PDA

View Full Version : Atheism for the Unaware.



hooked4life
05-05-2009, 01:45 PM
I've now seen a couple threads going on and on and on about how 'atheism takes more faith than blah blah blah.'

I also see this parroted by a lot of conservative talking heads.

I'm sick of it. Now, I'll admit, seeing as Atheism carries no teachings, church, pope or holy people telling 'us' what to believe so some variants on a theme exist. However, having said that, a very common definition is as follows.

Atheism: Lack in belief of god/gods.

This is not making a statement about truth, it takes no faith and it is open to change subject new information.

This is what I believe. I invite anyone else who feels as I feel to say so in this thread.

A nice long(but not overly long) article on different takes of non-belief can be found at
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html.

Anyone coming in and telling me/us that this takes faith is either 1) Incredibly stupid 2) Distorting facts to fulfill other ends 3) Both.

outlikeatrout
05-05-2009, 01:48 PM
I've now seen a couple threads going on and on and on about how 'atheism takes more faith than blah blah blah.'

I also see this parroted by a lot of conservative talking heads.

I'm sick of it. Now, I'll admit, seeing as Atheism carries no teachings, church, pope or holy people telling 'us' what to believe so some variants on a theme exist. However, having said that, a very common definition is as follows.

Atheism: Lack in belief of god/gods.

This is what i believe. I invite anyone else who feels as I feel to say so in this thread.

A nice long(but not overly long) article on different takes of non-belief can be found at
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html.

Anyone coming in and telling me/us that this takes faith is either 1) Incredibly stupid 2) Distorting facts to fulfill other ends 3) Both.

Make this a sticky. I've had more than one thread degrade because the atheists were squabbling amongst themselves about exactly what atheism is. Nevermind the theists.

Queequeg
05-05-2009, 02:06 PM
The problem is even Webster dictionary gives 2 very distinct definitions

"atheism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"

defination "a" is what you are describing and what I think most people who claim to be athiests follow. I think this is primarily because a lot of these people are from scientific background and work to the reasoning that lack of evidence =/= proof but similarly will not have confidence in a concept if there is no logical reason to

definition "b" is agrueably a faith because it up holds the ideaology that god positively dosn't exist with no reference to its rational.

I personally prefer definition "b" because if you use defination "a" non thiests are automatically athiests by default leaving no room for pure agnostism. Defination "a" blurs the line between Agnotsic and Atheist.

In an attempt to clarify this the terms "Agnostic Athiest" and Agnostic Thiest" are often used but since gostisism refers to knowledge in this case of God existance, a topic on which certainity can never be obtained you are Agnostic by default. This in turn subjects theist and atheist to belief status once again.

In an attempt to find a solution to this I would propose the following terms;

Thiest

Agnostic Athiest = definition "a" (equivelant to your definition)

Hard Atheist = definition "b"

Agnotsic

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 02:10 PM
Fantastically pathetic post.

I went out of my way to assert multiple definitions exist. I explained why this might be. I asserted my belief was only one of multiple. I provided a link to a discussion about them.

But NOOOOO, you need to come in and tell me what I can/can't call myself.

Negged.

user5145
05-05-2009, 02:14 PM
Thank you.

Faith is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence. If you believe in some scientific phenomenon about which there are mountains of evidence, you do not need faith. In the same sense, you do not need evidence to lack a belief, only to have one. You don't need faith to lack a belief in UFO's, unicorns, Bigfoot, etc.

In order for something to exist as far as our beliefs go, evidence is required. If there is no evidence whatsoever, then, by default, we lack a belief in the object in question. Also by default, we believe it does not exist.

I.E. As far as real science goes, there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, therefore, we do not believe in unicorns. In that same token, we believe they do not exist, by default. Despite this lack of belief, we are not asserting a fact, for it is not 100% fact to say unicorns do not exist. To assert such a thing would be epistemilogically wrong.

