must we call ourselves atheists?

MickFleetwood

endacl wrote: »

Ah, but that's not what you said...

It's exactly what I said, though. You quoted me stating that to be an atheist means disagreeing with theism.

endacl

MickFleetwood wrote: »

It's exactly what I said, though. You quoted me stating that to be an atheist means disagreeing with theism.

Happy to admit I'm splitting hairs extremely thinly here....

'Disagreement' implies an opposite position. I argue that 'atheism' represents a null position. Not participating in theism, if you like. The question doesn't apply, so to speak. Anti-theism would be an opposite position to theism, and a disagreement. Atheism isn't.

That's where I'd be. Atheist. Not anti-theist. Don't care what other people get up to, once it doesn't impact on civil society.

kiffer

Or to go back to the skiing thing.

Ann likes to ski, she say it is fun.
Barry doesn't like skiing but can see that Ann is having fun, he doesn't want to be forced to go on a skiing holiday.
Ciaran thinks skiing isn't fun, and not only does he not want to ski he thinks no one should like skiing and we should close all the ski slopes and burn all the skiing equipment.

So...

Ann is a ski-ist.
Barry is an a-ski-ist.
Ciaran is an anti-ski-ist.

Ann's sister is a fundamental ski enthusiast... when she turns up she insists thst every one should be skiing because it's the best thing ever... so she starts a campaign to make it mandatory in Barry's school.

Now Barry will quickly behave more like an antiskiist...
Does he disagree with Ann when she says "I like skiing"? No he does not because Ann clearly enjoys skiing.
Does he disagree with Ann's sister about having to take mandatory skiing lessons? Yes, of course he does.
Does this make him anti-skiing? No.

robindch

kiffer wrote: »

Could you imagine how nasty some random holy well might be?

Popette visited India some years ago and drank a few cupfuls of unboiled well-water as part of some holyritual she got involved with.

She caught a bad dose of amoebic dysentery and while she came quite close to dying, she blamed the dose on her not having enough faith to neutralize it. When they finally made it back to Ireland, her long-suffering hubby vetoed any further exotic travels and Popette, for once in her life, agreed with him.

magicbastarder

is popette a relative of yours?

New_Flash

kiffer wrote: »

Or to go back to the skiing thing.

Ann's sister is a fundamental ski enthusiast....

stupid sexy Ann's sister

Sulla Felix

MickFleetwood wrote: »

The skiing analogy holds no water. It makes no sense. To call yourself an atheist means you disagree with something that happens to be an overtly popular belief - millions upon millions of humans believe in a deity of sorts. Some countries and states have their entire political and social system integrated somewhat with religion. People have died and suffered in the name of religion.

It's a sort of statement, I guess, to call yourself an atheist, rather than a "non-skier." Tyson is more attempting to state that labeling him as something, which in turn in the eyes of many groups him in with others by default, is a fallacy.

I myself am an agnostic.

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

MickFleetwood

Sulla Felix wrote: »

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God, for various reasons. The subject of Religion really isn't all that interesting to me; I find it intensely boring. Coupled along with the fact that you really cannot disprove "God" I'm a firm agnostic who leans toward the belief that there is no deity.

Sofaspud

Sulla Felix wrote: »

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

Everyone is either agnostic or presumptuous.

Sulla Felix

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God, for various reasons. The subject of Religion really isn't all that interesting to me; I find it intensely boring. Coupled along with the fact that you really cannot disprove "God" I'm a firm agnostic who leans toward the belief that there is no deity.

Then you're an atheist. Sorry.

If I ask you, do you believe in God, and you can't answer yes, then you're an atheist. It's that simple. No amount of obfuscation or avoiding the actual question you're being asked results in anything else. Yes or no, do you believe in God? Anything other than a "yes" means you're an atheist.

The answers "atheist/theist" and "agnostic/gnostic" are responses to two specific, mutually exclusive questions.

1) Do you believe in God(s)? Yes/no. Theist/Atheist.

2) Do you believe it is possible to verify the existence of a God/Gods? Yes/no. Gnostic/Agnostic.

MickFleetwood

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Then you're an atheist. Sorry.

If I ask you, do you believe in God, and you can't answer yes, then you're an atheist. It's that simple. No amount of obfuscation or avoiding the actual question you're being asked results in anything else. Yes or no, do you believe in God? Anything other than a "yes" means you're an atheist.

