I Deconverted, But I'm Not An Atheist.

[3DollarBill]

For starters, atheists tends to assert religions is the root of all evil

Yes but that's not a blind assumption on my part. I have evidence that this is the case. It's also not applicable to all atheists.

 

I think perhaps you need a better understanding of what the term "atheist" actually entails...just one thing, actually: We don't believe in any god-claims. We do not, as a group, assert that there are no gods. We do not claim to know the origin of the universe. There isn't even an assumption of why an atheist came to be an atheist, though I think a majority would cite lack of evidence.

 

 

How can I have the belief or the lack of belief in such a word that is so ill-defined?

It is the theist which defines the god, not the atheist. I suppose if you were to define god as the singularity which existed at the time of the Big Bang, which is the origin of all existence, then I would say, sure, I'm a now a theist. I would then say...so fucking what?

 

Why should absence of evidence be evidence of absence

It isn't. The default position is to not believe something until evidence has been provided. No evidence has been provided for gods, therefore I do not believe in them.

 

As for strong atheist, they assume that god doesn't exist while there is no evidence for that also. The only correct assertion is no assertion at all IMHO.

That is precisely the assertion that atheists make...nothing. That's the default position. You didn't believe in gods when you were born, you were told about them. Theists assert gods exist, atheists do not believe those assertions. That's it.

 

One of the difficult things about shedding religious belief is that you have been conditioned to expect all the answers...what happens when you die, how the universe came to be, why humans are so damned rotten to each other, etc etc. The thing is, we don't have these answers. Religion makes shit up so you feel comfortable. You don't have to have an alternative explanation to be an atheist...it's ok to not know.

[Reptillian]

Yes but that's not a blind assumption on my part. I have evidence that this is the case. It's also not applicable to all atheists.

 

Which is why I mentioned it's not attributable to all atheists, but I am speaking from generalization developed from experiences alone.

I think perhaps you need a better understanding of what the term "atheist" actually entails...just one thing, actually: We don't believe in any god-claims.

 

Excuse me? If you have read one of my other post, you'll see that I am a firm supporter of relativistic isms meaning that the isms is defined in respect to each individual. I have made a post regarding relativism. If you wanna say that's an atheist, then I have no problem with that as I am a supporter of relativistic isms. That being said, a newborn would be classified as undefined if the argument to support that is based off the thesis statement that to be an atheist, you need to have some understanding of definitive point of theological concept, but that is only applicable to my perspective & like-minded perspective. Likewise, your perspective of newborns' theological position is only applicable to your perspective & like-minded perspective.Gosh, I hope I got the format right. How do I even edit post and the is really confuzzling me.

[3DollarBill]

Excuse me? If you have read one of my other post, you'll see that I am a firm supporter of relativistic isms meaning that the isms is defined in respect to each individual. I have made a post regarding relativism. If you wanna say that's an atheist, then I have no problem with that as I am a supporter of relativistic isms. That being said, a newborn would be classified as undefined if the argument to support that is based off the thesis statement that to be an atheist, you need to have some understanding of definitive point of theological concept, but that is only applicable to my perspective & like-minded perspective. Likewise, your perspective of newborns' theological position is only applicable to your perspective & like-minded perspective.

 

Did you major in sociology? 'Cause you can rattle off bullshit like a pro.

 

Just trying to help you get your terminology straight. You can take it or leave it. But when you say stuff like this:

 

As for as agnostics' assertion regarding existence, they assume that there is a probability of existence without evidence for it.

It makes it quite clear to me you don't know what you are talking about.

[Reptillian]

Excuse me? If you have read one of my other post, you'll see that I am a firm supporter of relativistic isms meaning that the isms is defined in respect to each individual. I have made a post regarding relativism. If you wanna say that's an atheist, then I have no problem with that as I am a supporter of relativistic isms. That being said, a newborn would be classified as undefined if the argument to support that is based off the thesis statement that to be an atheist, you need to have some understanding of definitive point of theological concept, but that is only applicable to my perspective & like-minded perspective. Likewise, your perspective of newborns' theological position is only applicable to your perspective & like-minded perspective.

 

Did you major in sociology? 'Cause you can rattle off bullshit like a pro.

 

Just trying to help you get your terminology straight. You can take it or leave it. But when you say stuff like this:

 

As for as agnostics' assertion regarding existence, they assume that there is a probability of existence without evidence for it.

