Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

martingriff

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief.

I would not have put atheism that way but ok

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

I would not have put atheism that way but ok

So what you are saying is you didn't know what atheism actually constituted? Yet you waffled your way through a thread on it being a close minded standpoint?

Bannasidhe

martingriff wrote: »

I would not have put atheism that way but ok

How would you put it?

martingriff

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So what you are saying is you didn't know what atheism actually constituted? Yet you waffled your way through a thread on it being a close minded standpoint?

No what I mean is I have my own definition of an atheist. Which is someone who has no belief in gods as there is no evidence. What I mean is I would not have but it as an atheism is about lack of beliefs.

MagicMarker

martingriff wrote: »

No what I mean is I have my own definition of an atheist. Which is someone who has no belief in gods as there is no evidence. What I mean is I would not have but it as an atheism is about lack of beliefs.

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

That line was not on killing people because or sexuality (which I disagree with 100%). But there are extremists n religion and in atheism in terms of views. I could have said Stalin or Pol Pot but there crimes were more on political terms then on there atheism.

Indeed, Stalin's extremism would have as much to do with his religious beliefs as his preference or lack thereof for meat. Unlike the Ugandan laws being brought in to have people killed for their sexuality which is steeped in the same religious book you follow. There might be extremism in both camps but where extreme atheism might go as far as suggesting people shouldn't teach their religious beliefs as true to their children it is not anything like the extremism we see from religious groups so it's a bit underhanded to simply write off extremism as unaffected by religious belief. It also still doesn't solve the problem your ideology that we shouldn't debate each others beliefs leaves us with in the face of extremists.

Turtwig

martingriff wrote: »

No what I mean is I have my own definition of an atheist. Which is someone who has no belief in gods as there is no evidence. What I mean is I would not have but it as an atheism is about lack of beliefs.

I have my own definition of "legal" it includes things that you might consider illegal. It's fun for everyone to make up their own definitions for stuff but there's a reason why we don't. Atheism is about lack of belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

By force i mean demean (not the correct spelling) someone.

No it is not one of those arguments.

You don't think it is possible to publicly disagree with someone, or say that they are wrong, without demeaning them?

martingriff

Jernal wrote: »

I have my own definition of "legal" it includes things that you might consider illegal. It's fun for everyone to make up their own definitions for stuff but there's a reason why we don't. Atheism is about lack of belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.

I agree but you did say that atheism is lack of belief what I mean by my definition is why yes it is no belief in religion they do have beliefs.

Michael Nugent

Jernal wrote: »

Atheism is about lack of belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.

I know many atheists sincerely believe this, but the second half of it (no more, no less) is not true.

There is no consensus within society, or even among atheists, as to what atheism is, or means, or is about.

Like many words, its meaning has evolved over the generations, and no doubt will continue to evolve, and dictionaries will continue to retrospectively record some of those evolving meanings.

At the moment, atheism can mean anything from a passive lack of belief in gods to an active belief that there are no gods, expressed with varying levels of doubt or certainty, and with various opinions about what other beliefs may or may not necessarily accompany it.

The 'lack of belief, no more, no less' line expresses one belief about what atheism is, but the reality is more complex than that.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I know many atheists sincerely believe this, but the second half of it (no more, no less) is not true.

There is no consensus within society, or even among atheists, as to what atheism is, or means, or is about.

Like many words, its meaning has evolved over the generations, and no doubt will continue to evolve, and dictionaries will continue to retrospectively record some of those evolving meanings.

At the moment, atheism can mean anything from a passive lack of belief in gods to an active belief that there are no gods, expressed with varying levels of doubt or certainty, and with various opinions about what other beliefs may or may not necessarily accompany it.

The 'lack of belief, no more, no less' line expresses one belief about what atheism is, but the reality is more complex than that.

I think what Jernal, and most other people who make that point means is that it is the only common factor for all atheists. As in it's the only thing you can really say "All atheists...." and it being true.
Just as theism is a blanket term for most religious belief regardless of the details of the specific belief.

