Being a non believer but not identifying as an athiest.

smacl

Erik Shin wrote: »

Well if you have never been introduced to a god or had religious instruction.... technically you're not an atheist...you have to be aware of something to have a position on belief

Atheism isn't a position on belief though, it means not being a theist. To be a theist you have to believe in a God or gods. To be an atheist doesn't need any awareness of the existence of gods. I think you may be confusing atheism with antitheism which is an opposition to theism. Edit: As per my previous post I reckon this confusion arises as the word atheist is regularly used in such a way as to imply that it means more than it actually does, e.g. some kind of shared world view or position on religion.

TheChizler

smacl wrote: »

Atheism isn't a position on belief though, it means not being a theist. To be a theist you have to believe in a God or gods. To be an atheist doesn't need any awareness of the existence of gods.

Exactly. Draw a circle around the set of people who have an active belief in god/s and everyone outside of that circle are atheists, at is most basic and agreed definition.

Fian

TheChizler wrote: »

I strongly disagree. I believe I won't win the lotto tonight but I can't know that for sure. If atheist meant you don't believe you'll win the lotto, and agnostic meant you don't claim to know with 100% certainty what's the outcome will be either way, then by that definition I'm an agnostic atheist.

Similarly a gambling addict might believe they'll win, but might admit when pushed that they can't know for sure. They'd be an agnostic theist by definition.

The religion definitions aren't too different to that analogy. Anyone who believes there is a God but will admit it might not exist would be an agnostic theist. There have been many on this forum over the years.

Atheist does not mean that a person is certain in an absolute mathematical sense that there is no god. Since it is virtually impossible to prove that something does not exist (as opposed to relatively trivial to prove the existence of something) that would make no sense.

I can prove dogs exist by pointing to one but I can't prove unicorns don't exist by pointing to the absence of one or by pointing to a horse and suggesting the belief in unicorns must derive from them somehow.

An atheist is someone who believes that there are no gods. An agnostic is not sure whether there are gods or not. In neither of these cases are we talking about absolute certainty. Probably more like the criminal standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt, or perhaps in respect of agnosticism on the balance of probabilities.

TheChizler

Fian wrote: »

Atheist does not mean that a person is certain in an absolute mathematical sense that there is no god. Since it is virtually impossible to prove that something does not exist (as opposed to relatively trivial to prove the existence of something) that would make no sense.

That's exactly what I'm saying; theism is to do with what you believe, and gnosticism is to do with what you (feel you) know.

smacl

TheChizler wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying; theism is to do with what you believe, and gnosticism is to do with what you (feel you) know.

Yep, time once again to trundle out this old diagram;

nozzferrahhtoo

Mutant z wrote: »

There seems to be this notion if you dont believe in a supreme being or don't believe in any religion automatically you have to identify as an athiest

If you say so. No one has made ME aware of that requirement however and I in fact do not use the words "atheist" or "agnostic" to define myself in pretty much all cases other than rare exceptions where it simply makes sense for me to do so.

Mutant z wrote: »

Richard Dawkins who claims to speak for all self proclaimed athiests.

No one has made me aware of him making that claim either. Could you refer me to the particular citation you refer to where he made this claim?

Mutant z wrote: »

By identifying as an athiest i would automatically be putting myself in a club

No more (or less) so than calling yourself "male" or "female" or "human" or "irish" or anything else does I guess.

I do not believe it makes you any more a member of a "club" that being someone with a beard does for example.

Being an "atheist" does not mean you are any more like other atheists than having a beard means you are any more like anyone else who has beards.

I do not feel you sacrifice an ounce of the individuality you are holding on to to identify yourself by such a term.

Mutant z wrote: »

I just find Dawkins bordering on the obsessive for a man who claims to have no time for religion he does little else but talk about religion

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I would, for example, love to wake up tomorrow in a world where I never have to discuss or deal with religion ever again in any way.

I am simply not let.

There are many things I AM active in, and interested in. Education, Philosophy, Morality and ethics, society, law, sexuality, women's reproductive rights, marriage equality, the right to die, and much much more.

In ALL these areas I encounter the religious pushing their unsubstantiated nonsense in my face on a near daily basis.

Saying one has no time for religion personally is not the same as saying one has no time to DEAL with religion (whether we like it or not) on a daily basis.

Erik Shin

smacl wrote: »

Atheism isn't a position on belief though, it means not being a theist. To be a theist you have to believe in a God or gods. To be an atheist doesn't need any awareness of the existence of gods. I think you may be confusing atheism with antitheism which is an opposition to theism. Edit: As per my previous post I reckon this confusion arises as the word atheist is regularly used in such a way as to imply that it means more than it actually does, e.g. some kind of shared world view or position on religion.

