Should I be an "Atheist"?

[Druid]

I remember ages ago watching this program "the atheism tapes" on the BBC. It was presented by this guy called Jonathan Miller. He basically discussed disbelief in god with various people (I think the most well known being the late Arthur Miller).

 

Anyway in it he said he really disliked the word "atheist". His reasoning was that we don't have a word (or at least don't use them) for disbelief in things like witches. This is because they obivously don't exist. Therefore using a word for disbelief in god in some ways validates the opposite position.

 

What do you think? Should someone who doesn't belief in god use the label "atheist" to describe themselves or just say "I don't belief in god"?

[Caretaker]

I have no problem with it.

[Ouroboros]

That's kind of weird in my mind; atheism comes from the word a-theism, which means no-god, or no-belief-in-god. So Atheism is just a Greek name for exactly that non-belief.

 

The problem is that the word has been misconstrued and misunderstood.

 

[edit]

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I remember ages ago watching this program "the atheism tapes" on the BBC. It was presented by this guy called Jonathan Miller. He basically discussed disbelief in god with various people (I think the most well known being the late Arthur Miller).

 

Anyway in it he said he really disliked the word "atheist". His reasoning was that we don't have a word (or at least don't use them) for disbelief in things like witches. This is because they obivously don't exist. Therefore using a word for disbelief in god in some ways validates the opposite position.

 

What do you think? Should someone who doesn't belief in god use the label "atheist" to describe themselves or just say "I don't belief in god"?

Depends on the reaction you want to get. "Atheist" is a term with a lot of baggage that can get people riled up (and sidetracked) quickly. "I don't believe in gods" is a label-less and less emotion-stirring way to say it IMHO.

[Druid]

That's kind of weird in my mind; atheism comes from the word a-theism, which means no-god, or no-belief-in-god. So Atheism is just a Greek name for exactly that non-belief.

 

The problem is that the word has been misconstrued and misunderstood.

 

[edit]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the fact that the word is misunderstood is his probelm with it. Having a word to describe it can lead people (mostly crazy fundies) to view it as a believe system, rather than simply not believeing. So not using it would allow other people to better understand what an atheist is.

[Ouroboros]

I think the fact that the word is misunderstood is his probelm with it. Having a word to describe it can lead people (mostly crazy fundies) to view it as a believe system, rather than simply not believeing. So not using it would allow other people to better understand what an atheist is.

 

True. But what happens if a new word is invented, and after a few years, it has a bad tone to it again. Should we keep on being political correct because they really don't like what we stand for. Sorry, if I sound upset, I'm really not.

 

We can call ourself, achristian or abiblical, that would confuse them as hell!

[Ouroboros]

If you said you were AChristian...they would hear it...A Christian.

 

I know, that's why I thought it was funny, because they would be so confused.

 

"So what are you?"

 

"Achristian."

 

"Oh, so you're a christian, heh."

 

"No, I'm an achristian."

 

"Huh, what? Are you a christian or what?"

 

"Exactly."

 

"Wait here, you said..."

 

and so on, it could be cool for a funny skit.

 

 

(As you see I wasn't so serious about that term)

[Amethyst]

IMHO, people want labels just so they can lump other people into boxes. Call yourself whatever you feel like, as long as it's not a total lie.

[Mr. Neil]

Admittedly, I somewhat loathe having a title that refers to that which I do not believe. If there wasn't theism, then the term atheist would be meaningless.

 

I suppose "logical" or "educated" would be more accurate terms, if not a little pompous. But basically, I wish there was a better of way of conveying the concept of a person who refuses to jump to the immediate conclusion of a magical invisible creator above space and time. What else could you call that except logical?

 

I wish we didn't have to use the word "atheist", but for now it beats other terms such as "agnostic", which muddles the issue, makes an irrelevent claim, and is partially responsible for the misconception of atheism in the first place. Agnostics usually play this game as though there isn't enough knowledge to be an atheist, but atheism isn't a knowledge claim anyway. If you reject atheism due to a lack of evidence/lack of knowledge, then you are a non-believer. You have no knowledge of that which you don't believe anyway, so there's no sense in saying that you need knowledge to be an atheist.

 

Idealistically, both terms should go. I hope we reach a point where, like the witches, we don't have to have a term for non-belief, because it will be obvious that no such being exists anyway.

[Fweethawt]

In order to clear things up in the here-and-now so as to not have to deal with the baggage of being called atheists, why not refer to yourselves as "They Who Shall Not Be Labeled"?

 

If someones asks you if your a Christian™, you look them dead-in-the-eye and say, "I am (s)he who shall not be labeled!"

 

 

Go ahead, tell me that won't get some reactions.

