Definition of Atheism

Now, I may be wrong here, but as I understood it, atheism could be defined as "lack of belief in one or more deities/gods."

The following could not be said of atheism, right?

"Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist."

I have never before heard theism described as solely a "belief system," that would be a religion, which I've heard can exist without the belief in deities. I mean, Secular Humanism was declared a religion, wasn't it?

Now, I'm certain it could be said that Raeliens believe in deity like characters, but certainly they don't believe them to be deities, but rather perceived as deities by primitive cultures. I could see myself misunderstanding this bit about Raeliens, I had always thought Raeliens were atheists, please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have just picked a poor example.

But am I wrong here? Is anyone with a belief system a theist?


For those of you who would care to read, the following is what instigated me creating this thread.

Spoiler for conversation:

Me: I think you should portray yourself as a skeptic, at the very least make sure to point out that skepticism goes hand in hand with your mindset which is what lead you to be an atheist.

While I am an atheist I find that the use of the label "atheist" isn't very effective since there is nothing within atheism, by itself, that is unifying. It is that which leads a person away from religion that is unifying.

EnglishAtheist: I appreciate your input, but i will continue to portray myself as an Atheist. I see no reason why we Atheists can't be united, if it's merely a question of labeling.

Me: Ah, sorry, I actually meant to say to do it alongside, rather than separately. Some of what I meant to say got lost because when I first tried to post I hit "discard" instead of "Post Comment."

Its actually why the "at the very least" bit in there seems a bit out of place.

It is possible to be united, regardless of the label, but Raelien believers and other kooks are also atheists, so clarifications are sometimes necessary.

I mean, to only say you are an atheist says little about you.

EnglishAtheist: Raelians are not Atheists, they have a belief system (one that makes more sense than an omnipotent God). Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist.

I obviously have a life, I just thought that I should concentrate this channel on Atheism to promote debate.

Me: I'm not going to argue, anyone who doesn't believe in one or more deities is by definition an atheist. Raeliens don't believe in deities, and while it may "make more sense than an omnipotent God," the belief system is still nonsense.

I didn't say you don't have a life, nor would I care if you didn't, maybe there is some colloquial divide here that made you think that I said this, but since I am not from England I can't know. Also note, I never mentioned Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I also tagged in, after all of that a new comment which was...
Me:
I thought I would point out, there may be a case to be made against Raelism being atheistic, or nontheistic, even though they do not identify the aliens as deities, you could say they might as well be considered deities. It may have been a poor example on my part.

However, it does present something of value. An idea for one of your videos might be to present a case for why atheism is defined as "the rejection of any belief systems," and not as "a lack of belief in one or more deities."

A theist believes at least one god exists. An atheist believes that no gods exist or else has not thought about the issue enough to even have a view on it. An agnostic is an atheist who is in denial and makes the bizarre rationalization that because there is some insane microscopic room for error chance that a god exists, it's a toss up and the agnostic is supposedly just stuck between two very reasonable considerations.

Well the interesting thing is that I've came across more than one person who posits that atheism is the lack of a belief system, which I would think more comparable to nihilism than Atheism, rather than the lack of a belief in deities.

People who consider themselves atheists are using a definition of atheism I've never heard of before which makes theists of people I consider atheists.

Where is this new definition of atheism coming from? Is it yet another pulpit tactic devised by preachers and other people of religious faith to create misconceptions about atheism? Are they now trying to spread the idea that atheism is comparable to Nihilism? We aren't allowed to have belief systems now?

I just don't understand where this other person's definition of Atheism and Theism is coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

"...Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist."

---

That is just ridiculous. I believe that I live on the planet Earth, in a solar system with 7 other planets (poor Pluto) and various moons, etc. Am I now a theist? :roll:

Belief is dogma therefore believing = theism. You don't believe you live on earth, you KNOW it.

What criteria must be met to be considered a religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Belief is dogma therefore believing = theism. You don't believe you live on earth, you KNOW it.

