Defining atheism

[Shyone]

 

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

If the probability of God is miniscule, or if the concept of god is illogical, then we may conclude that there is no god.

 

Why is that not a conclusion?

 

I have also considered the evidence for the FSM, Greek gods, Mayan gods, Aztec gods and others, and I also, based on the evidence (both for and against) and I conclude that these gods also don't exist.

 

Furthermore, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus have evidence against them, and I conclude that these supernatural beings do not exist.

 

Why does one type of god get special consideration, while other gods don't? Or should we all be agnostic with respect to the FSM?

 

Finally, if you can't define a god in any manner that is understandable, I think it is reasonable to dismiss it. "Supernatural" is a meaningless term.

[Mongo]

I reject the implicit and weak definitions of atheism and for the same reasons I reject agnostic – these definitions are pejorative and denote mental weakness.

 

Weak Atheism seems like a state of mind defined by a negative; by what someone does not believe. This suggests the mind is searching. This is unacceptable to me.

 

Implicit Atheism seems like a state of mind that implies ignorance and a lack of curiosity or perhaps a lack of breadth of thinking. This is unacceptable to me.

 

Strong Atheism implies a militence that may be true in some individuals but not everyone. It is a non sequitor that if one has concluded that god does not exist, then that state of mind is militant. This is unacceptable to me.

Explicit Atheism is the only acceptable to me and non-pejorative descriptor of the atheist. I have never seen anyone go around and say, “I’m an explicit atheist”. WTF? And so this too is unacceptable to me.

 

Since I arrived on this site I have found the preponderance of atheists here to define themselves as weak or implicit. I have found the thought of joining that camp disconcerting.

 

I gave this considerable thought and at this point in time I’d like to see atheism defined as such:

Atheism: The state of mind of a person who has concluded that there is no god.

 

Note that the definition rests on a state of mind and a mental act. It is a positive affirmation of a point of view not a statement of truth. It is however not a statement of faith as suggested by dictionaries that seek to define it as a belief.

 

This definition describes how I approach the world. Everything I see is interpreted with an absence of any expectation to find or discover god or any deity as the explanatory or driving force behind any event.

 

I think the great advantage of this definition is that it highlights the act of drawing a conclusion which is something we do every day without the requirement of absolute certainty.

 

I present this as my definition but one that I propose to fellow atheists as a viable alternative to currently popular definitions.

 

Mongo

[Shyone]

I reject the implicit and weak definitions of atheism and for the same reasons I reject agnostic – these definitions are pejorative and denote mental weakness.

 

Weak Atheism seems like a state of mind defined by a negative; by what someone does not believe. This suggests the mind is searching. This is unacceptable to me.

 

Implicit Atheism seems like a state of mind that implies ignorance and a lack of curiosity or perhaps a lack of breadth of thinking. This is unacceptable to me.

 

Strong Atheism implies a militence that may be true in some individuals but not everyone. It is a non sequitor that if one has concluded that god does not exist, then that state of mind is militant. This is unacceptable to me.

Explicit Atheism is the only acceptable to me and non-pejorative descriptor of the atheist. I have never seen anyone go around and say, “I’m an explicit atheist”. WTF? And so this too is unacceptable to me.

 

Since I arrived on this site I have found the preponderance of atheists here to define themselves as weak or implicit. I have found the thought of joining that camp disconcerting.

 

I gave this considerable thought and at this point in time I’d like to see atheism defined as such:

Atheism: The state of mind of a person who has concluded that there is no god.

 

Note that the definition rests on a state of mind and a mental act. It is a positive affirmation of a point of view not a statement of truth. It is however not a statement of faith as suggested by dictionaries that seek to define it as a belief.

 

This definition describes how I approach the world. Everything I see is interpreted with an absence of any expectation to find or discover god or any deity as the explanatory or driving force behind any event.

 

I think the great advantage of this definition is that it highlights the act of drawing a conclusion which is something we do every day without the requirement of absolute certainty.

 

I present this as my definition but one that I propose to fellow atheists as a viable alternative to currently popular definitions.

 

Mongo

That fits me well.