Therefore, we are not saying it is fact that unicorns do not exist, but:

There is no evidence they exist.
We do not believe they exist.
By default, we believe they do not exist, until further evidence is found.

The problem here is people believe atheists assert a fact, when they are not. No rational atheist would confidently say "God does not exist." Instead, the belief is open to new information, like OP said.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, requires no evidence, and requires no faith. If anyone believes so, ask yourself, does it require faith to lack a belief in the Mothman?

Hypothesis:
God exists
DNA replicates conservatively

Evidence indicates that God does not exist, and that DNA does not replicate 100% conservatively. Therefore, belief that God does not exist is equivalent to believing that DNA is not replicated conservatively. Our evidence seems to indicate that the hypothesis are false, therefore, no faith is required.

The only possible faith this would require would be the faith that what we are observing is an accurate representation of the world we live in. If this is the case, then I posit that it takes as much faith to believe in those things as it does to believe you are truly sitting there reading this post.




As far as I can see, if you do not believe in God, you are atheist. The only people who are agnostic are the ones who are not sure whether they believe in God.

Penile_Dementia
05-05-2009, 02:20 PM
The problem is even Webster dictionary gives 2 very distinct definitions

"atheism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"


So? Definition a) INCLUDES definition b). and it's what so many atheists use

Definition a) is the broader definition of atheism... a narrower definitionm, b), is the one that cannot be applied to everyone talking about atheism or calling themselves atheist, so on a forum with people from loads of different countries/cultures, it causes a lot more problems


Fantastically pathetic post.

I went out of my way to assert multiple definitions exist. I explained why this might be. I asserted my belief was only one of multiple. I provided a link to a discussion about them.

But NOOOOO, you need to come in and tell me what I can/can't call myself.

Negged.

lol...

so, considering he used the broadest definition of the word... I'm confused... what did he tell you that you can't call yourself?

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 02:23 PM
so, considering he used the broadest definition of the word... I'm confused... what did he tell you that you can't call yourself?

An Atheist. By his definition I'd have to insert 'Agnostic' into it.

revkins
05-05-2009, 02:28 PM
Thank you OP.

The origin of the word "atheist" is the Greek word, "atheos" meaning "without god". This is the definition that always made the most sense.

I, as an atheist, do not believe that god is not real. I lack belief in a god and I reject the claims made by theists.

I am not certain if there is a god or not. We currently do not have sufficient to make a conclusive statement regarding god's existence (or lack thereof).

Penile_Dementia
05-05-2009, 02:29 PM
An Atheist. By his definition I'd have to insert 'Agnostic' into it.

Oh sorry... thought you were replying to OP, didn't realise you were him :)

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 02:31 PM
Oh sorry... thought you were replying to OP, didn't realise you were him :)

:) np, teach me to use the quote function more.

Queequeg
05-05-2009, 03:04 PM
Fantastically pathetic post.

I went out of my way to assert multiple definitions exist. I explained why this might be. I asserted my belief was only one of multiple. I provided a link to a discussion about them.

But NOOOOO, you need to come in and tell me what I can/can't call myself.

Negged.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My intention was not to try argue with you. I was just simply help provide clarity on the subject.

Also I never told you what to call yourself and I apollogise if that what you took from my post, the terms I put foward where proposals not demands.

I was actually trying to be constructive in aiding people distinguish your definition from the others around which I kind of thought this thread was for.

You have my appologies, I had no idea you felt quite as strongly.:(

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 03:09 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way. My intention was not to try argue with you. I was just simply help provide clarity on the subject.

Also I never told you what to call yourself and I apollogise if that what you took from my post, the terms I put foward where proposals not demands.

I was actually trying to be constructive in aiding people distinguish your definition from the others around which I kind of thought this thread was for.

You have my appologies, I had no idea you felt quite as strongly.:(

Nothing like an honestly apology to make a guy feel like a dickhead. I apologize for assuming the worst about you. I'll sort out the whole rep thing when I can.

