Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Defining atheism


webmdave

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

By Brian Crisan

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural deities (i.e. God); the opposite of theism. Atheists as a whole do not have a consensus on how to define atheism. A number of the issues involved in defining the term appear below.

Implicit and explicit atheism

Implicit
atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god. Any person who has not been exposed to religious beliefs about the existence of god falls within the definition of implicit atheism. Atheists generally consider this definition inclusive of babies and little children who haven't yet formed opinions about the existence of supernatural deities due to a lack of exposure to them. Explicit atheism is defined as a conscious rejection of the existence of a god.

Strong and weak atheism

Strong atheism is defined as a type of atheism in which a positive assertion claiming the nonexistence of a god is made. Strong atheists would make the statement, "God does not exist." Weak atheism is defined as a simple lack of belief in the existence of a god; it is a negative assertion. Unlike strong atheists, weak atheists would make a statement indicating a lack of belief; they would make the statement, "I do not believe in a god." Some weak atheists are strong atheists with respect to certain supernatural deities. Although weak atheists do not make a positive assertion that all types of gods do not exist, some choose to take a strong

Epithetical uses of the term

The word "atheist" has also been used in an epithetical manner by various religious groups. The historical usage of the term as an epithet goes all the way back to accusations made against Socrates and others of his time. Early Christians claim to have been called atheists by pagans due to their lack of belief in the pagan gods of their time.
[2]

Burden of proof

Most atheists argue that the burden of proof lies with the theist making the claim that a supernatural deity exists. In the atheist's view, it is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantium) to place the burden of proof upon the atheist. [1] Theists often try to shift the burden of proof to atheists by claiming that the atheist must prove that a supernatural deity does not exist. Atheists counter this argument by stating that it is a logical impossibility to prove nonexistence. To be able to prove nonexistence, the atheists claims, one would have to posses the ability to know all things perfectly (omniscience) and the ability to access all things simultaneously. [1] Since it is the theist making the claim of existence and since proving nonexistence is impossible, the atheist places the burden of proof upon the theist.

Common arguments against theism

Most modern atheists spend their time analyzing the Christian conception of God. In this light, atheists often put forward arguments that support atheism and oppose monotheistic religious beliefs. The Christian conception of God often presupposes several distinct characteristics: omnipotence (God is all-powerful), omniscience (God is all-knowing), omnibenevolence (God is all-loving), and omnipresence (God is all-present). Atheists employ the use of logic to construct many of their arguments for the nonexistence of gods. An exhaustive list of arguments used to defend and support atheism is outside the scope of this article. However, below is an example of one logic-based argument commonly used by atheists in debates with theists.

<a name="H6-Omniscience-vs-free-will" class="knol-anchor-headings">

Omniscience vs. free will

Atheists may argue that free will and omniscience are incompatible. This argument is framed in the following manner:
  1. The Christian God is defined as a personal and
    omniscient
    being.

  2. Christians believe personal beings have free will.

  3. To have free will, one must have multiple options, all of which are avoidable.

  4. A state of uncertainty exists until choices are made and the potential to change choices exists.

  5. A being who is omniscient cannot be uncertain; the being knows its choices in advance.

  6. A being who knows its choices in advance cannot avoid its choices and lacks free will as a result.

  7. A being that lacks free will is not a personal being.

  8. A being that lacks free will is not a personal being, an omniscient and personal being cannot exist.

  9. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
    [3]

Atheists also often employ the scientific method to construct many of their arguments for the nonexistence of gods. In this approach, the atheist focuses on the lack of evidence for the existence of god or the errors in the evidence cited by some theists. Below is an example of an evidence-based argument commonly used by atheists in debates with theists.

Argument from nonbelief

Atheists may argue that, if a god did exist, there would probably be a number of nonbelievers in the world.
  1. If a God were to exist, there would not be as many nonbelievers in the world.

  2. There are many nonbelievers in this world.

  3. Therefore, God probably does not exist.
    [4]

References

<ol id="knol-references">

[*]Pecorino, P. A. (2001). Philosophy of Religion: The Burden of Proof. Retrieved August 2, 2008 from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccwe...en-of-proof.htm.

View Source

[*]Aveling, F. (1907). Atheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm.

View Source

[*]Barker, D. (1997, August). The Freethought Debater: The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1997/august97/barker.html.

View Source

[*]Drange, T.M. (1998). Nonbelief vs. Lack of Evidence: Two Atheological Arguments. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...e/anbvslea.html.