 

My atheism is largely practical or pragmatic. There is no consideration of any gods regarding my thinking or behavior. I have no need of that hypothesis.

 

We have done the work, arrived at a reasonable conclusion, and we are atheists - with no belief in gods.

 

While others may disagree with our conclusions, it does not mean that we must acknowledge the likelihood of other's conclusions. Neither must I define my conclusion as weak, incomplete or unsubstantiated as "faith" or "belief" would imply.

[Mongo]

While others may disagree with our conclusions, it does not mean that we must acknowledge the likelihood of other's conclusions. Neither must I define my conclusion as weak, incomplete or unsubstantiated as "faith" or "belief" would imply.

 

There also seems to be a tendancy to define it as a philosophy.

 

It is a grave mistake for atheists to allow themselves to be sucked into that debate.

 

Atheists otherwise have little in common.

 

Atheism is not a philosophy and I won't defend my views on that basis. It is a state of mind, a point of view... a conclusion.

 

BTW - I think there is room for atheism to be defined both ways (absence of god belief) but I encourage athiests to assert their state of mind as a positive rather than express it as a negative.

 

Mongo

[Dhampir]

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

If the probability of God is miniscule, or if the concept of god is illogical, then we may conclude that there is no god.

 

Why is that not a conclusion?

 

That IS a conclusion. Atheism by itself is not.

 

That conclusion might lead you to atheism, but they're not the same thing.

[Guest Torrent]

An Atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist. Unbeliever is more useful than Atheist, in my opinion.

[Dhampir]

An Atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist. Unbeliever is more useful than Atheist, in my opinion.

 

No, no, NO! An atheist is someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE in gods. At all. An atheist may be so because he or she believes there ARE NO gods to believe in, but that is NOT a requirement of atheism. Damn. I just got finished spelling that out and it gets ignored at the first opportunity.

 

At any rate, an unbeliever is a more specific thing than an atheist, as it doesn't require you to not believe in any gods, but usually a specific god or other. That is, "I don't believe in YOUR god, I believe in mine". People that tended to use the word "unbeliever" from my understanding, typically used it as an accusation, and it was frequently followed with massacre and/or torture to those so accused.

[Ancey]

I decided in the event of being asked by a friend what religion (or lack thereof) I am, I shall reply with a mouthful to confuse them away from trying to lump me into a specific category or stereotype.

 

It should go along the lines of "Agnostic Atheist Pantheist Secular Humanist with a hint of Buddhist"

 

All of which are actually able to fit together if spoken correctly. Anyways, it'll confuse the heck of out them so they can't even start making assumptions until I explain it to them!

[Guest ephymeris]

I am not that great at waxing philosphical. I don't think my waters run that deep sometimes, guess that makes me a little pragmatic. I consider myself an atheist instead of an agnostic in that I consider belief (in anything) to be an action, something I must commit, perform. I do not actively believe in anything godlike or supernatural. I do not believe in any religious dogma. I am in absense of the action of belief, in absense of a deity and therefore, in my own opinion, a-theist. I see how this is probably not the purist definition of atheism but that's where I am. I am the wuss version of atheist

 

I would consider my husband to be best defined as an agnostic in that he doesn't practically believe in god but is always quick to remind me that he doesn't know for sure and doesn't want to cross out the possibility. Truthfully, he is nearly pantheistic in that he feels if there is a god, it is in everything but not anthropomorphic at all, more like energy. Still, he does not wish to call this energy a god.

 

Wow, this can be such a complex subject. Is it not enough to be free to call ourselves what we wish and define these things on a case to case basis? Or is that too much chaos? I continue to ponder...

[Shyone]

I am not that great at waxing philosphical. I don't think my waters run that deep sometimes, guess that makes me a little pragmatic. I consider myself an atheist instead of an agnostic in that I consider belief (in anything) to be an action, something I must commit, perform. I do not actively believe in anything godlike or supernatural. I do not believe in any religious dogma. I am in absense of the action of belief, in absense of a deity and therefore, in my own opinion, a-theist. I see how this is probably not the purist definition of atheism but that's where I am. I am the wuss version of atheist

 

I would consider my husband to be best defined as an agnostic in that he doesn't practically believe in god but is always quick to remind me that he doesn't know for sure and doesn't want to cross out the possibility. Truthfully, he is nearly pantheistic in that he feels if there is a god, it is in everything but not anthropomorphic at all, more like energy. Still, he does not wish to call this energy a god.