---

How do I "know"? I've never personally left the Earth and witnessed the solar system and the other planets - I've just been told that they are out there. And I believe it.

Theism is about deities, not all belief systems. The word "theism" derives from the Greek theos meaning God.

Also, people here tend to irritatingly confuse "theism" and "deism" - Deism means there is a supreme creator/deity, while theism is deism + the belief that this creator interacts/intervenes in our lives.

Aye, atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being/God(s). That is, at least, the way I have always known it's meaning. You could technically believe in fairies and spirits and still be an atheist. Is it's meaning often confused with those who practice any system of beliefs?

Five second of research could have prevented this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

Five second of research could have prevented this thread.

---

No, it couldn't have. The point of this thread was that other people are making this misconception.. It is to bring to light the misconception, I mean you know, the whole consciousness raising thing.


"What criteria must be met to be considered a religion?"

I'm not certain, but I do know there are godless religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Belief is dogma therefore believing = theism. You don't believe you live on earth, you KNOW it.

---

Theists also know that there is a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Theists also know that there is a god.

---

Or maybe they just think they know theres a God.

Everyone says atheism is the lack of belief that there is god, but isn't it really the belief that there isn't a god? And doesn't that make it another "belief system"?

Assuming that wasn't satire, I'll respond with the following.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

Everyone says atheism is the lack of belief that there is god,

---

Because it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

isn't it really the belief that there isn't a god?

---

That falls within the realm of lack of belief, and that would also be atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

doesn't that make it another "belief system"?

---

No, it doesn't. You wouldn't say that believing leprechauns don't exist is "a belief system."

There's a confusion here where many people try to approach atheism in the same way many theists approach their beliefs--as a pure ideal with fixed qualities, a default reality with no dependence on history or cultural context. This reliance on idealized forms is peculiar to Western, Christian culture with its roots in Classical Rome. In this context, atheism arose in Victorian England as, essentially, an extreme form of Protestantism, rejecting not only the orthodox Anglican and Catholic churches as falling short of grand ideals, but holding the world itself as unworthy of an idealized, benign creator which, therefor, must not exist.

So long as you continue to argue what is real, pure atheism, you are bound to the same ontological roots as Christianity, ignorant of the same assumptions and blindered by the same provincialism: essentially, a Protestant denomination, Calvinism minus God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Now, I may be wrong here, but as I understood it, atheism could be defined as "lack of belief in one or more deities/gods."

---

You are using clever rhetoric to imply a sense of ignorance or negligence within Atheists. To say that there is a "lack" of belief is to imply either that there is no enough to believe it to be true, or a very convoluted way to say that they do not have enough dogmatic faith to believe in something silly. Either way, it is a very silly way of stating this ideal. Atheism is simply not having a belief in God which is much more declarative than "lack" as "lack" is much more implicative.

Quote:

---

The following could not be said of atheism, right?

"Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist."

---

There are likely a lot of generalizations here as things are not so black and white in philosophy. Do not be so tempted to declare this. Also, keep in mind that Atheism is not simply a rejection of religion, it's a position of "there is not enough evidence to support these claims, thus, I will not adhere to them."

Quote:

---

I have never before heard theism described as solely a "belief system," that would be a religion, which I've heard can exist without the belief in deities. I mean, Secular Humanism was declared a religion, wasn't it?

---

This is a semantic debates spawning pool you have definitely opened here. Saying a belief system is always going to imply that there is an uncertainty there. However, Atheists do there best to stand alongside Science which functions on support and justification via systematic observation. While nothing can ever be completely certain or justified, Science is our best tool to acquiring knowledge and it cannot justify Theism. Thus, the Atheist will not adhere to Theism simply because of lack of evidence. The key here is to remember that Atheists ought to only adhere to those things supported by empirical evidence as the Atheist ought to be empiricist, or something of a different nature intertwined with Atheism (ie. Buddhism, Polytheists, etc.).

