|
Post by pinchbeck on Nov 23, 2011 11:53:36 GMT
Atheism could be interpreted like this...
No-god ism. Implying a belief in no god.
Or...
No god-ism. Implying that it's not a belief in god.
Should the word atheism be replaced?
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 23, 2011 12:01:23 GMT
Atheism is already defined, so there's no need to try and redefine it.
Theism is the belief that a god exists.
Atheism is simply the lack of that belief.
That's all there is to it.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 24, 2011 0:05:27 GMT
There's no reason to replace the word atheist.
I think that no matter what terms we decide on, we're going to end up having to define our labels up front before we have a conversation. As such, I don't really see much of a point in moving beyond the label of atheist.
|
|
|
Post by sitelmun on Nov 24, 2011 17:27:15 GMT
Atheism could be interpreted like this... No-god ism. Implying a belief in no god. Or... No god-ism. Implying that it's not a belief in god. Should the word atheism be replaced? I din't think it needs replacing. The first definition is good enough.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 30, 2011 19:22:57 GMT
Atheism is already defined, so there's no need to try and redefine it. Theism is the belief that a god exists. Atheism is simply the lack of that belief. That's all there is to it. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Jan 25, 2012 2:53:01 GMT
Atheism is already defined, so there's no need to try and redefine it. Theism is the belief that a god exists. Atheism is simply the lack of that belief. That's all there is to it. In part, I agree - atheism is simply the lack of god-belief. If you don't believe, then you are atheist. But that's not all there is to it. There are atheists, and then there are atheists . . . Whilst to be an atheist means to lack a belief in any god(s), how a particular person comes to be in that state may vary. If you are not a THEIST, then you are an ATHEIST, where the prefix "A" simply means "NOT". But some people's atheism is the end point of a consideration of the available evidence/arguments and . . . based on that, they have decided to forego believing in "God" or any gods. On the other hand, a new born baby is not a theist, and so qualifies as an atheist, in a passive non-informed sense. Thus they are not informed atheists, but simply atheists by default. Again, if you are considering the Abrahamic variants of "God", there are still some adults in this world, who are have not heard about those so-called gods of Abraham. These tribes exist in New Guinea, and the Amazon. As far as theists go, these tribe members should be considered atheists, (though for all I know they may believe in other gods - then they'd be heathens I guess). Such remote and uninformed humans have not rejected the gods espoused by Christianity, Islam or Judaism. They too are not considered atheist, (they have not been in a position to consider the matter). People who have considered the prospect of the existence of "God", (the supposed-to-exist Abrahamic one(s)), may arrive at atheism, and belong to one of three classes: strict agnostics, weak atheists and strong atheists. Strict agnostics hold that the question of the existence of "God" is unanswerable, and so they are not theists. Weak atheists find no good reason to believe in "God", and so do not subscribe to theism. Strong atheists are adamant that "God" does not exist. The weak atheist lives life as though "God" does not exist; (I am one). I do not hold to any of the theistic teachings, and so do not believe in heaven, hell, the success of praying, the miracles claimed by religions, and so on. I don't fear hell, nor strive for heaven. I do not look to any god to answer the question of what is moral and what is not.
The weak atheist says: "I have found absolutely no good reason whatsoever to believe that a god exists, and live by that." *
The strong atheist says: "I have considered the evidence and arguments, and based on the complete lack of evidence, or any valid argument, there is no god!" * I don't take Pascal's wager.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 25, 2012 7:37:08 GMT
Does that flowchart imply that you are certain/uncertain that you don't believe in god? If so, it is meaningless. The other interpretation is that you are certain/uncertain about the existence of god, in which case it is meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 25, 2012 7:39:15 GMT
Atheism could be interpreted like this... No-god ism. Implying a belief in no god. Or... No god-ism. Implying that it's not a belief in god. Should the word atheism be replaced? No, that is in fact wrong. It doesn't imply a belief in lack of god, it implies a lack of belief in a god. There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 25, 2012 12:22:46 GMT
According to the above flowchart, which I agree with, atheism can be a belief just as much as theism. For example, a weak theist is inclined to think that there's probably a god, a strong theist absolutely believes that there is a god, a weak atheist is inclined to think that there's probably no god, and a strong atheist absolutely believes in a godless universe. But really it's all belief, it's just a matter of degree, because let's face it, beliefs are subject to emotion.