 

Wow, this can be such a complex subject. Is it not enough to be free to call ourselves what we wish and define these things on a case to case basis? Or is that too much chaos? I continue to ponder...

That is profound. I like your characterizations/definitions.

[Guest ephymeris]

That is profound. I like your characterizations/definitions.

 

Thanks Shy I do think about these things a lot and I love reading the philosophical and ethical debates on these forums but I don't often throw my hat in the ring because I'm not as well versed as many here.

 

As for my husband's pantheistic tendencies, we have some great conversations about this. One question that I have continued to roll around in my head for years is "What drives life on a cellular level?" What is the energy that starts and perpetuates cellular metabolism or initiates cellular death? That energy is what has been up for pantheistic debate in our conversations for several years now.

 

Also, I am often perplexed by the hesitancy of members here to call themselves atheists as opposed to agnostic (other than the desire to not misrepresent themselves). It's not like we aren't free to change our minds at any given time. There is anxiety expressed as if once you call yourself an atheist, you can't go back. I call bullshit. We define ourselves to those around us and we are free to change at any time.

[Shyone]

That is profound. I like your characterizations/definitions.

 

Thanks Shy I do think about these things a lot and I love reading the philosophical and ethical debates on these forums but I don't often throw my hat in the ring because I'm not as well versed as many here.

 

As for my husband's pantheistic tendencies, we have some great conversations about this. One question that I have continued to roll around in my head for years is "What drives life on a cellular level?" What is the energy that starts and perpetuates cellular metabolism or initiates cellular death? That energy is what has been up for pantheistic debate in our conversations for several years now.

Energy: The Kreb's cycle.

 

Death: Degradation, degeneration or buildup of toxic compounds.

 

There are many causes of cell death - lack of nutrients, DNA abnormalities - sometimes by taking chemicals that llok like nucleotides and putting them into a sequence that is just fatal, poisons, etc.

 

I personally think that there is likely some junk DNA that is transcribed but has no real function. You get a segment of protien or a chain of amino acids, and if it has no function it may just build up in the cell eventually clogging the essentual life sustaining chemical reactions. (Amyloidosis may be one clinically evident example of this).

 

Or it could be god.

[Guest ephymeris]

LOL Obviously I don't think the answers to life's mysteries are answered by a deity. I am very familiar with the Krebs cycle and basic cellular metabolism (being both a highschool and college graduate ). That's not exactly what I'm asking but it's difficult for me to accurately express via this medium and I don't want to derail this thread.

[Shyone]

LOL Obviously I don't think the answers to life's mysteries are answered by a deity. I am very familiar with the Krebs cycle and basic cellular metabolism (being both a highschool and college graduate ). That's not exactly what I'm asking but it's difficult for me to accurately express via this medium and I don't want to derail this thread.

Well, I realize the answer is quite simplistic, but the answer is probably as complicated as the question.

 

I think that cells, as membrane bound bags of chemicals in the simplest understanding, probably aggregated under some particular physical circumstances where there is an abundance of the basic chemicals of life. I would suspect a water environment, and one theory puts them at an underwater hydrothermal vents. This is the point of entrance to abiogenesis. The thing that makes life "stick" is that it perpetuates itself.

 

The rest, as they say, is pre-history. The world is littered with the tiny carcasses of the losers who failed to self perpetuate. They may have just been unfortunate, but their lack of success is genetically equivalent to a lack of "drive."

 

That's why we have BMWs but no Oldsmobiles. Success survives, failure dies. Nature only allows cells to exist that have some drive to exist (call it persistence to differentiate it from some emotional need). It's innate.

[Guest Goathead]

Whatever. I think we all know that agnostics aren't *true* atheists, and can't ever be true scientists either.

[FinallyFree]

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.

...