Quote:

---

Now, I'm certain it could be said that Raeliens believe in deity like characters, but certainly they don't believe them to be deities, but rather perceived as deities by primitive cultures. I could see myself misunderstanding this bit about Raeliens, I had always thought Raeliens were atheists, please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have just picked a poor example.

But am I wrong here? Is anyone with a belief system a theist?

---

Raelians, obviously influenced by Mormonism, is still a belief system of sorts. However, I only say that because everything is a belief system of sorts. Really what you're getting into is "what is a belief system and what qualifies as one?", no?

Too many times I have heard someone say that an Atheist adhereing the scientific method is still considered a belief system. Thus, it will always be the argument that there is absolutely no 100% method for pure and perfect knowledge. Of course, you will likely cringe at that because you want to think that there is a means to perfect knowledge. Though, considering the nature of life, science is the only means as it is also constantly adapting and changing, integrating new ideas all the time.

Semantics can be fun, but realize that this may always be easier with declarative statements.

Belief system; a set of ideals and thoughts on how the world operates.

How can you possibly state anything else that would not fall into this?

What do you think...?

~

To whoever said Atheism isnt a belief system:

Atheism is a set of beliefs just like every other religion. Christianity worships a God..Thats how they think about the world, and stuff (thier belief system)

Atheist (most of them, at least) also have a belief system. They believe everything is how you see it, everything is 100% figured out, and what you see is what you get. Christians explain things by "God" atheists explain it by coincedence, etc. Both belief systems.

Another "define" thread about atheism? Another "define" thread period? We should all remove our heads from our asses and realize defining things isn't going to get us closer to any kind of truth. When in doubt google it or use the dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

To whoever said Atheism isnt a belief system:

Atheism is a set of beliefs just like every other religion. Christianity worships a God..Thats how they think about the world, and stuff (thier belief system)

Atheist (most of them, at least) also have a belief system. They believe everything is how you see it, everything is 100% figured out, and what you see is what you get. Christians explain things by "God" atheists explain it by coincedence, etc. Both belief systems.

---

(Most) Atheists believe everything can be proved in a Scientific manner. Then there are the atheists who don't believe jack squat and have no opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are using clever rhetoric to imply a sense of ignorance or negligence within Atheists. To say that there is a "lack" of belief is to imply either that there is no enough to believe it to be true, or a very convoluted way to say that they do not have enough dogmatic faith to believe in something silly. Either way, it is a very silly way of stating this ideal. Atheism is simply not having a belief in God which is much more declarative than "lack" as "lack" is much more implicative.

---

Well, here the word was only meant to be used much like its synonym of "absence" would be used. "Absence of a belief in deities." The sentence "lack of belief in deities" and simply "not believing in deities" should be considered equivalent. If you lack something you don't have it, much like an atheist does not have a belief in God. However, I can understand the confusion with the word "lack," even though I personally find some definitions of the word "lack" and the words "to not have" to be conceptually equivalent. But more to the point, I don't think it is silly to say "lack of belief in deities" since that sentence simply means the absence of a belief in deities. If you are without something you lack that something, just as atheists lack belief in deities. Regardless of what words you use if the concept is equivalent then there is no reason to squabble over the use of the words. However, I do find that "not believing in deities" often leads religious people to wrongly label atheism as the belief that there are in fact no Gods. This kind of wording is what makes a person say "Oh, I'm an agnostic," when posed the question of if they are religious. Religion deals with what you believe, and agnosticism deals with what you know. It is that kind of wording that makes otherwise atheistic people not understand that there are other people out there with similar mindsets they can exchange ideas with who just happen to be calling themselves another word. The fault here, however, lies with religious people who purposely spread such misconceptions.