It makes it quite clear to me you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Nope I don't major into sociology, but at least I can understand that people do actually have different interpretations of the meanings regarding atheism, agnosticism, and theism which is why the relativistic viewpoint is to be accepted. The same thing can be observed with sexuality and some other words which leaves to too many interpretations.

[Reptillian]

I'd like to add to my past post that I am not referring to all atheists and agnostics, but I'm only pointing some are like the way I pointed. I can't edit posts.

[Joshpantera]

*Tags 3DollarBill and enters the ring*

 

Reptilian, you may want to begin the word atheism and proceed forward from there:

 

A = not + Theism = God belief. Therefore atheism is "not God belief."

 

We're talking about a lack of God belief. This doesn't even specify whether or not one has been exposed to an argument for the existence of God(s), it's simply the lack of any such God belief whatsoever for no specific reason given for the lack of belief.

 

Let's apply this to an assertion.

 

Babies are born atheist, that is, not believing in the existence of God(s).

 

True or false?

[RankStranger]

I'd like to add to my past post that I am not referring to all atheists and agnostics, but I'm only pointing some are like the way I pointed. I can't edit posts.

 

You'll be able to edit posts pretty soon. The forum settings are such that you can't edit posts until you've made some minimum number of posts. I think maybe it's 25 or so. I dunno why its set up that way.

[RankStranger]

I'd like to add to my past post that I am not referring to all atheists and agnostics, but I'm only pointing some are like the way I pointed. I can't edit posts.

 

It seems to me that this whole debate boils down to semantics. When it comes to matters of belief, disbelief, or asserting the non-existence of unprovable concepts- IMO our language just isn't structured very well.

 

I mean, consider Dawkins' teapot (orbiting Jupiter I think?). If I believe in the teapot, I'm a teapotist... that's easy enough. If I claim that teapot doesn't exist... I'm an ateapotist. Again, easy enough. If I don't know whether or not the teapot exists,but I'm open to the idea, I guess I'm agnostic toward teapotism. That's getting a little harder to define.

 

But what if I just see no reason to consider the possibility of the orbiting teapot? What if my knowledge of the history of human space flight leads me to conclude that the proposition of the teapot is unreasonable - despite the fact that I can't prove the negative? What if I see no need to address such a silly question? What if i think tbe definition of 'teapot' could include any asteroid with a crater that could conceivably hold tea? Similar positions regarding the existence of a deity just dont fit neatly into our language and cultural assumptions about belief.

 

So people often choose what they reckon is the closest fit, or whatever they're comfortable with. Sample a dozen atheists (or agnostics), and you're likely to get as many variations on not believing the deity claim. If you try to lump them all together as if all (or even most) of them see it the same way- you end up with contentious and pedantic discussions like these.

 

So I'm not arguing that your position on the matter is wrong- not at all. I'm just saying that the way you choose to frame it is going to be pretty unique to you... as the terms are ill defined and we all see them a little differently. If you try to impose your own framework and definitions onto others (when these are NOT universally agreed upon), you're going to end up with an argument. And that's fine if that's what you want. But there are easier and more productive ways to approach the subject if you're looking for a less contentious discussion.

[roadrunner]

It seems to me that this whole debate boils down to semantics. When it comes to matters of belief, disbelief, or asserting the non-existence of unprovable concepts- IMO our language just isn't structured very well.

I agreed i heard it argued that agnostic and atheist are not even in the same category so you can't be one or the other. That said, I would be an agnostic atheist. <cue confusion>. but generally speaking i know what Rep is trying to say. I think we all do to some degree but for some reason this turned into a technical matter. I now know the specifics of it but I still use the mainstream definitions.

 

I mean, consider Dawkins' teapot (orbiting Jupiter I think?)

 

Bertrand Russel. and its between earth and mars......and its really there. LOL.

 

If you try to lump them all together as if all (or even most) of them see it the same way- you end up with contentious and pedantic discussions like these.

Four letters can fix all that just stick "IMHO" in there somewhere if you want to generalize and then you can get away with it. Of course your humble will carry a lot less weight.

[Reptillian]

Babies are born atheist, that is, not believing in the existence of God(s).

 

True or false?