[Amethyst]

I wish there was a better of way of conveying the concept of a person who refuses to jump to the immediate conclusion of a magical invisible creator above space and time.  What else could you call that except logical?

 

But that's the definition of agnostic! (At least, it's the main definition that I have read.) I'm not claiming to be agnostic because I don't have enough knowledge to make that decision. I'm claiming it because, to my mind, if you are going to claim a label like atheist, you'd should be pretty darn sure there's no god.

 

We do need a better label, but right now, there just aren't any. Christians want to know who they can say is going to hell and who they can't; that's the reason for the labels, IMHO.

 

I suppose you could always just say you're not religious and don't ever plan to be.

[Mr. Neil]

I'm claiming it because, to my mind, if you are going to claim a label like atheist, you'd should be pretty darn sure there's no god.

WRONG!

 

Wrong! Wrong! Wrongwrongwrong!!!

 

You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Wrongy McWrongenstein and you lived on 1313 Wrongway Drive!

 

Atheism is a state of nonbelief only. I already went through this with someone. Do not change the defintion of atheism to justify agnosticism. I will never drop it. To me, that's the same as a Christian creating a strawman of evolution. I will correct you until you stop doing it.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with certainty. Either you believe, or you don't. There is no middle position. Certainty is not an attribute of belief. Never has been.

 

 

If I ask you if you're a theist (i.e., one who believes in a supernatural entity), and you say, "I can't be certain that gods exist" then the answer is no. It's an open-minded "no", since you're withholding final judgement barring further evidence, but it's a "no" nonetheless, because by withholding judgement, you are withholding belief, and therefore not believing.

 

When you say that you withhold belief due to uncertainty, you are telling me...

 

A. That you do not believe, and

 

B. The reason you don't believe is because of uncertainty.

 

 

Belief is the action here, and belief in gods is the subject. Atheism is the nonbelief in a god, and you don't have to do anything to not believe in a god. It's the claim that "I am not performing this action (belief)."

 

It's like running and not running. Thinking or not thinking. Breathing or not breathing. Reading or not reading. Either you're doing it, or your not.

 

Either you believe, or you don't.

[Reach]

I have no problem with saying, "I'm an atheist. My years of Biblical study have left me unable to believe. A similar thing happened with my childhood belief in Santa Claus." It does stir up some trouble, sometimes, and I have the joy of dealing with that.

 

And Neil, you'll like this. In response, I have heard, "What do you mean you're an atheist?" To which I respond, "What part of "ATHEIST" don't you understand?"

 

The labels are like road signs; they facilitate communication for those who need them. For me personally, they are irrelevant.

[Ouroboros]

Atheism deals with the Belief in God itself

Agnosticism deals with Knowledge (or the proof) of God existence

 

You have no knowledge of God therefore you have no faith in him.

I'm an agnostic, therefore I'm an atheist.

 

Atheist: I don't believe there is a God, has nothing to do if it's proven

 

Agnostic: we can never prove God exists, nor prove he doesn't - has nothing to do with what you believe

 

Faith and Knowledge are not the same. But usually the have an effect on each other.

 

It is true that Agnosticism confuses the definitions, but that is because people spent too much time trying (even the atheists) to prove if God existed or not.

 

The atheists tried to prove God didn’t exist, but even if the proofs are logically correct, theists rely on fideistic and emotive arguments which can’t be argued with reason. We all know that. But this is the reason the word agnostic came up, to tell both camps: “give it up; there is a schism you can bridge”. So you can be both, because they don’t address the same issue.

 

Compare to Santa Claus. You pretty much can prove that he doesn’t exist, so there you can’t be a “Santa Agnostic”, because knowledge can be found. But you are definitely a “Santa Atheist”, you don’t believe in Santa because you know he doesn’t exist.

 

With God you can’t go to the other dimensions and bring proof back that he does or doesn’t exist

 

Most people are agnostic; it’s just a statement how things are. We can’t prove or disprove God. But everyone can make up their mind, to believe or not believe.

 

People that are not-agnostic, say they can prove God exists or doesn’t exists. If that’s true, then everyone in the world would be convinced to whichever side the proof leads. So ergo, everyone is agnostic.

[Mr. Neil]

Faith and Knowledge are not the same.

Yes.

 

Essentially, they're achieved the same way. This claim lacks substantiation, so you say, "I'm not going to apply any belief." The only difference between a strong atheist and an agnostic (often called weak atheist or agnostic atheism) is a matter of certainty. It's sort of like saying, "There might be something to this god thing, but I'm not quite convinced yet."

 

I suppose I don't have a problem with the term agnostic as long as the person understands what he's saying and not taking a crap on my position in the process.