ShooterSF

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I know many atheists sincerely believe this, but the second half of it (no more, no less) is not true.

There is no consensus within society, or even among atheists, as to what atheism is, or means, or is about.

Like many words, its meaning has evolved over the generations, and no doubt will continue to evolve, and dictionaries will continue to retrospectively record some of those evolving meanings.

At the moment, atheism can mean anything from a passive lack of belief in gods to an active belief that there are no gods, expressed with varying levels of doubt or certainty, and with various opinions about what other beliefs may or may not necessarily accompany it.

The 'lack of belief, no more, no less' line expresses one belief about what atheism is, but the reality is more complex than that.

Indeed but if someone is described or self-describes as an "atheist" without any further description the only certainty you can take from it is they have a 'lack of belief [in gods], no more, no less'. Now you can add terms like strong/weak gnostic/agnostic and then cover other areas such as humanism, skepticism etc to clarify who they are to a better degree but it's a flawed approach to assume anything more if offered the term "atheist".

(I think that's Jernal's point)

TheNap

If the big bang created time in our universe could there be a parallel universe where there is no time ?I have a complete open mind dont have any beliefs but i find it all fascinating .

TheNap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

Michael Nugent

I’m not singling out Jernal, because I know that many atheists do believe this.

But more often than not it seems to be used to close down a more nuanced discussion about what atheism is.

It’s the ‘no more’ part that I am suggesting is inaccurate.

And I’m not even sure what is meant by ‘no less’ than ‘a lack’ of something.

It is true that you can’t assume any detail about ‘more’, but it doesn’t follow from this that you can say that there is no ‘more’.

Positively believing that there are no gods is atheism. It is not something extra on top of atheism.

As an aside, I think the distinction between ‘not believing; and ‘believing not’ is more one of how you prefer to express your belief than the nature of the belief, but that’s another discussion.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Positively believing that there are no gods is atheism. It is not something extra on top of atheism.

Yes but lacking a positive belief in god is also atheism.
It's a very different position from having a positive belief in something's non existence, yet has the same term.
So it must be that atheism is a blanket term that covers both, and the common factor between both positions (and all other forms of atheism) is that they are no positive beliefs that a god exists.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

Yes but lacking a positive belief in god is also atheism.

Which is why I suggest that a more accurate and meaningful description is

"either actively believing that there are no gods or else passively not believing that there are gods"

as opposed to

"lack of belief, no more or less."

King Mob wrote: »

It's a very different position from having a positive belief in something's non existence, yet has the same term.

I don't agree with this, but I will park that disagreement for the sake of this discussion, and continue on the basis of assuming your position on it.

King Mob wrote: »

So it must be that atheism is a blanket term that covers both, and the common factor between both positions (and all other forms of atheism) is that they are no positive beliefs that a god exists.

In order to cover both, the description has to cover both.

Saying just one of them "no more, no less" does not cover both.

And, more importantly, it does not accurately reflect the reality of how people use the word atheism as a tool of communication.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Which is why I suggest that a more accurate and meaningful description is

"either actively believing that there are no gods or else passively not believing that there are gods"

as opposed to

"lack of belief, no more or less."

In order to cover both, the description has to cover both.

Saying just one of them "no more, no less" does not cover both.

But those aren't the only two options, there are many others not covered by your statement, but contain the common factor of a lack of belief. If we are to have a description that covers all version and variations of atheism, that description would be an essay on the topic at minimum.

Further the statement jernal made isn't meant to cover the details of all possible versions of atheism. It just states the common (and only) factor that groups those positions together.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And, more importantly, it does not accurately reflect the reality of how people use the word atheism as a tool of communication.

Because people us the word incorrectly, and what jernal's statement does is correct them.
So when people say "all atheists....etc" they are forgetting that not all atheists believe the same thing and that the only thing you can say about atheists as a whole is they lack a belief in a god.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

Because people us the word incorrectly, and what jernal's statement does is correct them.

No they (all) don't, and no it doesn't. There is no consensus on what the word means, even among atheists. Just saying that one preferred definition is the only correct one does not make it so.