But at what point does someone cross the line from weak to strong? The truth is that there is no line, there is nothing really that separates a weak theist / atheist from a strong one. So it's really a matter of how strongly one feels. For example, a person who doesn't care if there's a god is unlikely (to say the least) to be a strong atheist. We tend to feel strongly about things that we consider relevant or important. Many atheists disapprove of the christian god, and because they have no other conception of god, they become atheists. In reality, we all form our views about god based largely on how we feel about the subject, and then we rationalize.
Evidence pertains to conviction, and believing is seeing, and disbelieving (believing in the opposite) is not seeing. Perhaps the only way to get to the truth is to have a willingness to get past ourselves and let the evidence (or evidence of the opposite) speak to us directly. This is why I think meditation can be useful. Our conscious minds are always busy rationalizing and supporting our preconceptions, the reason being that having a stable belief system (which includes what we do not believe) is a form of survival, and our conscious minds are there to help us survive. This is what we need to get past.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Jan 25, 2012 17:51:44 GMT
We do not know what babies believe or do not believe about god. Assuming that they do not believe anything in particular is a reasonable belief, given the assumption that there is not a personally interested god, but if there were a personally interested god it would be a reasonable assumption to believe that he imparts us with belief upon birth. That would be the benevolent thing to do given that without belief he damns us. Taking that assumption atheists and agnostics would be convinced of the lack of sufficient reason for belief at some point after birth.
We can no more know if a baby believes in god than we can know if there is a god. It is not something which we are currently capable of measuring.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 25, 2012 18:29:50 GMT
According to the above flowchart, which I agree with, atheism can be a belief just as much as theism. For example, a weak theist is inclined to think that there's probably a god, a strong theist absolutely believes that there is a god, a weak atheist is inclined to think that there's probably no god, and a strong atheist absolutely believes in a godless universe. I agree. No, it is not about belief. It is about believe and lack of belief. Weak atheists don't believe. Not believing is not a belief in and of itself. I would direct you to the excellent video I posted in another thread to address this very misconception. I think it was directed specifically at you there too. There is a clear line defining strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism asserts that there is no god, just as strong theism asserts that there is a god. weak atheism is not as assertive, and demands further evidence, and has not formed any belief regarding the existence of god until such evidence presents itself. Weak atheists don't believe a god exists. That is, they have not formed a belief about the existence of god. I find it truly surprising that many people cannot see the distinction between "I believe" and "I don't believe." One is an assertion (or claim), one is a response. I agree except that not believing is not a rationalization, it is logical and reasonable. Again, here you make the mistake of equating disbelief to belief in the opposite. As I explained to you in excruciating detail elsewhere, if you say 2+2 =5, and I don't believe (or disbelieve) you, it doesn't automatically prove that I believe 2+2 = 6, rather, it means that I will believe your claim that 2+2 = 5 once you prove it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 25, 2012 22:36:43 GMT
Flyingteapot,
You don't need to explain about the difference between believing and not believing. We've been here before, what I'm saying is that nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. So, if you don't believe in god, then you must, you necessarily must, believe in an alternative. We're only human, the idealised state of neutrality that you keep coming back to simply doesn't exist. Not for us. When presented with the proposition of god (whatever god means, but that's another matter) you either believe that it exists, or you believe that it is absent. As I mentioned in the other thread some days ago, the issue of a creator is not a meaningless, petty one. The implications either way are massive. That's why I don't believe anybody who says that they occupy some neutral territory in which no beliefs exist. Atheists believe in a godless universe. Whether that belief is a weak one (you're open to changing your mind) or a strong one (you're not open, ie you're a gnostic atheist) is another matter.
I didn't say that disbelieving is a rationalization and I can't see where you've gotten the idea that I even implied it. What I said is that you, an atheist, have a belief in a godless universe, and you rationalize. I, a theist, believe that it exists, and I rationalize. Along the way we may come across some objective evidence (or not, depends how philosophical you want to get) but our beliefs are not as objectively based as far too many people make out. I see it as a cycle. Seeing = believing = seeing = believing etc. Or, believing = seeing = believing = seeing etc. It's not as if materialism isn't a philosophy.