 

If they just say what they mean without the quibbling, fine. "I'm an agnostic. There might be something out there, but I'm not sure. I don't believe in anything at this point." That's what I see as agnosticism. But it makes absolutely no sense to say, "I'm an agnostic, but I'm not an atheist."

 

I always want to say, "So you're an agnostic theist?!"

 

That pisses them off!

[Ouroboros]

I’m going to give you an example from math.

 

There is currently an unsolved problem with polynomial algorithms. I’m not a math expert, but I know as much it would give you a lot of money if you can solve it. This is a short explanation of it:

 

P Versus NP Problem

 

The P versus NP problem is the determination of whether all NP-problems are actually P-problems. If P and NP are not equivalent, then the solution of NP-problems requires (in the worst case) an exhaustive search, while if they are, then asymptotically faster algorithms may exist.

The answer is not currently known, but determination of the status of this question would dramatic consequences for the potential speed with which many difficult and important problems could be solved.

 

Now many mathematicians believe that this can eventually be solved, and some believe that it never can be solved.

 

Think of the P vs. NP as God vs. No God. To believe in or not believe in God is the difference between theist/deist/naturalist etc vs. atheist.

 

But agnosticism is the question can we find the answer to the problem “G vs. NG”, and the agnostic says, no. Agnosticism deals with the question, not the resolution of the answer. It’s a higher level abstraction of the problem itself, dealing with the “is there an answer to the question”, not necessarily dealing with the answer we might get.

 

Now you have weak agnostic, saying: “we can not find the answer now, but maybe eventually”, while a strong agnostic say: “we will never find the answer”.

 

Agnostic deals with the question itself, not if God exists or not.

 

Even the Catholic Church has taken an agnostic approach today. They don’t try to prove if God exists anymore, because they’ve realized that God can’t be proven with logic. They express it more like “I believe because I believe, God is because God is.”

If someone is not agnostic, I would like to talk to that person and ask for the “undeniable and absolute compelling proof” for his belief. And we know that the arguments for atheism are compelling but for a theist, they’re still not, because logic is the language of reason and not emotions. So the proof has to extend beyond even emotions to convince someone to choose either side. Agnosticism says that a proof like that doesn’t exist.

 

You can be agnostic and yet be theist, or deist or atheist. It’s like the color on your car. To be agnostic is to say, “There is no perfect and absolute right color”. But you can still choose a favorite color for it!

 

[edit]

I saw you made a post mrNeil in between, and you’re absolutely right.

[Mythra]

I think I'll call myself a rejectionist.

 

Hansolo- you said you can prove that Santa Claus does not exist.

 

O.K.

 

I still believe in Santa Claus. Some of his doctrines have been taken out of context. He doesn't actually reside at the North Pole, nor does he visit ALL of the children every Christmas. He is very capable, however, of squeezing down chimneys and flying through the air with his reindeer. Prove me wrong.

 

You can no more prove this is wrong than you can prove that Jesus didn't walk on water. (I don't think) ..

[Ouroboros]

I think I'll call myself a rejectionist.

 

Hansolo- you said you can prove that Santa Claus does not exist.

 

O.K.

 

I still believe in Santa Claus.  Some of his doctrines have been taken out of context.  He doesn't actually reside at the North Pole, nor does he visit ALL of the children every Christmas.  He is very capable, however, of squeezing down chimneys and flying through the air with his reindeer.  Prove me wrong.

 

You can no more prove this is wrong than you can prove that Jesus didn't walk on water.  (I don't think)  ..

 

Oh you heretic, you’re not a true Santatologist!

 

May the evil elfs eat all your cookies and choke up the chimney so Santa never can visit you!

 

You’re so close to become an Asantologist.

 

A true Santatologist knows that Santa comes every year to every household!

 

But anyway, to prove it we could setup cameras in every house in the world, or have agents in each house inspecting the miraculous event of Christmas night. If he doesn’t show up anywhere in the world, he’s either on a long cruise in the Caribbean’s, or he retired.

 

 

 

[Mythra]

AHA! I Knew you couldn't disprove it!

 

Santa Lives!

Santa Lives!

 

You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart....

 

Oh, Ye of Little Faith.

[Ouroboros]

AHA!  I Knew you couldn't disprove it!

 

Santa Lives!

Santa Lives!

 

You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart....

 

Oh, Ye of Little Faith.

 

Damn! You got me!

 

I'm still an Asantatologist.

[Amethyst]

Atheism is a state of nonbelief only. I already went through this with someone. Do not change the defintion of atheism to justify agnosticism. I will never drop it. To me, that's the same as a Christian creating a strawman of evolution. I will correct you until you stop doing it.

