Originally posted by apathistIt isn't the job of atheism to "advance knowledge or understanding about the philosophical subject of theism." That is the job of theism. Atheism has no content to it. It advances nothing. It is the simple absence of theism.rwingett
All babies are born as implicit atheists. As is everyone who is unfamiliar with theism, or who is incapable of conceptualizing it. Babies can be expected to subsequently grow up to be either explicit atheists or theists.
Yes. "Implicit atheism", according to the way its defined in, say, Wiki, does imply that babies (and pe ...[text shortened]... where.
Philosophy Pages defines "atheism" as Belief that god does not exist.
Because you've latched onto a particular definition of atheism that suits your agenda doesn't mean it's a good one. "Strong" atheism (the active knowledge claim that there are NO gods) is an extremely narrow one. You'll find very few atheists who actually take that position. Even Richard Dawkins won't go quite that far. The position exists largely as a strawman held up by theists who are attempting to demonstrate that atheism is a belief system. In the broad sense, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deities, and not the belief in the non-existence of any deities.
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think I am a strong atheist. The main reason being that the definition of 'god' is too loose for me to make definite statements using it. I do claim that the Abrahamic gods do not exist and that nothing even remotely similar exists. So once specifics are given to the definition of 'God' I will admit to being a strong atheist.
"Strong" atheism (the active knowledge claim that there are NO gods) is an extremely narrow one. You'll find very few atheists who actually take that position.
But if you talk about a Deist type god or pantheist type god, I would have to do some research before deciding what my opinions are on the matter.
Originally posted by twhiteheadExactly. Strong atheism is like playing whack-a-mole. You can't account for every definition of 'god.' If you think you've disproved one definition of god, it just pops up somewhere else in a slightly different guise. It's a fool's errand. The only purpose it ultimately serves is to let theists off the hook from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof themselves.
I don't think I am a strong atheist. The main reason being that the definition of 'god' is too loose for me to make definite statements using it. I do claim that the Abrahamic gods do not exist and that nothing even remotely similar exists. So once specifics are given to the definition of 'God' I will admit to being a strong atheist.
But if you talk abou ...[text shortened]... e god, I would have to do some research before deciding what my opinions are on the matter.
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [sic]. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
—Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
_____________________________________________
The above dictionary definition illustrates a few things.
First, there are clearly two definitions given, one based on “doctrine or belief”, the other on “disbelief”. Under “disbelief” in the same dictionary, one finds: “the inability to believe or accept that something is true”; the entry under “disbelieve” includes to “have no belief”. That is, “disbelief” does not always mean that one is asserting the opposite of a proffered belief (though it can).
Second, it shows that a standard dictionary can be both culturally biased, and ignorant of basic religious understandings outside conventional usage—after all, standard dictionaries are about conventional usages, not all valid usages. In this case, the first definition capitalizes the word “[G]od” (why, if not that it represents a particular culturally determined convention, based on particular dominant religion(s) and their usage?); and the second definition seems to assume that all gods recognized either now or historically are “supreme beings” (a notion at odds with both old and new pagan religions).
Third, a dictionary is not the same as an encyclopedia, and it’s purpose is not to explain the full range of possibilities (or even actualities) in all segments of discourse (for a quick example, see the “Typology of Atheism” section here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atheism).
Fourth, similarly, the conventional usages given in—well, conventional—dictionaries do not exhaust usages that might be found in more specialized dictionaries for this or that discipline.
For example (pulling some of those together) I assert that the reality of the “supernatural” (in any “form” ) cannot be knowable by us, since whatever is knowable is known in/as nature by our nature. [Any supernature would also be irrelevant to our existence, since we in exist solely in/of/as nature.] That is really a position of “strong agnosticism”. However, there may be propositions about the supernatural that are incoherent (twhitehead’s general position), and—to the extent that the supernatural is “god”—I would be a “strong atheist” on those. [And maybe twhitehead is right, and under my own terms here, my own attempt to speak about it is incoherent.]