The answers "atheist/theist" and "agnostic/gnostic" are responses to two specific, mutually exclusive questions.

1) Do you believe in God(s)? Yes/no. Theist/Atheist.

2) Do you believe it is possible to verify the existence of a God/Gods? Yes/no. Gnostic/Agnostic.

This is so wrong I'm not even going to bother picking it apart.

Sofaspud

"Yes I believe in a god" - Theist

Anything else, by definition = atheist.

MickFleetwood

Sofaspud wrote: »

"Yes I believe in a god" - Theist

Anything else, by definition = atheist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence for either view, and thus, sits on the fence.

So no, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. Also, why is the poster originally quoting me saying they're "sorry." For what? For telling me I'm something different to what I think I am?

Do people even know what atheists and agnostics actually are?

Hotblack Desiato

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

Nope. An atheist does not believe in any of the gods which have yet been proposed.

Almost all atheists are agnostic athiests - they cannot categorically rule out the possibility that at some time in the future a god may be proven to exist - and this includes 'militants' like Richard Dawkins.

MickFleetwood

ninja900 wrote: »

Nope. An atheist does not believe in any of the gods which have yet been proposed.

Almost all atheists are agnostic athiests - they cannot categorically rule out the possibility that at some time in the future a god may be proven to exist - and this includes 'militants' like Richard Dawkins.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. - Wikipedia

a·the·ist

[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. - Dictionary.com

athe·ism

noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\



Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids » - merriam-webster.com

---

It's as if people have their own definition for what agnostics and atheists are, which seems to be in contrast with the actual definition of it.

kiffer

What is disbelief when it's at home?

Claim: in this box is a magic hat.
Response: there might be a hat but I don't believe it's magical... show me.

Is that disbelief?
The respondent doesn't believe that the hat that might be in the box (it is not unusual for hats to be in boxes) is magical. And if he was going to buy the hatbox he'd want to look in the box to check there actually is a hat at all.

Is Disbelief just not believing in things people claim... or is it a more active thing?


Edit: because you want to play the definition game...
Disbelieve:
verb (used with object)1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.verb (used without object)1. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

So you, by having no belief in it/them, disbelieve god(s) and are, once again, an atheist.

Now no one is forcing you to self identify as anything you don't like but ... well by definition not believing is disbelieving.

Sofaspud

Theist = "I believe that a god or gods exist", anything else = atheist.

Gnostic = "I know that a god or gods exist", anything else = agnostic.
("God" can be replaced by "deity", "higher power" or "supreme being" as required)

So you are agnostic, but so is everyone else in the world, because nobody knows for sure and anyone that says they do is lying.

Do you believe in a deity or god? If yes, you're an agnostic theist, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist.
By not having a belief, you disbelieve.

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Popette visited India some years ago and drank a few cupfuls of unboiled well-water as part of some holyritual she got involved with.

She caught a bad dose of amoebic dysentery and while she came quite close to dying, she blamed the dose on her not having enough faith to neutralize it. When they finally made it back to Ireland, her long-suffering hubby vetoed any further exotic travels and Popette, for once in her life, agreed with him.

It gives the phrase "The Lord moves in mysterious ways" a whole new dimension.

swampgas

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence for either view, and thus, sits on the fence.

So no, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. Also, why is the poster originally quoting me saying they're "sorry." For what? For telling me I'm something different to what I think I am?

Do people even know what atheists and agnostics actually are?

The confusion here might be that the words atheist & agnostic are used in two different ways, and many people are unaware of this.

(1) Common parlance: Athiest "actively doesn't believe", agnostic "isn't sure if he believes or not, or doesn't care". This is not technically correct.

(2) Technically correct (as used here in A&A): atheism and agnosticism are separate concepts, as described above by other posters.

When you are posting in A&A, be aware that definition (2) is the norm, so you may have to adapt if you wish to be understood.

Turtwig

Mick,

Suppose someone grew up on a planet without religion. Suppose also that this person was never made aware of the concept of a god. How would you describe a person who doesn't believe in god simply because they aren't aware of the god concept? Atheist would be my definition, what would be yours though?

Furthermore, whatever definition you choose would you stay that this person is actually believing their is no god? Is to possible to have belief for or against something when you're not even aware of the concept?

MickFleetwood

Sofaspud wrote: »

Theist = "I believe that a god or gods exist", anything else = atheist.

