An elucidation of the word "atheism"

[Orrex]

I speak for myself and on behalf of people whose opinions on the subject are consistent with mine (and who choose to agree with my assessment).

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief.

Atheism is not agnosticism. Agnosticism means that we humans can't know whether or not God exists. If God exists and is omnipotent, then he can certainly demonstrate his existence to me, and doing so won't violate my free will in the slightest.

Atheism does not mean that God doesn't or can't possibly exist. Instead, it means "I do not believe that God exists." The utter lack of evidence does not support the conclusion that God exists, therefore I can't conclude or believe that he does.

Atheism is not immorality. It simply posits that, absent clear evidence that God exists, that he is omnibenovelent, or that he is the source/arbiter of morality, then there is no basis for concluding that moral guidelines attributed to him are of any greater inherent value than any other moral code.

Atheism is not egotism. Many theists claim that the atheist wishes to "make himself God" or to make man the center of the universe. This is patently false. The atheist recognizes that humanity is a tiny fraction of the life on a tiny world in a small solar system in a big galaxy in a pretty darned huge universe. The atheist does not claim that a omnipotent father figure has a divine plan that includes each and every one of us, nor does the atheist claim that this father figure knows and loves each of us, nor does the atheist claim to have a personal relationship with the omnipotent father figure. That would be egotism.

Atheism is not a statement of finality. If future evidence justifies a change in view, then I will change my view.

There are plenty of other things that atheism is not, but I hope that this brief list affords us some measure of clarity.

Others are encouraged to offer their views, of course.

[Hissyspit]

1. While I agree with most of what you say, Orrex. Several points are

not fleshed out well enough or are oversimplified. George Smith posits more complex iteration of the concepts:

From "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George Smith, founder of Reason Magazine:


Agnostic Theist - not sure that know there is not a God

Gnostic Theist - knows there is a God without a doubt

Gnostic Atheist - knows for sure there is no God

Agnostic Atheist - not sure that they know that there is a God


theist - holds god belief

atheist - without god belief

gnostic - knowing

agnostic - not knowing


So, for instance, atheist to theist is not necessarily a linear scale from with agnostic in the middle. It is more complicated than that. Atheist means literally WITHOUT GOD BELIEF, Agnostic means NOT KNOWING, so in a sense an agnostic, because they are conscious that they don't know whether god or gods exist, is without god or gods, and is thus atheistic.

[Orrex]

2. Well sure, but...

If you ask ten people for a definition of "atheism," you'll get fifteen answers or more, none of them authoritative. The same goes for "agnosticism," though I suspect that you'd get at least twenty answers.

That's why I disclaimed that I speak only for myself and those who agree with me on the subject!

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. For many atheists, atheism *is* a belief system

A distinction can be made between "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. A "weak" atheists says, "I do not believe in any god." A "strong" atheist says, "There are no such things as gods." The first is a statement of personal belief. The second is a theological assertion no different than the assertion, "There is a god." And theological assertions are at the heart of a religious belief system.

:hi:

[Orrex]

5. Right--hence the disclaimer

:hi:

But I also take issue with the terms "strong" and "weak" in this context because, rhetorically speaking, the position of the "strong" atheist is weak and the position of the "weak" atheist is strong.

The argument of the "strong" atheist is an infinitely vast (ie., an absolute) claim and would be destroyed simply demonstrating that a god exists. The "strong" atheist's argument is rendered absurd the instant that the god shows up. This may be difficult in practical terms, but rhetorically it's a major flaw in the atheist's armor.

The argument of the "weak" atheist makes a small claim, is more difficult to refute, and is therefore stronger. You would need, in effect, to prove that I do believe despite my own claims and self-assessment. I don't even know how one might go about demonstrating this. For that matter, even proving that God exists doesn't touch the "weak" atheist's argument if the argument is simply "I do not worship any god."

[ozone_man]

6. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.

The strong atheist doesn't need to consider the existence of gods as a viable possibility in the same way that he doesn't need to consider unicorns as a viable possibility. He knows that no unicorns exist and can comfortably make the same assertion about gods. If there were even a stitch of evidence, that could change the situation, but there never has been.

This is partly just being practical. In order to live life in a functional way, we have to accept with certainty or assert many things. The assertion or knowing that there are no gods is just one of a vast number of assertions that are made throughout one's life. If we had to treat this vast number of things as being uncertain, we would probably never get through the day. Technically, I'd say that no one can prove there is no god, but practically speaking we can say with certainty that no god exists.

[Random_Australian]

13. I'd like to point out at this stage how often attempting for many people

the attempt to believe or feel emotions based on the most logical choice fails.