View Source

 

reblog_a.png?x-id=0a3c81cf-868f-42ab-afa7-9990e3ddf7b3

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/11...ng-atheism.html

 

This post has been promoted to an article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this could come back to haunt me, but since the definition of an atheist or agnostic seems to vary with everyone, I just have the people I am talking with define me whatever way they want. It never really seems to matter one way or the other since from their perspective I am headed straight for hell anyway and I honestly don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkcons

Let me put this out clearly because I dont hear it enough from theists or atheists. Basically the difference between the two is that, Theists believe in a visible absolute they have called god. Atheists argue that absolutes are not visible and thus are Relativists. let me explain...

 

An absolute could be the "true law of gravity". What i mean by this is that, we have a law of gravity, and on earth gravity is 9.8m/s, squared. however no self respecting scientist will ever tell you that he/she is 100% sure about any "law" of science. there is no way to verify that a law of science works other than though observation. thus it is only possible to approximate absolutes. Another simpler way to look at this is that because humans are relative beings by nature, we cannot view a true absolute.

 

It should be noted that by Relativist I mean that we must define something. in base 10 math, 5+5 = 10. This is true, but it is relative to base 10 math. in base 2 math 5+5 dose not = 10, because 5 dose not exist and 10 dose not exist. Being a relativist means that you place terms of measurement that are commonly (or uncommonly) accepted with other beings. the uncommonly accepted things dont last long, like a made up language that only you can speak. commonly accepted relative ideas are language, math, color, sight...etc.. This is true of all things in life. From an atheist perspective everything is relative. Morality is what we define it to be as well. In that I mean that humans have an evolutionary tendency to act a cretin way, and though civilization we have taken that base instinct and forged laws that we abide by. A collective and local morality is just a byproduct of civilization. nothing more and nothing less. (i can elaborate more if you want.)

 

A Theist believes that there are visible absolutes, or at least one visible absolute, as in god. the reason for saying god is a visible absolute is that if you believe that god exists but he is not visible then how do you know god exists. Theists see proof of gods existence in the scriptures and in there way of thinking. This is comforting because if much easier for them to believe that things that happen by gods will than by chase. (as in you and your boss both show up to work wearing same ugly Hawaiian shirt.). If an atheist were to have the same type of conviction about the law of gravity as theists have about god, it would be a 100% infallible law that is true all the time, but more importantly we KNOW its true all the time. That is the type of thinking Theists have. God is a constant that never changes, never will change, and we can "See" him in the same respect that you can "See" gravity, or radiation. Just because there is no scientific evidence of god, dose not necessary disprove god.

 

Let me recap these two long winded statements. Atheists, (at least the smart ones...) are Relativists and believe that everything in life has a measurement imposed by humans and is thus flawed by nature. We will only know something to be 99.9% true. We are OK with not knowing questions because in time they will be answered and new questions will arise.

 

Theists believe that god is 100% real and effects are visible on the world. (at the very least its guidance.). Because god is a 100% absolute everything they think it says they take without question because they KNOW that humans are fallible, but i they have something like god in there life they can pretend that they know things that no human can possible know.

 

if you have questions on relativist or absolutes ask them before telling me that im wrong. We may be thinking of the words two different ways, as usually what happens when you discuss philosophy. Everything you use must be defined because our words are poor representations of our complex ideas. words mean different things different ways because they are relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice darkcons. Welcome to the site. Hope to see a lot more posts from such a fine thinker as yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkcons

heh. Tnx. Iv had a decent amount of practice on random people at my college. However the original posters comment about strong and weak atheism is very true as well. I would count myself as a weak atheist. Its just as arrogant to say something dose not exist that is unprovable or undisprovable as saying that something that is unprovable exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkcons

yes there IS a need to define atheism and theism further. Not believing in gods is to simple. While it is TRUE, it is not ALL there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your definition falls a little short, Dark, in that certain Atheists can be absolutist in their belief that there IS NO god, as opposed to the lack of belief thereof.

 

Furthermore, like I said, and like Asimov said, to be without belief in god, should be ALL there is to Atheism. To believe anything about god is something other than atheism (though not exclusive to it, just as agnosticism isn't exclusive to atheism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes there IS a need to define atheism and theism further. Not believing in gods is to simple. While it is TRUE, it is not ALL there is to it.

 

No, there does not. The whole fucking point is that atheism and theism ARE simple. They're the highest echelons of disbelief and belief under which all forms of disbelief and belief fall under.

 

There's no need to introduce "new concepts" and to further split hairs with atheism. If I want to define myself, I use a positive definition that outlines what I DO value, not what I don't believe in or don't value.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkcons

you guys are missing my point entirely.

 

you want simplicity? Ill give you simplicity. Ill reduce Atheism and Theism to there philosophical roots. IE Relativist and Absolutist. I already explained what the mean but ill do it again.