 

This post was very helpful for me. It helps me understand more about myself. I often shy away from labeling myself as an athiest. Being raised christian, the word "athiest" is a very scary word and is associated with satan. I think to me the word "athiest" really meant "satan worshiper." Although I am not going to label myself, I know have words to express parts of my beliefs.

 

Again... thanks! A very well written, well thought out post.

 

 

 

[REBOOT]

Here's my famous take on this subject:

 

Atheism is the firm belief that no sentient being was part of the creation of our universe.

 

Theism has a mandatory supreme being involved in all of creation.

 

... well what is creation ? At max power, the large hadron collider (LHC) is theoretically capable of generating short-lived black holes. Should we inadvertly create parallel micro-universes that trigger the evolution of sentient life, would we be gods then

 

Maybe both groups are correct... some universes are artificial (created by sentient beings) while others are natural collisions between branes (parralel universes) made of complementary matter.

 

In that framework, I remain firmly Ignostic (In other words... what the heck is a god lol)

[Prestissimo]

Great post!

An omnipotent being can't create, nor exist by the limitation of "time".

If it is "above" time it means it already created everything, knows everything, all at once.

Therefor any creation coming from this entity has also always been.

 

An entity with four-dimensional powers can travel over time though and go back and forth between our timeline.

As soon as an entity can influence the 4th dimension it's actually a five-dimensional being, for it is creating new timelines.

The assumption itself to make changes requires progress, therefor time.

It would create it a timeline describing that persons actions; creating a separate timeline making itself 4 dimensional again.

Even if it could influence it's own timeline, then that creates a new timeline.

No matter how often you stack it, you can't create, cause from the outside perspective it has always 'been'.

 

Such a being could theoretically exist and is not omnipotent, but can appear so in our world.

However, then it would limit itself to be part of that world, else it would simply create a new timeline. With versions of ourselves that we do not experience

Therefor still excluding the possibilities of a personal God. It would be trapped here for eternity.. or better, would have been always trapped here for eternity from a 4th dimensional-perspective on this God

 

And this is just discussing being omnipotent. The idea makes no sense for an omniscient being, let alone an omnipresent being.

[Will02]

In terms of belief in bible-god/jesus, I'm an atheist. I know for sure that it doesn't exist in any meaningful form because I understand its true origins and how the tales were shaped over centuries. At first, I was an agnostic towards biblegod, but after all the research I've done I’ve come to see it for what it is, i.e. nothing.

 

As far as other deities, etc. out there there is no way to know for sure. (even Dawkins admits that) We're learning more about the universe all the time but we haven't come close to understanding everything yet. It's possible that there may be some sort of high-level intelligence out there in the universe that hasn't revealed itself to us yet, but until we know for sure that something like that exists, there is no reason to believe in it. Therefore, I’m an agnostic in that situation and others like it.

[SoftIce]

I found this discussion pretty interesting!

 

Something Dhampir wrote confused me, though.

 

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!!

 

Atheism and Agnosticism still seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

Atheism: God does not exist.

Agnosticism: We can't prove or disprove that God exists.

 

Wouldn't these be conflicting views? view 1 says God does not exist, view 2 says we can't say that God exists or that God does not exist, because there's not enough proof either way.

 

One view is certain, the other is uncertain. Am I right on this assumption?

 

I get the idea that agnosticism is a conclusion, while atheism is a belief, but they still seem to conflict with each other to me.

 

How can someone hold the position that god does not exist, but also think that god cannot be disproven as well? Wouldn't believing that God does not exist also imply a belief that God cannot be proven as well?

 

Sorry if I'm being slow on the uptake or misunderstanding something here.

[Dhampir]

I found this discussion pretty interesting!

 

Something Dhampir wrote confused me, though.

 

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!!

 

Atheism and Agnosticism still seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

Atheism: God does not exist.

Agnosticism: We can't prove or disprove that God exists.

 

Wouldn't these be conflicting views? view 1 says God does not exist, view 2 says we can't say that God exists or that God does not exist, because there's not enough proof either way.

 

One view is certain, the other is uncertain. Am I right on this assumption?

 

I get the idea that agnosticism is a conclusion, while atheism is a belief, but they still seem to conflict with each other to me.