Your disbelief in my hypothetical view that 2+2=5 doesn't prove that you believe anything else specifically (such as 2+2=6). But it proves that there is another belief that occupies the space where, for me, the answer to the equation is 5. I believe that there's a god. Do you? If you don't, then I'm sorry but you have a belief system in which either there's a god, or there's an alternative, and for you it's an alternative (whatever that may be). There's no "no belief". Logically, that neutral zone exists in the sense that we can talk about it. But in reality, it just doesn't. Not for us. And I highly doubt that anyone would occupy that territory even if it did.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 25, 2012 23:31:23 GMT
Flyingteapot, You don't need to explain about the difference between believing and not believing. We've been here before, what I'm saying is that nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. So, if you don't believe in god, then you must, you necessarily must, believe in an alternative. Well, actually you brought up the best metaphor to explain my (and many others') atheism. Vacuum, is the lack of anything. What you are saying is vacuum must have something if it doesn't have air. That is fallacious logic. If you want to present your opinion, please go ahead, but don't pretend it is logical. Clinging to an old saying to uphold your statements is hardly logical and kind of desperate IMO. Again, this is your opinion. You refuse to believe my atheism can exist even though I am telling you what I believe. I also gave you a link to a video which explains my position. You seem strangely intractable. I give up. There is a third choice. I don't know. In fact, that is the default choice. As I explained elsewhere, the real question is where did we come from? God is one of many possible answers. Again, I explained this to you with an example. You refuse to acknowledge my examples and explanations and keep telling me what I believe is impossible. Again, not true. You seem to be confused as to what atheism means. Atheists don't believe the claim that god exists. I have not formed an opinion yet about how the universe came into existence. I am unconvinced. Why do I have to take either your side or the other side? Maybe you should try to wrap your head around the fact that there could be many reasons for our existence, and not just goddidit. I dont have any such belief. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is the most extraordinary display of recalcitrance that I have seen in a long time. you are either intentionally ignoring my statements regarding what I think, or are unable to understand my thoughts. Wither way, are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to my opinions. Nope. Not a logically sound argument. Example: To say that "since there is no red carpet occupying that floor, it means there must be a something else occupying that space" is logically fallacious. It could be that there is nothing in that space. It could be that it is just a naked floor with nothing on it. If you say so. Don't present this as fact though. If you think this, then it is your opinion. Doesn't make it true. It is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Okay. That is your opinion. You keep presenting your opinion as "reality" and "facts".
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 26, 2012 0:12:47 GMT
We agree on what a vacuum is. You're claiming that your belief / disbelief system contains a vacuum as far as the existence or otherwise of god. I'm saying that I don't buy that. It's not that I disbelieve that you are an atheist, no not at all, what I'm saying to you is that an atheist's disbelief in god indicates the presence of an alternative belief. If a room isn't full, then it's empty, if it's not empty, then it's full. It can't be neither empty nor full.
Yes I agree that there is the possibility of "I don't know". "I don't know" means that there is no particular belief which you're prepared to stand by to any signifacant degree. But then again, "I don't know" can literally be meaningless given that you can be gnostic yet not really know. Let's face it, terms like gnostic and agnostic refer to our own personal degree of certainty and not to actual truth. You can think you know yet not know. Or, your opinion may be correct yet you might not really actually know it for sure. All we can do is express degrees of certainty.
You say that you're unconvinced that there's a god. Why aren't you convinced? What belief is stronger for you? What beliefs, if there's more than one? None at all? That is what I don't buy, that there is none. Being unconvinced doesn't equate to coming from absolutely nowhere at all. If I concinved you, it would have to involve me demonstrating that the belief in god is far stronger than something else. I can't convince you to go from nowhere to y. It has to be from x to y. You're claiming that there is no x, I just don't buy that. I'm not claiming that if there's no red carpet (to you) then there must be a lampshade. I'm saying that if there's no red carpet then there cannot be nothing instead.
Believe it or not I think this discussion is productive. It's going well as far as I'm concerned. I'm not ignoring your statements and I do understand your thoughts and I don't mean to insult you although it may seem that way to you. It's just that I disagree, and yes, it's my opinion. It can't be helped. Our worldviews are very different. All I hope is that if nothing else we can at least learn about how the other side thinks. To me this isn't about convincing anyone, it's about gaining insight. This conversation to me is an exercise in doing that. I'm not taking it at face value. Everything you're telling me is helping me to understand what makes an atheist tick and I like to think that what I'm saying to you is giving you a glimpse of my thought processes. It's like a lot of conversations, it's not so much about what is being said or what is or isn't true, it's more about the act of conversing.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 26, 2012 1:31:18 GMT
Come back when you really understand what words such as atheism, agnosticism, gnosis etc mean. You are redefining the words to suit your own purposes
|
|