 

Relativists: people that use arbitrary units of measurement to define reality.(IE, Evolved ideas)

 

Absolutists: use a set unchanging, unit of measurement to define reality. (IE god.)

 

 

that dose not seem to be that complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, that sounds awful black and white and absolutist to me Asimov. I think you are right that Atheism at its basic foundation is the lack of belief in gods. However, that does not mean that there are no philosophical implications to this which can be explored on a deeper level.

 

I don't see that DC is adding any rules to the position of atheism. I just see him taking a deeper look at it and juxtaposing thought processes of a typical atheist against the thought processes of a theist. I found his post rather interesting.

 

If it really was just so simple as you lay it out then people could just decide "Hey, I'm an atheist." It doesn't work that way. On the whole, most people, at least those in Western society, who claim to be an atheist have arrived at that position through a great deal of careful thought and research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, that sounds awful black and white and absolutist to me Asimov. I think you are right that Atheism at its basic foundation is the lack of belief in gods. However, that does not mean that there are no philosophical implications to this which can be explored on a deeper level.

 

Of course, but the OP was defining atheism. And in terms of defining atheism there is no need to explore philosophical implications.

 

I don't see that DC is adding any rules to the position of atheism. I just see him taking a deeper look at it and juxtaposing thought processes of a typical atheist against the thought processes of a theist. I found his post rather interesting.

 

If it really was just so simple as you lay it out then people could just decide "Hey, I'm an atheist." It doesn't work that way. On the whole, most people, at least those in Western society, who claim to be an atheist have arrived at that position through a great deal of careful thought and research.

 

Entirely true, and he does offer an interesting viewpoint (my apologies DC for not complimenting you on a well thought-out response), but I figured we were trying to remain germaine to the topic.

 

Perhaps I will further explore what he is trying to say, or perhaps DC would like to start a new thread expounding what he is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkcons

lol its ok dude. However since the thread maker made a list including weak and strong atheism I figured that defining the fact that Atheists are really Relativists and Theists are absolutists was appropriate.

 

If a theist is intersected in what you have to say, after you tell them that you are an atheist, you can then go on to explain the fact that you are a relativist and explain what that means. (most atheists that do not know what relativist and absolutist are, have come to many relativist conclusions, but just not know that there is a real term for it. the same thing goes for the theist.)

 

I think one of the biggest problems is that BECAUSE people think we just "dont believe in god" is why Atheism has such a negative spin to it.

 

We need something new and fresh that will erase the negative taste of the word in peoples mouths and I think this thread is an excellent place to disscues how we define our selves. Not how we are already defined, because the majority of the population already "thinks" they know what we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
you guys are missing my point entirely.

 

you want simplicity? Ill give you simplicity. Ill reduce Atheism and Theism to there philosophical roots. IE Relativist and Absolutist. I already explained what the mean but ill do it again.

 

Relativists: people that use arbitrary units of measurement to define reality.(IE, Evolved ideas)

 

Absolutists: use a set unchanging, unit of measurement to define reality. (IE god.)

 

 

that dose not seem to be that complicated.

I mostly agree with your comments, but I disagree that you have to be a relativist to be an atheist or that you have to be an absolutist to be a theist. Raelians are atheists too but believe we were created by aliens. What about atheists who don't believe in God but believe in other supernatural beliefs, like ghosts, reincarnation, or tarot cards? Not all theists are absolutists either as some theists don't claim to know God exists but believe in it anyway and Pascal's Wager itself is an argument for theism from a relative point of view that we don't know the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are/has been over 2,850 gods and goddesses. Christians have dismissed all but one of them so are 99.96% atheist, which most people would round up to 100%.

 

Atheists are 100% sure of their disbelief because if there was even a 1% chance they were wrong, they would be fools to risk burning in hell forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists are 100% sure of their disbelief because if there was even a 1% chance they were wrong, they would be fools to risk burning in hell forever.
Or maybe the atheists have iron chariots just in case they end up being wrong? Judges 1:19
Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had (P)iron chariots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • Super Moderator

So what is it that makes people want to keep beating this long expired equine?

 

1. Theists believe that a god exists.

 

2. A-Theists do NOT have that belief.

 

Doobie Philosophy 101 is unnecessary. Fun for some, maybe, but not really needed here. It's just a simple definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Atheist,is the critical thinking of theism... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've been calling myself an agnostic for quite some time now (since my deconversion 6-7 years ago), according to the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."

 

A while back I saw an Atheist Experience video on YouTube where they said that if you just think that there's a chance that somewhere out there there may be a god, then congratulations, you're an atheist. So, from that angle, I would be considered an atheist.