 

I'm not changing any definitions; this is what my family and friends believe an atheist is. That is the popular definition of atheism. I do not fit into that definition. I do not see myself fitting into it anytime soon.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with certainty. Either you believe, or you don't. There is no middle position. Certainty is not an attribute of belief. Never has been.

 

Why can't there be a middle? It's like the fundies who declare there's only wrong or right, no in-between, when really the in-between is reality. Why can there not be a middle? Why the bloody hell should I have to choose a fricking side? I mean, damn it, I'm not going to reconvert, but neither am I going to say "there is no god" because there isn't enough quantifiable evidence to say there isn't. Nobody can prove it either way -- the only proof Christians have is the ravings of madmen, and the only proof atheists have is that the Christians are wrong.

 

If the dictionaries define agnosticism a certain way, and that way happens to be what I believe, then why should I HAVE to claim anything else?

[Amethyst]

I still believe in Santa Claus. Some of his doctrines have been taken out of context. He doesn't actually reside at the North Pole, nor does he visit ALL of the children every Christmas. He is very capable, however, of squeezing down chimneys and flying through the air with his reindeer. Prove me wrong.

 

You can no more prove this is wrong than you can prove that Jesus didn't walk on water. (I don't think) ..

 

Heh...has anyone actually witnessed Santa Claus squeezing down a chimney or flying through the air? And if they did, I want to know what they were on at the time.

[Mr. Neil]

I'm not changing any definitions; this is what my family and friends believe an atheist is.  That is the popular definition of atheism.  I do not fit into that definition.  I do not see myself fitting into it anytime soon.

You know what? The popular definition of atheism is wrong. Under definition 1 in the American Heritiage Dictionary, they blatantly define atheism as disbelief or denial of God, and even worse, definition 2 has it as "immorality". They've left no room for the claim that atheists actualy make. Another dictionary describes atheism as a doctrine. Excuse me? Doctrine?! Since when does atheism have a doctrine?

 

See for yourself: Dictionary.com: atheism

 

Clearly the "popular" definitions of atheism are based on a Christian point of view, but it has nothing to do with the claims that atheists actually make. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a diety. Period. Do not change this defintion, otherwise, you are creating a strawman of atheism.

 

 

Why can't there be a middle?  It's like the fundies who declare there's only wrong or right, no in-between, when really the in-between is reality.  Why can there not be a middle?  Why the bloody hell should I have to choose a fricking side?

It has nothing to do with picking sides. It has to do with your claim being incoherent. The reason why there can't be a middle is because there isn't a middle. Either you believe or you don't. There is no coherent way of having a middle ground between belief or nonbelief.

 

I've demonstrated that by trying to claim uncertainty, you are actually claiming nonbelief anyway, except that you're telling me why you don't believe.

 

 

I mean, damn it, I'm not going to reconvert, but neither am I going to say "there is no god" because there isn't enough quantifiable evidence to say there isn't.  Nobody can prove it either way -- the only proof Christians have is the ravings of madmen, and the only proof atheists have is that the Christians are wrong.

Actually, I wasn't speaking specifically about Christianity. Actually, it's fairly easy to prove that Yahwey doesn't exist. He violates the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, there can't be such a being.

 

If the dictionaries define agnosticism a certain way, and that way happens to be what I believe, then why should I HAVE to claim anything else?

As I've already demonstrated, dictionaries are not to be used as final authorities. They're helpful tools when trying to understand the English language, but as you've seen, even they are subject to religious biases.

[Amethyst]

Actually, it's fairly easy to prove that Yahwey doesn't exist. He violates the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, there can't be such a being.

 

Agreed, but we can't say for sure that there is absolutely no higher power out there.

 

The reason why there can't be a middle is because there isn't a middle. Either you believe or you don't. There is no coherent way of having a middle ground between belief or nonbelief.

 

That is your perspective from being an atheist. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Clearly the "popular" definitions of atheism are based on a Christian point of view, but it has nothing to do with the claims that atheists actually make. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a diety. Period. Do not change this defintion, otherwise, you are creating a strawman of atheism.

 

I respect your beliefs a lot. But I don't consider myself an atheist, particularly because I'd be a rather weak atheist if I started claiming to be one.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, guys, I think we need to put Huxley (he who invented the term agnosticism) to a test here. What does he really mean with these two statements?

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"--had, more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.... To my great satisfaction the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.

 

And later this one:

 

If any one had preferred this request to me, [to draw up a negative creed] I should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, cannot have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold last by that which is good;" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should he able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard or any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

 

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science.  That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries tomorrow.... The only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

 

So how should it be interpreted?