Many have suggested that Atheism needs a new title, I happen to agree. It's just, for this thread, I'm simply trying to explain how multiple meanings exist and that many believe in a completely faithless version.

Melkor
05-05-2009, 03:16 PM
I am just a simple caveman, your atheism frightens and confuses me.

Queequeg
05-05-2009, 03:18 PM
Nothing like an honestly apology to make a guy feel like a dickhead. I apologize for assuming the worst about you. I'll sort out the whole rep thing when I can.

Many have suggested that Atheism needs a new title, I happen to agree. It's just, for this thread, I'm simply trying to explain how multiple means exist and that many believe in a completely faithless version.

No problem, **** it happens. ;) I get radom negging all the time.

I completely sympathise with the situation though. Especially when it comes to thread hi-jacking. It just something almost everbody has an opinion on but hopefully they can get it out here and not in the middle of another topic. I just hope you don't bitch slap quite as hard as you did me lol

I agree with you on the fact that virtually all athiest on these boards are the faithless variety. Even Hawkins still says he would entertain the possibility of God if a valid argument of emprical evidence was presented.

frankenstein
05-05-2009, 03:26 PM
I've now seen a couple threads going on and on and on about how 'atheism takes more faith than blah blah blah.'

I also see this parroted by a lot of conservative talking heads.

I'm sick of it. Now, I'll admit, seeing as Atheism carries no teachings, church, pope or holy people telling 'us' what to believe so some variants on a theme exist. However, having said that, a very common definition is as follows.

Atheism: Lack in belief of god/gods.

This is not making a statement about truth, it takes no faith and it is open to change subject new information.

This is what I believe. I invite anyone else who feels as I feel to say so in this thread.

A nice long(but not overly long) article on different takes of non-belief can be found at
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html.

Anyone coming in and telling me/us that this takes faith is either 1) Incredibly stupid 2) Distorting facts to fulfill other ends 3) Both.

as an atheist, I agree with your definition all the way. The problem we run into is that many atheists are not neutral about a deity (my bigger issue is with organized religion than belief in a deity). My thoughts are:

"I don't know if there is a God and neither does anyone else truly. The religions are faking it with their ancient stories of God talking to people. Nowadays we lock those people in white rooms and give them medication but back in the day they were called prophets. There could be a God of some sort but there's no way we have any idea of that nature of what it is."

That is atheist but because so many atheist say "there is no God" they make a positive claim of knowledge. Because this is so common I call myself agnostic now.

JBDW
05-05-2009, 03:32 PM
Nothing like an honestly apology to make a guy feel like a dickhead. I apologize for assuming the worst about you. I'll sort out the whole rep thing when I can.

Many have suggested that Atheism needs a new title, I happen to agree. It's just, for this thread, I'm simply trying to explain how multiple meanings exist and that many believe in a completely faithless version.

Repped him to compensate.

Arbex
05-05-2009, 03:40 PM
Repped him to compensate.

lmfao, owned.

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 03:41 PM
as an atheist, I agree with your definition all the way. The problem we run into is that many atheists are not neutral about a deity (my bigger issue is with organized religion than belief in a deity). My thoughts are:

"I don't know if there is a God and neither does anyone else truly. The religions are faking it with their ancient stories of God talking to people. Nowadays we lock those people in white rooms and give them medication but back in the day they were called prophets. There could be a God of some sort but there's no way we have any idea of that nature of what it is."

That is atheist but because so many atheist say "there is no God" they make a positive claim of knowledge. Because this is so common I call myself agnostic now.

yeah, i think you're exactly in the same place as my mom. i've had this talk with her many times. it's part of why i feel so strongly in defending a 'sane' definition of atheism.

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 03:41 PM
Repped him to compensate.

yeah, i was going to counter neg him on recharge. anyway, now i don't have to remember :P

Queequeg
05-05-2009, 03:42 PM
Repped him to compensate.

Thanks very much. Epic rep power!:D

hooked4life
05-05-2009, 03:53 PM
Didn't you used to be a devout theist?

never.