A good definition of a word should try to capture the nature and scope of how people generally use the word, not merely to identify a minimalist common factor based on one meaning that some people use.

It doesn’t require an essay to encompass the scale that many people use about the belief in god factor, which is broadly lack of belief to active belief.

And describing atheism in a way that does not explicitly include the active belief that there are no gods is is both misleading and inaccurate.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No they (all) don't, and no it doesn't. There is no consensus on what the word means, even among atheists. Just saying that one preferred definition is the only correct one does not make it so.

A good definition of a word should try to capture the nature and scope of how people generally use the word, not merely to identify a minimalist common factor based on one meaning that some people use.

It doesn’t require an essay to encompass the scale that many people use about the belief in god factor, which is broadly lack of belief to active belief.

And describing atheism in a way that does not explicitly include the active belief that there are no gods is is both misleading and inaccurate.

Would you describe Catholics as theists? How about Protestants? How about Muslims? Zoroastrians?

Does theism describe all of their various beliefs? Can you use theism as a general term by which you can use to describe common traits other than the belief in god?
Theism is a term used to describe a vast array of beliefs and incorporates various positions on the question of god, including gnostic and agnostic theism.

Just as atheism does. It's weird and pointless to say the word must or does mean something else.

It's not the preferred definition, it's the definition both in meaning and etymology.

nagirrac

Surely the only plausible definition of atheism is "absence of belief in a God or Gods"

The concept of "active" atheism seems deeply flawed to me, even more flawed than "active" theism. Someone who believes in a personal God and feels a personal connection with such a God may be delusional, hallucinating or whatever, but it is their subjective experience. What possible reason could there to be "active" about atheism?

In my opinion, referring to "active" atheism suggests a religion.

sephir0th

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Positively believing that there are no gods is atheism. It is not something extra on top of atheism.

So is a person born on a desert island who has never even considered whether there is a god or not an atheist?

nagirrac

sephir0th wrote: »

So is a person born on a desert island who has never even considered whether there is a god or not an atheist?

It can be been argued that all people are born atheist i.e. have an absence of belief in a God. It hardly seems reasonable though to ascribe belief or disbelief in something that one has yet to coinsider.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

It's not the preferred definition, it's the definition both in meaning and etymology.

It's not "the" definition in either usage, or etymology, or dictionaries (which retrospectively follow usage). Just saying that it is doesn't contradict the evidence of reality, which is that the word can have several meanings.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It's not "the" definition in either usage, or etymology, or dictionaries (which retrospectively follow usage). Just saying that it is doesn't contradict the evidence of reality, which is that the word can have several meanings.

And common usage can be wrong.

If theism can be used to describe a wide variety of beliefs of people who believe in go, why doesn't atheism behave in the exact same way?

If a person positively believes in no god and a person who lacks a belief in god are different, how can they be then both atheist if they do not share a common factor?
What is that common factor?

Michael Nugent

sephir0th wrote: »

So is a person born on a desert island who has never even considered whether there is a god or not an atheist?

I would say no.

In my opinion, you have to be aware of the idea of gods and [reject it/not accept it] to be an atheist.

That is one of the reasons (though not the only one) that I have problems with the 'lack of belief, nothing more' definition, which I think veers towards incoherence.

A table has a lack of belief in gods. A table is not an atheist.

I'll try to write something more comprehensive about this in the next few days.

However, as some people use the word to mean this idea, I agree that the definition of the word should include (though not be restricted to) this usage.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

And common usage can be wrong.

On the contrary, it is common usage that creates the meanings of words. And those meanings evolve as common usage changes.

I'll come back to your other questions later.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

A table has a lack of belief in gods. A table is not an atheist.

A table does not have the capacity to have any opinion. That is a very silly argument.

And if a person has never been exposed to the idea of god and thus doesn't believe in them, what are they if not atheist?

How are they different from atheists who are atheist because they have never been convinced of there being a God?
Or are these people also somehow not atheist? If so you definition is becomeing very non-inclusive...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

On the contrary, it is common usage that creates the meanings of words. And those meanings evolve as common usage changes.