That is all! Not much to point out really.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I'd dispute that use of 'system'

A 'system' has to involve more than one thing, that relate to each other in some way, by definition. A single assertion, theological or not, is not a 'system'. Any religious belief system may have to have a theological assertion at its heart, but that does not mean all assertions belong to a system. I masy assert "eating people is wrong", but that doesn't make non-cannibalism a belief system.

[Random_Australian]

4. Indeed; Also note that atheism has not caused any of the wrongs of the

world.

To clarify (to head off a flamewar - and to avoid the criticism of my fellows as an extremist)

0) People who are atheists do bad things. Note both that A) I am talking about the non-belief system not the associated people and B) For this entire thing atheists are those of the beliefs outlined in the OP.

1) There were people like Stalin. Put people in groups, they dislike other groups. Simple. Atheism was used only to create a discernible difference between two groups, it's own lack-of-belief system does not have any intrinsic attributes, so no intrinsic violence.

2) There are people who are extremists. Some of those extremists are also atheists. All I am saying is that any correlation IS NOT A CAUSAL CORRELATION between the atheistic non-system and extremism. People are nuts for their own reasons.


Additional Disclaimer: I realised at this stage I ought to point out that this does not, in any way, imply that religion caused the worlds problems. There were a few witch-burning incidents that would not of happened, but in general people and not their chosen beliefs or choice not to believe is what does all the bad stuff.

Think about this a minute or two before posting please.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Well said.

We do tend to enjoy aha moments when we can make our generalizations and stereotypes. The problem is, for every little event we encounter, the world is made up of trillions more that would disprove our neat little packages. Inevitable given our limited perspective, I guess.


OT..Random, what is that thingie in your sig line?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. On second look, it is your avatar.

[Random_Australian]

25. It's a little personal symbol, for what I know as 'The 1st Barrier' -

for historical reasons it looked like that. I hold it very dear as it is my first real step forward in keeping mental illness under control. Until then I could hide it, yes, but not really do anything about what was screaming away inside my head.

Eventually, there became 28 such systems for the removal of hallucinations and delusions alone.

It looks like that because in order to think about my emotions and thoughts in a logical, detached way, and for many other reasons, I needed to split my own mind. At first I did it into 2, but it wasn't stable, it wouldn't work. That was the closest I have ever been to losing everything, but by stroke of luck I stumbled upon a three part system. It worked, it worked, and that was my first step toward the wholesale reclamation of my mind. The line splits it into 3, with a little space left for the nucleide - just something that independantly kept track of how active and dominant each of the three were when I remade who I was from a variable combination of the three. The parts are affectionately named (After Supercomputer that were named after the Biblical figures) Balthasar (The logical one) Melchoir (The philosophical one) and Caspar (The social one)... and my default was B:C:M 30:86:20. Ugh! Having ones mind set up like a filing cabinet was necessary, but very unpleasant.

Lots of stuff has happened in the meantime. And I left out lots of details above. I am now stable with the exception that I cannot drink alcohol - I have not and never will, actually. And I get a little hypomanic, but that is not so bad. I don't mind.

Nice avatar by the way!

Edit: Spelling.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. I completely understand

your compartmentalization. I have some challenges in this area myself and this seems like a good concrete representation. And hypomania I am very familiar with.

Good luck to you. I've enjoyed meeting you.

[Random_Australian]

27. Same! It isn't every day you see a Christian walk into the Atheist and

Agnostic forum and offer us tea and cookies - let me tell you, after that hell of a week it was one of the lovlier things any believer could do.

:yourock:

Goodnight for real this time, I am up past my bedtime!

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. May I? There are so many threads on this subject, I'd like to say this

again. I first posted this about a year ago, but this is how i define myself:

I am Atheist. This is something I have no doubt of, nor do I have any shame of or offer any apologies for. But terms require definitions and the term “Atheist” is often misunderstood and has different meanings for different individuals. I searched “Atheism” in online dictionaries and got these results;

The Oxford Dictionary says Atheism is
• noun- the belief that God does not exist.

The Cambridge Dictionary ONLY gave a definition for “Atheist” and said this:
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

Dictionary.com says this:
1)
a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b) The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2)Godlessness; immorality.


And Merriam Webster says this:
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : "ungodliness", "wickedness"
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

At times we are free to define words as we see fit and at others we must not. “Cold” is variable and relative. A “Metal” MUST exhibit the qualities of something metallic.

The above definitions for Atheism however, seem to me to include an opinion that makes me not only uncomfortable but in total disagreement, with the notable exception of #1, (b) from Dictionary.com which was drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary.