To the mindset of many theists the statement "not having a belief in God" is equivalent to saying "having the belief that there are no gods." This is why "lack" or "absence" should be used when speaking with theists. The reason for this may be that many people, when they believe something is false, will say "I don't believe that," or, "I don't believe in that." This leads a lot of theists to be confused when they here definitions like "does not believe in" because in common speech many people will say "I don't believe" when what they mean is "I believe this is false."

But regardless, if the message is correctly conveyed to the reader the words don't matter. As long as "not having a belief in God" comes across as it should, use it as much as you like. I just happen to think that the word "lack," when used to mean "absence of," conveys the meaning more aptly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

There are likely a lot of generalizations here as things are not so black and white in philosophy. Do not be so tempted to declare this. Also, keep in mind that Atheism is not simply a rejection of religion, it's a position of "there is not enough evidence to support these claims, thus, I will not adhere to them."

---

Well, when presented with Atheism by people who are fairly knowledgeable on the subject, I have only ever heard atheism presented as a stance towards God. Now, because of the implicit importance of God to many religions, being an Atheist does often come with the added position that many religions are wrong.

Because you said to "keep in mind....them," I’m not certain if you read this bit completely. I said that the following could not be said of atheism. It isn’t that you’ve seemed to misunderstand me, it is just that from the context of your final sentence in this quote it isn’t clear whether you are saying “don’t declare that “Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist,” is true, or that you mean don’t declare that "Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist," is not true."

I'm actually in opposition to the statement that atheism is the rejection of religion. Instead atheism is a rejection of only one specific claim, which often means rejecting the entire religion, the claim that there is a deity. The rest of the religion is insignificant to the stance of atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is a semantic debates spawning pool you have definitely opened here. Saying a belief system is always going to imply that there is an uncertainty there. However, Atheists do there best to stand alongside Science which functions on support and justification via systematic observation. While nothing can ever be completely certain or justified, Science is our best tool to acquiring knowledge and it cannot justify Theism. Thus, the Atheist will not adhere to Theism simply because of lack of evidence. The key here is to remember that Atheists ought to only adhere to those things supported by empirical evidence as the Atheist ought to be empiricist, or something of a different nature intertwined with Atheism (ie. Buddhism, Polytheists, etc.).

---

While I agree with most of what you said here, I disagree on one point. An atheist needn’t be an empiricist on all accounts. There are situations where believing something without sufficient evidence can turn out to be valuable, mainly because there are instances where there is no such thing as sufficient evidence. However, the more fundamentally a belief alters your concept of reality, the more evidence it should require to believe. For example, I believe my friend when he tells me things. He usually tells the truth and he usually doesn’t confuse reality with fantasy when he observes things. When he tells that a Squirrel was run over on the street, I can trust that he is telling the truth. However, if he tells me that aliens came and probed him, I’m going to need more evidence than just his word.

It is much like the debate about Socrates and Jesus. There are no first hand records of Jesus. There are no first hand records of Socrates, aside from his student. It doesn’t alter reality for me to believe Socrates existed. Furthermore, the existence of Socrates isn’t important to his philosophy. However, if I were to believe Jesus existed, in the capacity he is claimed to have existed, then my view of reality has been fundamentally altered, and his existence in that capacity is relevant to his philosophy.

I will also point out that semantics are actually extremely important in debates and communication. If the word “atheist” is an English word, and I speak English, and another person speaks English, and we each use the word “atheist” to describe ourselves, yet I say it means one thing and he says it means another, we are using two different words. They may sound alike, and look alike, but they are most definitely different words. They are as different as x when I say in one equation x = 5 and the other x = 32.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Raelians, obviously influenced by Mormonism, is still a belief system of sorts. However, I only say that because everything is a belief system of sorts. Really what you're getting into is "what is a belief system and what qualifies as one?", no?

---

Well, unfortunately I don’t know what qualifies as a belief system, I would assume it is a system of belief with no demonstrable reason to believe in it other than you want to. This thread was spawned with another person said something, which you can read all about here in order to discern exactly what this person meant by belief system.