 

From the broad perspective of atheism, yes.From a perspective in which the individual has to learn or develop a concept a god before becoming an atheist considering god is a nebulous concept, no they're not an atheist. They're more over classified as having a non-position. It depends on how you take it, it isn't a simple true or false question. Relativism and semantics brah.

[Joshpantera]

That's the point of the question though, atheism is at the core of it's meaning a non-position. It's simply a lack, or void of God belief - not God belief.

 

To take up a position you have to move to the left or right of atheism - towards theism or anti-theism.

 

anti-theism (against God belief) ------- atheism (lack of God belief) ------- theism (God belief)

 

We're born in the middle and move towards the left or right depending on how we respond to social interaction. We're not born believing in God, we're not born "not knowing" if there's a God (because we don't know that there's anything to even fence sit about), and we're not born rejecting God.

 

We're born with a pure lack of God belief = not God belief = atheism.

 

So it can be a simple yes or no question.

 

From this perspective you started out in this world atheist, got mixed up in theism, now what?

 

Ignostic apatheism?

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

• The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
   
  
• The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
  

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,^[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

Well, this is settled by simply looking at the word atheism and realizing that no concept of God or definition of God is required to simply not have a God belief. Atheism is not a positive assertion in the first place...

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims thatgods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

This is merely a type of atheism as practical or pragmatic atheism, so doesn't seem to make you any less atheist...

 

So is it safe to say that you were born atheist, learned theism, and have deconverted back to atheism but aren't comfortable calling yourself atheist because of fallacies you were exposed to about atheism while a theist? And wish to cloack your atheism with subset variants such as Ignostic apatheism?

[Reptillian]

So it can be a simple yes or no question.

I can understand your point, but one can argue it isn't necessarily as a simple yes or no if we want to include certain requirement such as at least having some reference point as to what is god is defined as and whether their brain has enough knowledge to at least comprehend the concept of god(s). So therefore, if the premise is based off requirements such as those, then babies aren't necessarily atheists. Now if one is to build a system of isms based off the premise that one has to understand certain concepts to get a position, non-theism is where they belong while keeping it separated. This may or not be right, but the point is that for some, it only counts if one is able to grasp the concept or at least capable of it. Offtopic- There's a cute article which is about newborns being able to grasp quantum mechanics while I try to google my question. - http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2531-newborn-babies-quantum-mechanics.html

Well, this is settled by simply looking at the word atheism and realizing that no concept of God or definition of God is required to simply not have a God belief. Atheism is not a positive assertion in the first place...

The problem of asserting ignosticism is equal to athiesm is that the ignostic admits he can have the lack of belief or a belief in relative to how god is defined. So therefore, a ignostic do have belief or the lack of belief in regarding to god depending on how god is defined. Considering some ignostics encompass the three positions while the positions is in with respect to the definitive point of god, ignosticism should be compared as a imaginary position as in imaginary number in your perspective that there can be only athiesm to theism. It doesn't exist in your category as they can encompass those three positions. How it is settled anyway with athiesm? I'm not going to be convinced to assert myself to be an atheist since I can't as that would be a inaccurate reflection of my position. Maybe I pulled some strawman here, I'm aware of that.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims thatgods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

This is merely a type of atheism as practical or pragmatic atheism, so doesn't seem to make you any less atheist...

 