Gnostic = "I know that a god or gods exist", anything else = agnostic.
("God" can be replaced by "deity", "higher power" or "supreme being" as required)

So you are agnostic, but so is everyone else in the world, because nobody knows for sure and anyone that says they do is lying.

Do you believe in a deity or god? If yes, you're an agnostic theist, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist.
By not having a belief, you disbelieve.

Obviously nobody knows for sure whether there's a deity or not, but not knowing does not make you an agnostic automatically FFS. :pac: It's a school of thought, not a state of knowing.

MickFleetwood

Jernal wrote: »

Mick,

Suppose someone grew up on a planet without religion. Suppose also that this person was never made aware of the concept of a god. How would you describe a person who doesn't believe in god simply because they aren't aware of the god concept? Atheist would be my definition, what would be yours though?

Furthermore, whatever definition you choose would you stay that this person is actually believing their is no god? Is to possible to have belief for or against something when you're not even aware of the concept?

I would explain to them what an omnipotent being is, I'd try my best to show them the concept of faith in a God, etc etc. Which would all likely be a futile exercise.

No, they do not "believe" in it as they have never even comprehended it. If one could successfully explain it to them, and they made their own decision from there as to what they believed in, that is what they would be labeled as, I suppose.

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Obviously nobody knows for sure whether there's a deity or not, but not knowing does not make you an agnostic automatically FFS. :pac: It's a school of thought, not a state of knowing.

Agnosticism, if we pardon the common parlance dictionary definitions, is a position on a value of knowledge relating to gnosticism. That a certain claim or belief is unknowable. Most theists are in fact agnostic theists and most atheists are agnostic atheists. Many atheists recognise their own definition as being a lack of belief in God. Live and let live. They've no issue with religion as long as it isn't shoved in their face. It'd also be nice if people defined them the way they actually wished to be described. Regardless, as long as you understand the concept and accept that most posters here don't claim to know for certain for that God doesn't exist then it's just semantics really. Words don't matter, the concepts and mutual comprehension do.

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I would explain to them what an omnipotent being is, I'd try my best to show them the concept of faith in a God, etc etc. Which would all likely be a futile exercise.

No, they do not "believe" in it as they have never even comprehended it. If one could successfully explain it to them, and they made their own decision from there as to what they believed in, that is what they would be labeled as, I suppose.

You didn't answer my question. This is a thought experiment, you don't have contact with them. They're completely obvious to concept of a deity. What label would you describe them as?

MickFleetwood

Jernal wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. This is a thought experiment, you don't have contact with them. They're completely obvious to concept of a deity. What label would you describe them as?

There is no catch-all label for them that I know of. Perhaps an agnostic? Somebody who has no position?

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

There is no catch-all label for them that I know of. Perhaps an agnostic? Somebody who has no position?

What about 'atheist'? They have no belief in a deity. Agnosticism under your definition, maybe. Under the more accurate definition though they'd have to be aware of the claim to put a value on whether they think it's a knowable one or not. Ignosticism would be more accurate here.

kiffer

Jernal wrote: »

What about 'atheist'? They have no belief in a deity. Agnosticism under your definition, maybe. Under the more accurate definition though they'd have to be aware of the claim to put a value on whether they think it's a knowable one or not. Ignosticism would be more accurate here.

Implicit atheist vs explicit atheist.

If I write an original and unbelievable claim on a sheet of paper hidden from you, place it in a envelope and hand it to you, you don't believe the claim simply because you don't know what it is.
Then you open the envelope and it says "Robotic Elvis runs both the Mafia and the Boyscouts"... now you don't believe the claim because it clearly ridiculous... but both are still states of nonbelief, or as the dictionary defines it disbelief.

Hotblack Desiato

Jernal wrote: »

Many atheists recognise their own definition as being a lack of belief in God. Live and let live. They've no issue with religion as long as it isn't shoved in their face.

I believe in live and let live (most theists don't appear to) but there's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a far better place without religion - any and all religion.

magicbastarder

i don't believe in atheists. does that make me an aatheist?
if i don't believe such a position is possible, does that make me an aaatheist?
this could get recursive.

DarkDusk

I don't take part in religion, have no interest in it and it doesn't bother me anytime during my life.

I rather not use up my energy deciding what label I have, I do not believe in fables written in a book, simple as.