Spoiler for ”conversation-here”:

Me: I think you should portray yourself as a skeptic, at the very least make sure to point out that skepticism goes hand in hand with your mindset which is what lead you to be an atheist.

While I am an atheist I find that the use of the label "atheist" isn't very effective since there is nothing within atheism, by itself, that is unifying. It is that which leads a person away from religion that is unifying.

EnglishAtheist: I appreciate your input, but i will continue to portray myself as an Atheist. I see no reason why we Atheists can't be united, if it's merely a question of labeling.

Me: Ah, sorry, I actually meant to say to do it alongside, rather than separately. Some of what I meant to say got lost because when I first tried to post I hit "discard" instead of "Post Comment."

Its actually why the "at the very least" bit in there seems a bit out of place.

It is possible to be united, regardless of the label, but Raelien believers and other kooks are also atheists, so clarifications are sometimes necessary.

I mean, to only say you are an atheist says little about you.

EnglishAtheist: Raelians are not Atheists, they have a belief system (one that makes more sense than an omnipotent God). Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist.

I obviously have a life, I just thought that I should concentrate this channel on Atheism to promote debate.

Me: I'm not going to argue, anyone who doesn't believe in one or more deities is by definition an atheist. Raeliens don't believe in deities, and while it may "make more sense than an omnipotent God," the belief system is still nonsense.

I didn't say you don't have a life, nor would I care if you didn't, maybe there is some colloquial divide here that made you think that I said this, but since I am not from England I can't know. Also note, I never mentioned Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I also tagged in, after all of that a new comment which was...
Me:
I thought I would point out, there may be a case to be made against Raelism being atheistic, or nontheistic, even though they do not identify the aliens as deities, you could say they might as well be considered deities. It may have been a poor example on my part.

However, it does present something of value. An idea for one of your videos might be to present a case for why atheism is defined as "the rejection of any belief systems," and not as "a lack of belief in one or more deities."

As noted here, this person believes that Atheism itself implies skepticism. While it may be the case that skepticism would imply a greater likelihood of a person being an atheist, or, to use the term many people use, “agnostic,” I do not think atheism implies the form of skepticism that comes with rejecting belief systems that do not have sufficient evidence to warrant belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Too many times I have heard someone say that an Atheist adhering the scientific method is still considered a belief system. Thus, it will always be the argument that there is absolutely no 100% method for pure and perfect knowledge. Of course, you will likely cringe at that because you want to think that there is a means to perfect knowledge. Though, considering the nature of life, science is the only means as it is also constantly adapting and changing, integrating new ideas all the time.
Semantics can be fun, but realize that this may always be easier with declarative statements.
Belief system; a set of ideals and thoughts on how the world operates.
How can you possibly state anything else that would not fall into this?
What do you think...?
~

---

I would agree, you cannot have a “perfect knowledge,” or to use a term another theist I’ve spoke with has been using, “absolute knowledge,” of a subject or a truth. It just can’t happen, there is always the chance that this reality could be false, or a chance that our explanations aren’t accurate enough, or any number of things that because of their nature are going to force human beings to admit that we cannot “know” to a perfect certainty that what we believe to be true is true. However, we can say that, based on prior experiences, this is what I’m led to believe, and in the face of no evidence to the contrary it is more logical to believe than not believe.

You have three options when a claim is asserted. 1. Agree that it is true. 2. Agree that it is false. Or 3, not agree that it is true (while also not agreeing that it is false). To not agree is not necessarily is to agree to the opposite truth value of a claim.

Things we choose option 1 for are what you could say you should be “almost positive about.” In any case every time you choose option 1, and option 2, there should always also be mixed in the option of 3.

However, as far as practical use goes, 1 and 2 are both valid options to choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

(Most) Atheists believe everything can be proved in a Scientific manner. Then there are the atheists who don't believe jack squat and have no opinion.