Unfortunately the word atheist is described as a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods....which by its very definition is a word coined by someone who has a belief system. ..
In other words, if nobody on this planet ever had any belief system..the word atheist would not exist...

smacl

Erik Shin wrote: »

Unfortunately the word atheist is described as a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods....which by its very definition is a word coined by someone who has a belief system. ..
In other words, if nobody on this planet ever had any belief system..the word atheist would not exist...

So the word or in your description tells us we're referring to two groups of people;

a) those who disbelieve, i.e. those who are aware of the belief in a god or gods but don't accept it

b) those who lack a belief in a god or gods, which would include those who may not even be aware of the notion of a god or gods.

Atheists are all the people that belong to either group a or group b

looksee

Erik Shin wrote: »

Unfortunately the word atheist is described as a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods....which by its very definition is a word coined by someone who has a belief system. ..
In other words, if nobody on this planet ever had any belief system..the word atheist would not exist...

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, an atheist is someone who does not have that belief. That is not a belief system, it is non-participation in a belief system.

As for the second point - if no one on this planet had hair, the word 'bald' would not exist. There is an important 'if' in your argument.

begbysback

smacl wrote: »

So the word or in your description tells us we're referring to two groups of people;

a) those who disbelieve, i.e. those who are aware of the belief in a god or gods but don't accept it

b) those who lack a belief in a god or gods, which would include those who may not even be aware of the notion of a god or gods.

Atheists are all the people that belong to either group a or group b

Can you give an example of those who belong in group b?

Also you might need to exclude the word "may not" from group b description, otherwise they belong in group a.

looksee

begbysback wrote: »

Can you give an example of those who belong in group b?

Wut? That question does not make any sense, and does not move the discussion any further forward.

Also you might need to exclude the word "may not" from group b description, otherwise they belong in group a.

No they don't.

Erik Shin

smacl wrote: »

So the word or in your description tells us we're referring to two groups of people;

a) those who disbelieve, i.e. those who are aware of the belief in a god or gods but don't accept it

b) those who lack a belief in a god or gods, which would include those who may not even be aware of the notion of a god or gods.

Atheists are all the people that belong to either group a or group b

Doesn't change that fact that the word would not exist without a belief system..

Erik Shin

looksee wrote: »

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, an atheist is someone who does not have that belief. That is not a belief system, it is non-participation in a belief system.

As for the second point - if no one on this planet had hair, the word 'bald' would not exist. There is an important 'if' in your argument.

Less "if" more along the lines of whataboutery really

begbysback

looksee wrote: »

Wut? That question does not make any sense, and does not move the discussion any further forward.



No they don't.

I'm struggling to think of any category of person who fits into group a - it's a fair question and if a definitive answer can be given then it moves the discussion along, if a definitive answer can't be given then maybe the grouping or view is flawed - either way the discussion moves forward.

Yes, logically they do - either something is or isn't at any given point in time - I didn't make up such rules - blame Aristotle

MrPudding

Mutant z wrote: »

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

Whatever. You are still an atheist.

MrP

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

I'm struggling to think of any category of person who fits into group a - it's a fair question and if a definitive answer can be given then it moves the discussion along, if a definitive answer can't be given then maybe the grouping or view is flawed - either way the discussion moves forward.

Yes, logically they do - either something is or isn't at any given point in time - I didn't make up such rules - blame Aristotle

A couple of examples so.

- Those raised in atheist communities where the notion of a God existing is never put forward, which would have been the case in much of Russia and China at various points in time.

- Those raised as atheist in religious communities. I myself was raised atheist and have raised my children atheist, they've never had sufficient reason to consider God or Allah or Thor or Vishnu might exist any more than ghosts, black magic, shamanism, unicorns or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

- Those raised in a non-theistic religion or philosophical tradition such as Buddhism, Humanism or philosophical Taoism.

- Babies and the very young (theists tend to argue this one)

smacl

Erik Shin wrote: »

Doesn't change that fact that the word would not exist without a belief system..

So what? To refer to someone using any given term is not falsified by them not understanding the meaning of the term, it simply requires you to understand the meaning.

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

Whatever. You are still an atheist.

MrP

True, but they may quite reasonably not want to be referred to as an atheist because continued misuse of the word atheist over a protracted period of time has (incorrectly IMO) given it negative connotations to many.

Erik Shin

smacl wrote: »

So what? To refer to someone using any given term is not falsified by them not understanding the meaning of the term, it simply requires you to understand the meaning.