The word "Atheist" is simply this:
“A” = Without (From the original Greek)
“Theos” = God (From the same)
An Atheist is someone who has no gods and Atheism is that doctrine of no gods or merely godlessness.
THIS is what I am. I am NOT someone who “believes there is no god” I REJECT the idea that my position is somehow a belief in the absence of something.

Why should you, Dear Reader, give a rat’s ass how I choose to define my particular point of view on this subject? I’ll tell you. Because too many times I and others like me are categorized as Webster, in the “Archaic” line suggests, being somehow consumed with “Wickedness”. The idea that I have no god makes me somehow less able to be decent and caring and charitable, as if I needed a god in my life in order to ensure I would be a good boy. It sickens me.

It was pointed out to me in another thread a few weeks back that I could not possibly know whether or not any and all gods in any and all planes, metaphysical and otherwise were non-existent. I agree. So for the purposes of this monologue I stipulate that it is SPECIFICALLY THE GOD OF ABRAHAM AND ISAAC as defined in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic literature that describes it that I am “Without”. The concept of a thinking, calculating, vengeful, manipulative, all powerful, all knowing transcendent super deity that has created all the heavens and the earth and yet is intensely interested in where I might put my penis is something I place in the EXACT same category as pixies, faeries, trolls, leprechauns and unicorns. It is a mythical construct that to me bears no resemblance to anything “God-Like” at all. Rather it seems to be the personification of what many humans would like to think of themselves as. It is hubris in the utmost for humans to have created a god to worship that created them for the sole purpose of worshipping it and it is conveniently nasty enough to rain bad things down on those OTHER humans they don't like that DON’T worship it.

This begs an obvious question. “What do you believe in?
Well, I believe in the Cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the ......oops...that's “Bull Durham”...sorry.

I believe in Human Beings! I believe in the extraordinary power of conviction to an ideal. Charity. Compassion. I believe in love. I think true love changes people for the better and can do amazing things. I believe in the power of the mind to create. I believe in the ability of mankind to be compassionate to the extent that one might risk his own life to save the life of a complete stranger. I believe that there is a greater good that we should all strive for, that being simply to CARE FOR AND ABOUT YOUR FELLOW HUMANS! This greater good does not require the guidance of or direction by the supernatural nor does it require the threat of eternal damnation for the ethically minded to institute.

It is my opinion that as an Atheist I must hold myself to a higher standard. I have no god to beg forgiveness should I fall below my own expectations of myself. I have no desire for or do I expect or demand some sort of fantastic eternal reward because I think a certain way but act another. Describing my shortcomings or aberrant behavior and then expecting to be relieved of guilt is no ticket to immortality for me. My standards for my own behavior are guided by my own personal ethic. My sense of duty to my own mind and the duty to my species and my planet tends to define this ethic. If this is “The Golden Rule” so be it, but Jesus was not the 1st to make that obvious point and it is something a child learns the first time he gets hit back after striking a sibling. The downside of doing bad things to others is that others can do bad things to you. It strikes me that many bad things are said and done by many people in this world with a supposedly “holy” book close at hand.

I am the Republicans worst nightmare!
I am a liberal, Atheistic Humanist with a staunch desire for church-state separation, pro-choice, pro-child, pro-labor, pro-woman, pro-gay rights, pro-education, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti-war Straight-but-not-narrow white male American who thinks the government AND (its) god should get the fuck out of my personal life.

In other words, A HERETIC!

Regards.



Again, i REJECT the definition of Atheism as "One who has no god belief". Leave the word "Belief" out of that sentence and we're fine. I am Atheist. I have no gods. Plain and simple.

[Ron Green]

10. Since I define God as Love, and since you believe in Love, I would then

say you believe in God.

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. Define love for me then, please.

Not trying to start an argument, just trying to define terms.

Does this love you speak of think? Is it calculative? Retributive? Manipulative? Vengeful?

If not, then it isnt god as i suggest above.

And i am still Atheist

[Ron Green]

12. Love is none of the adjectives you name, and therefore neither is God.

I believe that anyone who imagines a vengeful or calculating God is mistaken.

It's quite simple: If God is infinite, then nothing truly exists outside of God. What we know as fear, hatred, enmity... all of those... are simply a misapprehension of people who think they are separate from God. To be separate from God is not possible (if God is infinite); therefore all of these "negative" things are illusions. God is love - the absence of God is fear. Therefore, fear is an illusion.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. Ok...then answer me this -

Is this god of which you speak a personification of something?

This is the problem. You said

"If God is infinite, then nothing truly exists outside of God. What we know as fear, hatred, enmity... all of those... are simply a misapprehension of people who think they are separate from God."

Does this god (love?) have a personality?

There are plenty of things that are infinite. Half of a half of a half and so on. Space.


Please, once again, define "Love" and as a result, define this god you speak of.