You need better sources than wikipedia and the assertion that apatheism is atheism is questionable. Let us take an analysis of the quote of yours."Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism" -Considering apatheism can be a portmanteau of theism, how can it asserted as atheism when the position itself doesn't show whether they're an atheist or a theist. An apatheist can be a theist, an agnostic, an atheist, and a ignostic. In order to prove that apatheism=/=atheism. Let us analyze the base reference definition with analogy regarding gay rights."Apatheism is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity."-An apatheist treats belief and disbelief with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest. Lack of interest is basically apathy, isn't it? I don't know the distinction, but my guess is that apathy would be that position is similar to an apathetic student who doesn't do school work as in way less than the student with the lack of interest is capable of doing school-work. Now onto the analogy of comparing the branches with positions regarding gay rights or the debate of gays in politics (for ignostics, I'll explain).Theistic apatheism is similar to a position in which one accepts and mentally support gay rights, but they don't really care to do anything at all politically wise meaning this person while accepting of gay rights, is completely apathetic about it. Agnostic apatheism is similar to a position in which one is neutral about gay rights, but doesn't want to be involved and doesn't really care about supporting or rejecting gay rights.Athiestic apatheism is similar to a position of either the rejection or a non-position regarding gay rights, but doesn't do anything. This can be arguably analogous to the above sentiment just like how one can argue that agnosticism is not exclusive to atheism.Ignostic apatheism is similar to a position when one considers the politics of gay rights as unimportant to them or irrevelant, but asserts that there must be definitive point before deciding on certain issues regarding gay rights like as for gay marriage, they assert from what should be considered to factor for decision-making and what should be the reference point to the positions. You cannot place the ignostic apatheism as any one of the other three as the positions are different in perspective especially when the ignostic is more or less fluid as in isms-changes in respect to the reference points of defining god. "Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism."-Right, apatheism is about the manner and says nothing about their underlying beliefs regarding god. So it isn't neccessarily atheism."An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims thatgods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life. "-Those are nothing more than examples of apatheism. If you analyze some of the other part of your quote, you'll see that apatheism isn't exclusively to atheism or agnosticism.That being said, there's another perspective of apatheism which is seen in wisegeek

patheism refers to a way of thinking about religion and God. Apatheists have an indifferent attitude towards religion and the existence of God, not really caring one way or the other about religious issues. As a general rule, this lack of interest is motivated by a disinterest in God, and a belief that whether or not God exists, God is not relevant to life on Earth.The roots of apatheism are old, as numerous philosophers wrote about apatheistic attitudes during periods like the 1700s, when religion was a topic of hot discussion among many communities. The term itself seems to have emerged around the late 20th century, and it is a portmanteau of “apathy” and “theism,” or “atheism,” depending on what sort of apatheist is under discussion.Understanding apatheism can be a bit difficult, and one of the easiest ways to think about it is to remember that the word “apathy” is involved. Unlike theists and atheists, who both care deeply about religious issues, although they are on opposite sides of the debate, an apatheist genuinely doesn't care about religion and God. Some people consider amatheism to be a sort of easy way out, representing a complete lack of interest in thinking about religious topics.For an apatheist, religion is an abstract concept which might be interesting, but ultimately not meaningful. Individuals who embrace this approach to faith believe that religion has no real bearing on their lives, and that if God does or doesn't exist, it doesn't influence life on Earth, because God does not seem to take an active role in the events which influence humans.For an apatheist, God and religion do not matter, even if the apatheist subscribes to a particular faith or believes in God. Some religious officials have expressed concerns about an epidemic of apatheism, even in traditionally pious communities, suggesting that this way of thinking is weakening morality and striking a blow to the heart of religious belief.Apatheism could be considered a sort of trap, to some extent, because it rejects the idea that religion is in fact extremely important for many people on Earth. As numerous cultures throughout history have shown, religious beliefs and faith have played a crucial role in history, and numerous acts have been performed in the name of God. By suggesting that God and religion are unimportant and irrelevant, apatheists are rejecting a large part of human society, and they may have trouble understanding the cultures that they live in, given what a huge influence religion has on daily life in regions all over the world.

Take in note of "The term itself seems to have emerged around the late 20th century, and it is a portmanteau of “apathy” and “theism,” or “atheism,” depending on what sort of apatheist is under discussion." and "For an apatheist, religion is an abstract concept which might be interesting, but ultimately not meaningful. Individuals who embrace this approach to faith believe that religion has no real bearing on their lives, and that if God does or doesn't exist, it doesn't influence life on Earth, because God does not seem to take an active role in the events which influence humans."

So is it safe to say that you were born atheist, learned theism, and have deconverted back to atheism but aren't comfortable calling yourself atheist because of fallacies you were exposed to about atheism while a theist? And wish to cloack your atheism with subset variants such as Ignostic apatheism?

Nope, had nothing to do with fallacies nor I have contended myself as an atheist. I have done my research before decided and observed that the isms is really relative while the ignostic apatheism isn't necessarily a varient of atheism as shown in my analysis.

[Reptillian]

Ugh, just look at this formatting I did in my last post. What am I doing wrong here? It is noscripts and notscripts?

 

Can someone edit my post using this .txt document?

 

http://www.2shared.com/document/ZJirf98q/ex-christian.html

[Reptillian]

Small changes to the .txt document. Please replace with "take in note of" below.