---

I would say most Atheists believe the "only things that can be proved," can be proved in a scientific manner. I don't know if they believe"everything" can be proved. More to the point I think most atheists do indeed say that there are some things we may never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Another "define" thread about atheism? Another "define" thread period? We should all remove our heads from our asses and realize defining things isn't going to get us closer to any kind of truth. When in doubt google it or use the dictionary.

---

The point of this thread was to bring to light misconceptions, not clarify them for myself. "When in doubt google" doesn't cut it when you aren't trying to learn anything but rather bring to light misconceptions.

You think people comprehending what other people mean when they speak isn't going to get us closer to any kind of truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

But regardless, if the message is correctly conveyed to the reader the words don't matter. As long as "not having a belief in God" comes across as it should, use it as much as you like. I just happen to think that the word "lack," when used to mean "absence of," conveys the meaning more aptly.

---

It's just implicative and harped upon by conversion-hungry Theists.

Quote:

---

Well, when presented with Atheism by people who are fairly knowledgeable on the subject, I have only ever heard atheism presented as a stance towards God. Now, because of the implicit importance of God to many religions, being an Atheist does often come with the added position that many religions are wrong.

---

As an Atheist, let me tell you that defining my beliefs like that is unfair. It is not necessarily the fact that I dedicate my lifestyle to not believing in something. In truth, I am an Existential Humanist which does not include the dogmatic belief in God. God plays an inconsequential role to my beliefs and thoughts so it is unfair to say that I, as an Atheist, am only opposed to God. It is almost completely irrelevant as it is not part of any book I would write on my beliefs.

Quote:

---

Because you said to "keep in mind....them," I’m not certain if you read this bit completely. I said that the following could not be said of atheism. It isn’t that you’ve seemed to misunderstand me, it is just that from the context of your final sentence in this quote it isn’t clear whether you are saying “don’t declare that “Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist,” is true, or that you mean don’t declare that "Atheism is the rejection of all religion, not just Christianity. Anyone who has a belief system is a Theist," is not true."

I'm actually in opposition to the statement that atheism is the rejection of religion. Instead atheism is a rejection of only one specific claim, which often means rejecting the entire religion, the claim that there is a deity. The rest of the religion is insignificant to the stance of atheism.

---

Ohh okay, sorry, I got a little lost in the semantic trifling. Oh my. Read that, it's difficult, lol.. But, in the end, I see that we agree then.

Quote:

---

An atheist needn’t be an empiricist on all accounts. There are situations where believing something without sufficient evidence can turn out to be valuable, mainly because there are instances where there is no such thing as sufficient evidence. However, the more fundamentally a belief alters your concept of reality, the more evidence it should require to believe. For example, I believe my friend when he tells me things. He usually tells the truth and he usually doesn’t confuse reality with fantasy when he observes things. When he tells that a Squirrel was run over on the street, I can trust that he is telling the truth. However, if he tells me that aliens came and probed him, I’m going to need more evidence than just his word.

---

You're right. I am just saying that an Atheist, who can only truly rely on empiricism, ought to only rely on empiricism. Unfortunately, since we are human and tangible, we cannot do this. So it is a fundamental flaw with humans really. Does this make come clear..?

Quote:

---

I will also point out that semantics are actually extremely important in debates and communication. If the word “atheist” is an English word, and I speak English, and another person speaks English, and we each use the word “atheist” to describe ourselves, yet I say it means one thing and he says it means another, we are using two different words. They may sound alike, and look alike, but they are most definitely different words. They are as different as x when I say in one equation x = 5 and the other x = 32.

---

I completely agree. Bertrand Russel wrote an essay on the stupidity of defying language by misleading others with your own terms and relying on "you know what I mean". Though, we have to admit, semantic debates are really tiresome.

Quote:

---

Things we choose option 1 for are what you could say you should be “almost positive about.” In any case every time you choose option 1, and option 2, there should always also be mixed in the option of 3.

However, as far as practical use goes, 1 and 2 are both valid options to choose.