Or, you could be honest with me (and yourself) and posit that you can't truly define that which you are trying to convince me exists

[Random_Australian]

15. Sorry to interject, but I'm a bit of a detail Nazi - space is finite but

unbounded.

*ahem* *crickets* *tumbleweed*

Ok look at it this way, at least you won't use it later and have some idjit tell you you are wrong (with the implication you do not know what you are talking about).

If you were referring to infinite subdivisions, then that still may not be the case. We need a UFT/GUT/TOE to answer that and we don't have it yet.

[Ron Green]

17. Of course you don't have to accept what I'm saying.

As far as a personality, no, of course not. A personality is a differentiated and finite thing. God, as I understand "him," is neither differentiated nor finite. We as separate egos, personalities, bodies, are time- and space-bound here on earth for our few years, but our true nature, as I believe it, is love. That's how we find God, by finding each other and overcoming the natural fear that's part of our finitude (finiteness?) Anyway, I don't agree that I'm not being honest with you or with myself. If you accept an Infinity, and a Unity, then it's easy to accept that we truly are God, but temporarily living in fear and separation (although, as I said before, these are illusions.)

[bluesbassman]

21. Does God have a personality?

I don't know. But I know He has a sense of humor. If you don't believes me try this; Take off all you clothes, stand with your back to a full length mirror and look over your shoulder.:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

16. Flipside: If God is Love, then Love is God, then no commandments,

No Bible, no cloud-sitting moustache twirler, no immortal soul, just love.

Fair enough.

I suspect, however, this was not your intent. Please clarify if that is the case.

[Ron Green]

18. Exacly. The commandments, Bible, etc. are just things that people in their

fear and ignorance must have.

[Random_Australian]

19. What then, will lead us from ignorance, if not collecting the elucidated

insights of people over the centuries?

;)

I'm quite curious as to the answer (in a non-flamey way, I'm an atheist personally)

[Ron Green]

20. Those very things will lead some people from ignorance. There's much

wisdom in scripture, as well as justification for harm. People on the lower end of the Kohlberg scale need some pretty concrete advice to tame their passions. Those with more advanced moral reasoning naturally leave "commandments" behind and find more proactive ways to love other people, I believe.

[bloom]

29. I think that there are reasonable ways

(that are associated with REASON) that liberally religious, non-dogmatic people can choose to think of "God". As you described.


And maybe each person should just give their concept a different name. Because I think a lot of people end up arguing over what they assume is someone else definition. Like the people who assume that people think of "God" as being like a person.

I think the BIble is poetry and history written by people - and that a lot of religious people don't even get that. THEY are the ones who make conversations about religion with anti-religionists so complicated.


Can you imagine if people took Emily Dickinson or eecummings literally? It'd be crazy.

[SPKrazy]

30. I Have Similar Beliefs To You I Think

although not identical

but interesting food for thought

thanks

[catbert836]

8. Thank you.

I don't think the people who most need to read this will bother, though. That's why we have so many freakin' flame wars in R/T. People just can't stop defining others' beliefs/non-beliefs for them.

[NMMNG]

9. Well said

:applause:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Very insightful

and enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

[greyl]

31. Excellent. All searches on "atheism" should find this thread. However,

why the dissassociation with agnosticism?

[varkam]

32. I think

It's just that the atheist frame work doesn't really address the whole knowledge issue - it's only concern is belief. In my view, it's perfectly coherent to be both an agnostic and an atheist (or a theist, for that matter). Even an agnostic strong atheist - one who positively asserts there are no Gods, but realizes - epistemologically speaking - s/he cannot know one way or the other.

[greyl]

33. So, someone who says "knowledge of god or no god is not there to be found"

is what?

[varkam]

34. An agnostic.

But then there's the additional component of belief, which is where atheism comes in, IMHO.

[Strong Atheist]

35. Mostly agreed, except for....

... well...

...you know ...

[Orrex]

37. Absolutely! (nt)

[cosmik debris]

36. That's nice, but. . .

One overriding point needs to be made.

The only thing all atheist have in common is that theist disagree with us.

That is why theists label us, group us, define us, and generalize about us. That is why they expect us to live up to their labels, stay in their groups, concur with their definitions, and confirm the validity of their generalizations.

The only statement that all atheists agree to is: "I don't believe."

Any attempt by theists to ascribe other characteristics or beliefs is invalid and offensive. It is akin to saying that all Black people like watermelon. It is obviously false and spoken from a position of ignorance.

Many of the Christians here hate it when they are compared to Falwell or Dobson, but they don't seem to understand that they make the same error of logic when they compare any two atheists.

In short, If you don't want me to define your beliefs, please don't define mine.