With regard to other notions of “god”, I am weakly (or agnostically) atheist: I am unable to or unwilling to believe based on the lack of what would seem to me reasonable evidence, but I do not deny the possibility. And, if the general—and thoroughly naturalist, non-personalist, non-dualist—Stoic understanding of theos (“god” ) is minimally altered so that logos is more aligned with coherency than with telos (in terms of “purposefulness” ), then I can probably go there (though still exploring). [And I think that some neo-Stoics have made that adjustment.]
—NOTE: Googlefudge really has a nice outline of the “typology” on his home page.
____________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Apathist cited the Stanford online Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I often use); and their understanding of what are the standard definitions in philosophy has to be taken seriously. But here is a blog where they reply to an e-mail complaint—their reasons, and the fact that they might reconsider (though not just yet). This, I think, illustrates that definitions are normative, but that the norms can also change (even within a specialized “language game” ). And an "atheism of the [definitional] gaps" will not serve either theist or atheist claims as to what atheism "is".
http://atheistforums.org/thread-9794.html
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe topic is belief system, not belief about a point of data! The system is
14 Jul '13 02:13
Originally posted by Great King Rat
"It always amazes me that religious people would want to equate their belief with that of the atheist. I mean, "believing" in god is something entirely different than "not believing" in god, isn't it? The way I understand it, theists don't just look at the world and say "oh well, based on emotion
"JS, please help me to see the reference "about lacking belief in any god?"
the world view, how all things are viewed one way or another that is the
system, the foundational belief about there being 1, more than 1, or none
all support the system as its foundation, the 'lack of belief' is just another
way of saying there is none.
Kelly
Originally posted by Great King RatNo, I do not think its the same. Lack of belief about being able to fly could
I have no problem with calling atheism a "belief". I think it's pointless - just like calling my non-believe in Manbearpig a believe is pointless - but I have no problem with it.
Would you agree that my atheism is the same kind of belief as my non-belief in Santa Clause (basically the question that Twitehead has already asked)?
cause you to jump off a building and the reality of the fall could be very
bad. Our belief in Santa or lack there of, one way or another will cause
nothing good or bad to occur directly, discounting of course how you behave
due to that belief. Rejecting God would be more like thinking you could fly
when you cannot, the result could be very bad.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettHow do you know all babies are born implicit atheist, what if they all know
All babies are born as implicit atheists. As is everyone who is unfamiliar with theism, or who is incapable of conceptualizing it. Babies can be expected to subsequently grow up to be either explicit atheists or theists.
Rocks, on the other hand, are incapable of ever having beliefs of any kind, under any circumstances. It therefore is nonsensical to refer to them as atheists.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
God and are now in our world where He is rejected and denied?
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"JS, please help me to see the reference "about lacking belief in any god?"
14 Jul '13 02:13
Originally posted by Great King Rat
"It always amazes me that religious people would want to equate their belief with that of the atheist. I mean, "believing" in god is something entirely different than "not believing" in god, isn't it? The way I understand it, theists don't just look at the world and say "oh well, based on emotion
"JS, please help me to see the reference "about lacking belief in any god?"
The reference is that a belief system concerns beliefs. How does it concern the absence of a belief? Sorry KR, I am being redundant.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think I see the problem.
No, I do not think its the same. Lack of belief about being able to fly could
cause you to jump off a building and the reality of the fall could be very
bad. Our belief in Santa or lack there of, one way or another will cause
nothing good or bad to occur directly, discounting of course how you behave
due to that belief. Rejecting God would be more like thinking you could fly
when you cannot, the result could be very bad.
Kelly
Question: when an atheist - any self-proclaimed atheist - says he is an atheist, and elaborates by stating he has no belief in the existence of any kind of god, sees no evidence of godlike interference in anything and feels nothing that could be described as a "supernatural" presence, do you think that what we're really saying as that we reject god? That we really do think/believe/know that god exists - maybe deep inside, or perhaps not even deep inside but just below the surface - but that we just say that we don't believe because we feel that living is easier - with less responsibility - that way?
Sorry KR, I am being redundant.
No problem, my whole existence is one big bowl of redundancy.