT a religion...but for the most part it IS a "belief system."
— Frank Apisa
Like disbelief that Santa is real is a belief system?
Like a clean bill of health is a disease?
• absence of theism: newborns, the Pirahã people, some pygmies, ...
• doubt/disbelief in theisms: some pagans, some panpsychists, Hitchens, Russell, ... — jorndoe
Are you saying that there are no gods? — Frank Apisa
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons — DingoJones
I'm not real clear on the question, other than any proposition or judgment represents some form of belief/system — 3017amen
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.) — Frank Apisa
“Atheist”, it should be noted, was introduced to the English language BEFORE theist…so it could not have been derived the way some atheists want to insist, by “a” (without) + “theist” (a “belief” in a god) = without a “belief” in a god.) — Frank Apisa
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” — Frank Apisa
What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.) — Frank Apisa
This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic. — Frank Apisa
I'm an atheist insofar as I claim that 'theism is not true'.An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa
Frank Apisa
Ya, thats just theistic semantics, calling a lack of belief a belief to draw a false equivalence so they can shift the burden of proof. You aren’t doing that, but you are making the same error.
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons, and/or who are anti-theists and atheists but fail to make the correct distinction between the two. Those people are just one kind of atheist, and there are all kinds of different atheists...what they have in common is a lack of belief in god/gods, thats it. Thats what defines atheism. You want to change the definition because you do not want to be in the same category as people I imagine you find obnoxious about thier atheism.
Anyway, if I lack a belief in god then the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is “no”, correct? — DingoJones
Where B is the operator for belief, you can be without or with beliefs for proposition p:
1. someone does not believe p: ¬Bp
2. someone believes not p: B[¬p]
3. someone does not believe not p: ¬B[¬p]
4. someone believes p: Bp
Those are the possibilities in doxastic logic.
2 and 4 contradict (with). 1 and 3 do not contradict (without). 1 and 4, 2 and 3, contradict (with and without). 2 entails 1, and 4 entails 3 (with belief entails without belief in the contrary, and the converse does not hold). Each can be exemplified, they're jointly exhaustive of belief and the proposition, and no two are identical.
Differentiating a couple categories:
the elaborate religions with scriptures and stories of supernaturals, rituals, commands, fate designations, fulltime professional advertisers, often apologists earning a living from writing thereof, mutual inconsistencies, etc
unassuming deism, non-descript panpsychism, some varieties of Buddhism, entertaining some sort of (unknown) superbeing(s), etc
The latter is typically of less concern, and epistemically more on par with The Matrix, Bostrom's hypothesis, Zhuangzi's butterfly, Māyā of Indian fame, deus deceptor, dream thought experiments, Kafkaesque silent hidden superbeings, perhaps even solipsism, you name it. (Maybe Spinozism?)
"Whereof one cannot speak ..." and all that? — jorndoe
Seems the term atheism is commonly used about someone technically agnostic towards the latter, and with doubt/disbelief in the former.
Are you saying that there are no gods?
— Frank Apisa
I was suggesting that absence of theism and doubt/disbelief therein does not comprise a belief system (any more than disbelief that Santa is real does).
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god”
— Frank Apisa
The α is certainly privative. But the word you need to attend to is the ό θεός. Of course even if atheist were only just an English word, you'd still have to account for the meaning of its parts - if you're serious. But like everyone, you take the understanding of the meaning of the word "God" for granted, and that means that you can make all the noise you like, but based on your beginning, you're not saying anything. — tim wood
0 P
An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? — Relativist
A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).
My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.
Babies are very much the perfect atheists. For them, the question of God(s) - like every other question of course - is simply unintelligible. As it should be. The tragedy of it is that most are brought up to believe that the very question makes sense at all. Shame. — StreetlightX
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.)
— Frank Apisa
Of course it was always about belief. Wait, unless there are KNOWN god(s) I haven't been told about?
Just because people in the past KNEW there was a god(s), doesn't mean we can't KNOW that their knowledge was actually just belief. — ZhouBoTong
This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic.
— Frank Apisa
Wait, so someone who lacks belief is a theist? Whatever else we add to "atheist", "not a theist" seems accurate, no?
I guess then we are just arguing whether all non-theists are atheists...so, then we are just arguing whether there is room for a third option (and once we admit a third we should probably admit an infinite spectrum of possibilities). And this will just boil down to semantics and our interpretations of words.
Atheists would leave the agnostics alone if they didn't often sound like theists who are just unsure of which god(s) to believe in :razz:
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.