 

As defined in this thread, I would be a "weak atheist," since I don't believe in any specific god and I think that probably no religion has god right even if he/she/it does exist.

 

But then I go back to the actual dictionary definitions, by which I am an agnostic. So, rather than getting into explaining to theists a difference between strong and weak atheism, I'll probably continue to consider and refer to myself as an agnostic. The term does pretty much represent my stance, and it avoids the stigma that comes with the term "atheist."

 

Any thoughts on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been calling myself an agnostic for quite some time now (since my deconversion 6-7 years ago), according to the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."

 

A while back I saw an Atheist Experience video on YouTube where they said that if you just think that there's a chance that somewhere out there there may be a god, then congratulations, you're an atheist. So, from that angle, I would be considered an atheist.

 

As defined in this thread, I would be a "weak atheist," since I don't believe in any specific god and I think that probably no religion has god right even if he/she/it does exist.

 

But then I go back to the actual dictionary definitions, by which I am an agnostic. So, rather than getting into explaining to theists a difference between strong and weak atheism, I'll probably continue to consider and refer to myself as an agnostic. The term does pretty much represent my stance, and it avoids the stigma that comes with the term "atheist."

 

Any thoughts on that?

Darwin was an agnostic, and so was Ingersol IIRC. It has a proud tradition and for all practical purposes, we are all "agnostics" since we are not omniscient.

 

But I really think that agnosticisim wrt to most religious beliefs is unwarranted. There are somethings that are just impossible - and/or illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I really think that agnosticisim wrt to most religious beliefs is unwarranted. There are somethings that are just impossible - and/or illogical.

 

I agree, and with regard to the gods of religions I would acknowledge atheism. On the other hand, since I don't rule out the possibility of there being a deity of sorts (not that I consider it likely), I keep going back to the default position of agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is a denial of the presupposition of theism that there is a God.

 

Now on the premise that there is no God. Can a God be proved to be. No. One cannot prove what does not exist.

 

As a theist, I believe "Any entity subordinate to existence is not God." Or to say, "Anything in existence is not God."

 

The question, "Does God exist?" or "Is there a God?" The above two statements suggests . . .

 

Now does existence exist? Of course, that is really an absurd question. Now what one understands as to what it is to exist and what existence is that is another issue.

 

As a theist, I believe the "existence" by which all things exist to be the God. Now if that "existence" is not God, of course there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all kinds of ridiculous. Just a couple weeks ago, I was trying to keep my mouth shut at work, and some coworkers were regaling each other with their misunderstandings of Atheism vs. Agnosticism. I couldn't do it, and felt obligated to explain the *very simple* difference between the two. It doesn't seem that many non-believers are aware of the truth either, so I'll put it here.

 

Atheism is Not Believing in God(s) by whatever characteristics may be used to define it/them. It is NOT a conclusion.

 

Agnosticism is a position of not having enough info to draw a definitive conclusion, particularly about the existence of god(s).

 

Atheism therefore, is a position of belief, whereas Agnosticism is a position of knowledge.

 

That's why it's possible to be BOTH, at the SAME TIME!! They're on two completely different spectra. Apples and hand lotion really; incomparable. It's technically possible to be an Agnostic Theist too. And guess what? If you call yourself Agnostic, and don't hold any god beliefs, you're also an Atheist, whether you call yourself one or not! Yes, you! I do however, understand people's reticence to use the big A word; I was a non-believer for a long time before I was comfortable with that term. If I had as concrete an understanding what what it REALLY means as I do now, and as I've just provided, it probably wouldn't have taken so long though.

 

Furthermore, with regard to this whole strong/weak thing, the ONLY requirement to be an Atheist, is to not believe in something. So-called Weak Atheism, is actually Atheism. JUST Atheism. "Strong" Atheism is actually closer to being in the same spectrum as Agnosticism, because it makes a definitive and conclusive statement, that being "There ARE no gods, because there can BE no gods."

 

"I am an atheist, I don't believe in god(s)" is neither a yea or nay statement about whether or not god exists, it therefore requires no explanation or defense.

 

"There are no gods to believe in, it's impossible" is a positive assertion, and being available to scrutiny, must be backed by facts, evidence, logic, etc.

 

I move that we abandon the whole strong/weak atheism thing altogether, and that "strong atheism" be called something else entirely, because even though strong atheism is itself a belief of sorts, it's proponents think that god's non-existence can be proven, taking it out of the realm of belief, and into the realm of facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a theist, I believe... "Anything in existence is not God."

 

If anything in existence is not God, then God is not in existence, and therefore God does not exist. How can one be a theist and hold this position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.