---

I like what you have said and thank you for elaborating. Atheism is very easy to mis-represent and misunderstand as there are a lot of branches and no real "bible" of Atheism to make declarative statements about it.

This is why I abide to existential humanism - I can declare things with it and still consider myself an Atheist.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Well, when presented with Atheism by people who are fairly knowledgeable on the subject, I have only ever heard atheism presented as a stance towards God. Now, because of the implicit importance of God to many religions, being an Atheist does often come with the added position that many religions are wrong.

---

As an Atheist, let me tell you that defining my beliefs like that is unfair. It is not necessarily the fact that I dedicate my lifestyle to not believing in something. In truth, I am an Existential Humanist which does not include the dogmatic belief in God. God plays an inconsequential role to my beliefs and thoughts so it is unfair to say that I, as an Atheist, am only opposed to God. It is almost completely irrelevant as it is not part of any book I would write on my beliefs.

---

Well, that is the thing really. Atheism only defines that one single thing about you. The rest of your beliefs are worded as other things such as "Existential Humanist." If I were to define you as only an Atheist that would be unfair, but I recognize that you are more than just an atheist. You're probably a skeptic, though I can't say for certain you are since I don't know you, and you are apparently an Existential Humanist as well. However, as far as Atheism itself, Atheism is only the stance on deities. "Atheism" is only a stance towards a deity, but someone who is an "atheist" can have as many stances he or she likes as long as at least one of the stances they have is the nonacceptance of the claim of a supernatural deity existing. This nonacceptance is the only thing necessary to call that person an atheist. This doesn't mean, however, that that is the only thing that an atheist's life is about.

There are no tenets or dogma for atheists other than "does not believe the claim of a deity." Anything beyond that has less to do with their atheism and more to do with the other words that describe them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onus

clear..?

---

Yes, I think I understand what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky

Or maybe they just think they know theres a God.

---

There is no difference between knowing and thinking about knowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A theist believes at least one god exists. An atheist believes that no gods exist or else has not thought about the issue enough to even have a view on it. An agnostic is an atheist who is in denial and makes the bizarre rationalization that because there is some insane microscopic room for error chance that a god exists, it's a toss up and the agnostic is supposedly just stuck between two very reasonable considerations.

---

So basically what your saying is there is no real difference between believing and knowing something?

Agnostic: One who thinks that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Atheist: One who believes that god doesn't exist

Clearly by those definitions a lot of atheists are agnostics.

Is there not the possibility that Atheist simply do not believe in God because there is no evidence to, not because they choose not to believe in it? Why are people constantly trying very hard to cleverly word things to trap peoples beliefs. Stop being silly.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod

So basically what your saying is there is no real difference between believing and knowing something?

---

No, that was not my point. My point was that you can believe something without having 100% knowledge of it. Agnostics use that to make atheists sound like closed-minded know it alls and to make themselves sound like they are not atheists themselves. So called agnostics are actually atheists in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod

Agnostic: One who thinks that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Atheist: One who believes that god doesn't exist

Clearly by those definitions a lot of atheists are agnostics.

---

Agnostics throw the word "know" around all the time because it involves such a high standard it can be used to make atheism appear silly, but it is really an irrelevant word. There is a spec of room for doubt on everything, but it does not make a belief not a belief. Like I said, agnostics are really atheists in most cases.

I never understood why Atheist is under the 'Religion' tabs on facebook/myspace etc. You don't worship anything, it's the lack of/rejection of religion. More of a philosophy then a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guitarboy

I never understood why Atheist is under the 'Religion' tabs on facebook/myspace etc. You don't worship anything, it's the lack of/rejection of religion. More of a philosophy then a religion.

---

Still, its relevance is to religion, it shares its history and origins with the British Protestant faiths, and like the other options for 'religion,' it precludes most but not all of the others.

Who Cares? Imma live life till I die, I will see where it goes from then.