 

 

Take in note of

 

"The term itself seems to have emerged around the late 20th century, and it is a portmanteau of “apathy” and “theism,” or “atheism,” depending on what sort of apatheist is under discussion."

 

and

 

"For an apatheist, God and religion do not matter, even if the apatheist subscribes to a particular faith or believes in God. Some religious officials have expressed concerns about an epidemic of apatheism, even in traditionally pious communities, suggesting that this way of thinking is weakening morality and striking a blow to the heart of religious belief."*Awaiting for my post to be editted and deletion of extra post.*

[Joshpantera]

Yes, I see that we're still on the same point. You can have God belief or lack God belief and yet be indifferent about God and see it as something that doesn't matter. So which are you? Are you the type of apatheist and ignostic who does or does not have God belief?

 

If you both do and do not have God belief depending on the definition, such as you hinted at earlier about Pantheism, then I assume that if I define God as the universe you do believe in God by that definition.

 

But if I define God as a male personality, paradoxically considered transcendent and yet human-like in emotion and torn between love and hate, jealous at times and accepting at others, then I presume that you lack God belief and would be atheist in so doing, in lacking belief.

 

Now if one is to build a system of isms based off the premise that one has to understand certain concepts to get a position, non-theism is where they [babies] belong while keeping it separated.

 

So babies are non-theists then?

 

As in "not-theists?"

 

Once again, non-theists are simply atheists because the word means not + God belief / non + God belief.

 

See how just keeping to the structure of the word atheism itself can sort of shoot through the middle of confusing side track issues? At the end of the day we're all born atheist. And you have probably returned to the source whether going as pantheist, ignostic, or apatheist I would assume, contrary to the title of this thread....

[Ouroboros]

See how just keeping to the structure of the word atheism itself can sort of shoot through the middle of confusing side track issues? At the end of the day we're all born atheist. And you have probably returned to the source whether going as pantheist, ignostic, or apatheist I would assume, contrary to the title of this thread....

Perhaps it's just easier say that babies a born non-believers and non-religious instead, considering how different people view the definitions of words like atheist, apatheist, theist, etc.

[Akheia]

I don't know. From what I've seen of developmental psych and neuroscience, we do seem hard-wired to want to find agency in the world around us once we get old enough to realize that Mommy and Daddy, while very powerful wizards indeed, cannot stop storms or death. Babies certainly aren't born into specific religions or belief systems, but to say they're born as atheists seems a bit strong to me.

[Joshpantera]

See how just keeping to the structure of the word atheism itself can sort of shoot through the middle of confusing side track issues? At the end of the day we're all born atheist. And you have probably returned to the source whether going as pantheist, ignostic, or apatheist I would assume, contrary to the title of this thread....

Perhaps it's just easier say that babies a born non-believers and non-religious instead, considering how different people view the definitions of words like atheist, apatheist, theist, etc.

That's just it, to say non-believers or non-religious is in reference to what? Non God believers I assume. It's funny how some people might not be as offended if you put it that way verses just using the word atheist which means the very same thing.

 

The far left definitions do seem too strong as pointed out in the last post. And of course I wouldn't say babies are born thinking like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, but that's because Dawkins and Hitchens are (...and was) pushing the new atheism, strong atheism, and possibly anti-theism - militant atheists as they're often called.

 

But what about the traditional soft or weak definition of atheism based on the Greek root which is the way the word itself is put together and has been understood historically? Here's an example from another board that touches on what many of the leading atheist groups have to say on the matter:

 

http://www.freethoug....php?f=5&t=2827

 

The strong or positive view of the word "atheist" is claimed to be defined as, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God(s)" or another one is, "One who denies the existence of God(s)." This is sometimes referred to nowadays as "the new atheism" because it has no historical context - it's a new misguided version of atheism. Probably due to the fact that so many don't understand the proper definition of the word nor its historical context nor its Greek root. Essentially, they're inadvertently attempting to re-define it out of ignorance not realizing this new version is a degeneration. The problem is that these "new atheists" rigidly adhere to this strong/positive stance and they seem to be fundamentalist about it - which may also be referred to as "militant atheism."

 

The negative or weak view of the word "atheist" is defined as one who has, "An absence of belief in god(s)" or "A lack of belief in god(s)." This is the original definition of "atheist." It is historically what "atheist" has always meant and been defined as based on the original Greek root of the word and its history as you will see by reading below. It's quite simple and no changes are necessary.