I'll come back to your other questions later.

You mean like "theory" and how scientists are all using it wrong cause they aren't using it by it's common usage?

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

A table does not have the capacity to have any opinion. That is a very silly argument.

Okay, so your definition is now something like "lack of belief by a being that has the capacity to have a belief". That's coming closer to how I think about the 'lack of belief, nothing more' idea should be expressed, though there are still issues around what 'lack of belief' actually means.

King Mob wrote: »

And if a person has never been exposed to the idea of god and thus doesn't believe in them, what are they if not atheist?

One popular contemporary candidate for that concept is "non-theist". Although I think the concept itself is incoherent.

King Mob wrote: »

How are they different from atheists who are atheist because they have never been convinced of there being a God?

They are different because one has never been exposed to the idea and therefore has no opinion on its truth or falsity, and the other has been exposed to it and does not believe it to be true.

King Mob wrote: »

Or are these people also somehow not atheist? If so you definition is becomeing very non-inclusive...

My definition is inclusive, including being inclusive of usages that I don't believe are sensible usages. As I said earlier, as some people use the word to mean this idea, I agree that the definition of the word should include (though not be restricted to) this usage.

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like "theory" and how scientists are all using it wrong cause they aren't using it by it's common usage?

Actually, "theory" is a good example of a word with different meanings, depending on context. When a scientist uses it while describing the scientific process, it means one thing; when people use it in day-to-day language, it means another thing. Neither meaning is "the" correct meaning. It depends on context.

However, with the word atheism, there is no equivalent of the "scientific usage" of the word "theory", because there are no rules of atheism in the same way as there are rules of science, and there is not even a consensus among atheists as to what the word atheism means.

King Mob

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, so your definition is now something like "lack of belief by a being that has the capacity to have a belief".

Sure and you can also add "lack of belief by a being that has the capacity to have a belief and exists in our universe and experiences time in a liner fashion". Or which ever other conditions that are clearly implicit to make my position seem more ridiculous.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That's coming closer to how I think about the 'lack of belief, nothing more' idea should be expressed, though there are still issues around what 'lack of belief' actually means.

It means a lack of belief. As in you don't have a belief... Not sure what issues there could be.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

One popular contemporary candidate for that concept is "non-theist". Although I think the concept itself is incoherent.

Yes it is incoherent as it means essentially the same thing as atheist. "Non-theist" can also be used to describe all atheists

Michael Nugent wrote: »

They are different because one has never been exposed to the idea and therefore has no opinion on its truth or falsity, and the other has been exposed to it and does not believe it to be true.

But they both lack a belief in a god, true or false?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

My definition is inclusive, including being inclusive of usages that I don't believe are sensible usages. As I said earlier, as some people use the word to mean this idea, I agree that the definition of the word should include (though not be restricted to) this usage.

No, your definition only includes the two options presented earlier. It doesn't include examples such as your island native which you yourself suggested.

To include all possible definitions you have to keep adding to it until it's an essay, and defeats the propose of being a clearer conciser definition.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Actually, "theory" is a good example of a word with different meanings, depending on context. When a scientist uses it while describing the scientific process, it means one thing; when people use it in day-to-day language, it means another thing. Neither meaning is "the" correct meaning. It depends on context.

You just said that common usage defines the word. The common usage is different to the scientific definition, so therefore by your rule, the scientists are using it wrong.

And could you please go back and answer the questions you said you would address:

If theism can be used to describe a wide variety of beliefs of people who believe in go, why doesn't atheism behave in the exact same way?

If a person positively believes in no god and a person who lacks a belief in god are different, how can they be then both atheist if they do not share a common factor?
What is that common factor?

Would you describe Catholics as theists? How about Protestants? How about Muslims? Zoroastrians?

Does theism describe all of their various beliefs? Can you use theism as a general term by which you can use to describe common traits other than the belief in god?
Theism is a term used to describe a vast array of beliefs and incorporates various positions on the question of god, including gnostic and agnostic theism.