 

How can someone hold the position that god does not exist, but also think that god cannot be disproven as well? Wouldn't believing that God does not exist also imply a belief that God cannot be proven as well?

 

Sorry if I'm being slow on the uptake or misunderstanding something here.

Hello

 

Let me see if I can't clarify a little.

You said:

Atheism: God does not exist.

Agnosticism: We can't prove or disprove that God exists.

 

I would contend that a more accurate statement looks like this:

Atheism: God does not exist. No reasonable evidence that god exists has been shown, whether or not god actually exists.

Agnosticism: We can't prove or disprove that God exists.

 

At it's most basic, Atheism is not a contention that god doesn't exist, but a rejection of the contention that god does exist. Another way to put it, is that it denies a claim. If you say there are fairies in your garden, I say I don't believe it. There might be fairies, but I have no reason to assume you're correct in that statement. If you can't prove those fairies to me, that STILL doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any, but I am further convinced that there's no need to assume there are.

 

And that brings us to agnosticism. That we can't prove or disprove god means simply that the depths of our knowledge at this point, as far as we can tell, do not encompass the answer to the question of god's existence. It literally means "without knowledge", so basically we claim ignorance on that or whatever subject we might discuss. It allows us to say that, while God probably doesn't exist, there may still be a chance that he is bound up in that understanding that we lack.

 

To sum up: I don't believe in god, but I can't say that he's not out there somewhere, with certainty.

[SoftIce]

Ahhhhh okay, that totally cleared it up! Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply! The fairy allegory helped a lot with the definitions.

[SusanStoHeli]

There's all the difference between "I don't believe in a god" and "There is no god" - I don't believe in UFOs - the reports aren't credible to me, I've no reason to believe in them, I lack any belief.... but it could be true, I'm not making a statement that I can debunk every UFO sighting there ever was, or that there will never be a credible sighting. To say there are no UFOs - that's making a statement that I think I have proof, knowledge.

 

Agnostic atheist is a very common position, and it's important because many Christians and others hostile to atheists like to pigeonhole atheists as gnostic atheists, then claim we're illogical and biased and as much working on faith as any believer because "You can't prove a negative!" They like to act as though that's the only definition of the word.

 

You can't disprove that some god could exist. You can disprove specific gods - if I say there is a god who drops a donkey on your head when you say "banana" - that's the work of a second to disprove that this god exists. I think the Christian god of the literal Bible can similarly be disproved, but the allegorical, humans wrote it, there are some flaws Bible, since you can't pin that god down solidly on anything, can't be disproved, and the Deist god is impossible to disprove. It'd be trivial for a god, if one existed to prove their own existence, so many ways it's ridiculous.

 

I'm an atheist, I don't have any belief in any gods, and I consider the chance that there is any god to be negligible. But from a statistical point of view, I can't say there's zero chance.

[Ouroboros]

Atheism: God does not exist.

Atheism, a claim about a person's belief:

1) I believe God does not exist (strong position, conviction)

2) I don't believe God exists (weak position, unconvinced)

 

Agnosticism: We can't prove or disprove that God exists.

Agnostic, a claim about a person's knowledge:

1) we can't know if God exists or not.

 

In other words, even if you can't know for sure if God exists or not, you can still have a weak position of not believing that God exists. Not mutually exclusive

 

However, you can't be a strong atheist and an agnostic at the same time. Those two are mutually exclusive.

 

Put it this way:

 

Claim: there is a teapot in orbit around Mars.

 

Positions:

1) I know there is one (strong belief)

2) I don't know, but I believe there is (weak belief, or agnostic belief)

3) I dont' know, but I dont' believe there is, or I believe there isn't (weak unbelief, agnostic unbelief)

4) I know there isn't one (strong unbelief)

[micksherlock]

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.

 

Not to worry! I imagine the conversations in hell will be far more stimulating anyway. Saint Chrysostom (Heaven) Pythagoras (Hell), Martin Luther (Heaven), Plato (Hell), Calvin (Heaven), Giordano Bruno (Hell), Pat Robertson (Heaven), Noam Chomsky (Hell). Well, you get the picture.