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism

 

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheist

 

So how can the word "atheist" be a defined as a "belief" or "denial" and an "absence of belief" at the same time? Simply put, it can't. It is highly possible that only one of these views is correct. See what you think.

"The 'weak' definition has the greatest historical precedence, it has (in my opinion, and that of Smith) the best etymology, and is the most practical. The term atheist has been widely used as a slur or an epithet to indicate an evil person. Positive Atheism Magazine thinks one of the first steps should be to hammer out a definition for the term atheism and to agree to use it. True, atheism's opponents will continue to abuse and misuse the term atheism in their efforts to refute our position, telling us that an atheist is something other than what we are (usually making us out to be people who hold the "strong" position), and then demanding that we defend this other position. However, the least we atheists can hope for is that we can agree to use the term consistently and then be able to point to that consistent use when defending our position against our opponents. This is why we hold the "weak" position and this is why we so patiently and consistently advocate for that position."

 

http://www.positivea...ail/eml9102.htm

"The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) agrees with you on the definition of atheism. In 2003, we assigned your issue to a committee, which gave the definition of atheism, 'Absence of belief in the existence of any gods.' The committee was to have notified dictionary editors and publishers of this. We feel that, as the world's largest atheist organization, we should hold some sway. Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of. As a mostly-volunteer group, we have not yet gotten the word to all of the dictionaries.

 

I hope you will join the AAI and help us in our quest.

 

Best regards,

 

Bobbie Kirkhart

President

Atheist Alliance International

http://www.Atheistalliance.org

"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

 

- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)

 

Martin goes on to cite several other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

 

http://www.infidels....efinitions.html

"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity."

 

--"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

Those Atheists who want to adhere to the "strong" or "positive" definition of the word "atheist" should perhaps consider creating a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse of the word. Although, that abuse largely comes from theists trying to re-define the word by projecting their own desired definition to the word 'atheist.' That way theists can put all atheists into the "strong" or "positive" corner (and attempt to make endless straw man arguments). It's intellectually dishonest and we must not let them do that.

 

Here's another perfect example:

"Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective."

 

- "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98

 

http://dictionary.re...earch?q=godless

"If so many atheists and some of their critics have insisted on the negative definition of atheism, why have some modern philosophers called for a positive definition of atheism -- atheism as the outright denial of God's existence? Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the chasm separating freethinkers and academic philosophers. Most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism contained in that literature."

 

http://www.positivea...it/smithdef.htm

"What Is A Freethinker?"

http://www.ffrf.org/...freethinker.php

 

Theists & atheists, please make the necessary adjustments. It sounds like we need to organize a campaign contacting all the dictionaries and encyclopedias asking for this correction to be made as well. We obviously cannot rely on the theistic community to make these types of corrections for us.

 

Children are a perfect example of having an absence of belief in the concept of God. Belief in a god is something that is taught to them by devotees. No other species seems to hold any belief in the concept of God either.

[NoMoreFalseCertainty]

Reptillian,

I agree with Rank Stranger that most of this thread is dealing with issues of semantics. I'm not going to pick apart your post - plenty of people have already done that. I'm just going to add my 2 cents regarding this issue.

 

I consider myself agnostic, yet I don't think a true agnostic can exist. If you have any knowledge about a subject, you are not truly agnostic. I have never met a "true" agnostic. Everyone either lives as if there is a god/gods or as if there is not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists but to claim no knowledge is dishonest. At this point in life, I have not found a plausible, rational expression of a god to follow. I am open to the possibility, but at this time I do not see sufficient evidence for a god/gods.  As Joshpantera said earlier: "A = not + Theism = God belief. Therefore atheism is 'not God belief.'" Therefore, if I am being honest, I will call myself an agnostic atheist.

 

Here's a quote from a blog post that helped me work through these self-labeling issues:

"I need to first clarify what I mean by “atheist.” I don't believe in a God of any kind, or even see the existence of one as plausible, therefore I am an atheist. I don't claim to know for certain, and I can't prove God doesn't exist. I'm not an atheist in an absolute certainty sort of way, which is what some people still use it to mean." (http://failingtheinsidertest.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-i-am-atheist.html)