The meaning is clear, but the meaning is also incorrect in my eyes

smacl

Erik Shin wrote: »

The meaning is clear, but the meaning is also incorrect in my eyes

So the next question is whether the issue you're having lies with you or a word which has not changed in definition in centuries? People get stuff wrong and misunderstand words all the time. For example, in this thread I had understood certain to mean without any doubt whatsoever, but after being corrected by Michael O'Brien and checking a number of standard dictionaries, this is not the case. I was wrong, as I have been on many occasions and will no doubt continue to be on many more. Getting stuff wrong is how we learn. I would respectfully suggest that in this case you re-visit your understanding of the word atheist by looking it up in a number of reputable sources.

Blowfish

smacl wrote: »

A couple of examples so.

- Those raised in atheist communities where the notion of a God existing is never put forward, which would have been the case in much of Russia and China at various points in time.

- Those raised as atheist in religious communities. I myself was raised atheist and have raised my children atheist, they've never had sufficient reason to consider God or Allah or Thor or Vishnu might exist any more than ghosts, black magic, shamanism, unicorns or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

- Those raised in a non-theistic religion or philosophical tradition such as Buddhism, Humanism or philosophical Taoism.

- Babies and the very young (theists tend to argue this one)

Also add in those with development issues who may not be even capable of belief. Technically, given that it's simply a description of lack of belief, then the definition doesn't even have to extend to just humans, animals, rocks, planets, the stars are all atheist too.

One eyed Jack

jaxxx wrote: »

I don't tell anyone to live, do or believe anything. I'm not so arrogant that I force my opinions on others, I simply convey it. Living morally and ethically is just a foundation for living a decent life. If people choose to live like that great, if they don't more's the shame. Maybe the world would be in a better shape if we were more ethically and morally aware. My point is people these days are so fixated with defining themselves as this or that, X or Y, that they don't stop to think "what's the point". What difference does it make if you have 'set A' of beliefs or 'set B'? You'll live your life slightly different to someone who doesn't share that, but it shouldn't affect how treat others, treat yourself, the planet, anything. If people weren't so damn concerned with being 'something' and trying to make others into that same line of 'something', instead of just being themselves individually then I think the world would be far better off.

Your idea of a better world is unlikely ever to come about if all you're ever willing to do is convey your ideas as an individual rather than seeking out people who share similar goals to your own, but because you're more concerned with being an individual, anyone who shares similar goals to you is also likely to think as individually as you do, and therefore none of you are individuals, you're all just thinking and acting individually, and because you're more concerned with being individuals, you're never going to have any significant influence or effect on the collectives of people who have a commonality and a shared identity with each other, who work collectively to achieve their shared goals, and influencing and shaping the world in a way that suits them a hell of a lot more than it appears their world will ever suit you.

That's the point, and collectivism will always have that advantage over individualism, and that's why people see a point in their shared identity with others, because together they achieve more of their aims than they ever could as individuals.

Michael OBrien

Blowfish wrote: »

Also add in those with development issues who may not be even capable of belief. Technically, given that it's simply a description of lack of belief, then the definition doesn't even have to extend to just humans, animals, rocks, planets, the stars are all atheist too.

Its not just a description for a lack of belief, its a description of people who lack belief, the inclusion of 'belief' requires a mind to hold it. While one might class animals as capable of beliefs, we generally consider such complexity in this case (abstract concepts as gods require significant development of how we view causal agency and our place in the universe.) beyond their capabilities.

The word is made up of three stages and the final stage address a person that holds that view or stance.

To act as if it can mean it applies to anything means apolitical can apply to rocks, which is a meaningless statement as it is more or less a whataboutery in that "well it can also apply to..."

The atheist label applies to people. Any other use is irrelevant.
To further clarify, atheism addresses theism so the carrier of both need to be human to make sense.

Michael OBrien

begbysback wrote: »

You didn't answer my question - please do, I intentionally kept it simple

Your question included the idea that one can be atheist one day and agnostic the next. This shows that your question has a faulty premise in how 'atheist' is defined.

One can be atheist a number of ways. Not ever hearing claims about gods still means you are atheist about gods. No thought required. Same as you are APLUMRAXist to claims made about plumrax, the all powerful king of pluto. You did no research to be aplumraxist, did you? You only hear the term as you read this post so ONLY now can introspection occur, or 'research'.

Now for others who have encountered the claims, then if you have a broad term for research, that involves ANY thought about the claim at all, then sure, you will remain atheist despite doing research into it as the claims failed to change your mind or you deconvert from a belief after doing research into it and finding your previous conviction as unfounded.

Does that help?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the point, and collectivism will always have that advantage over individualism, and that's why people see a point in their shared identity with others, because together they achieve more of their aims than they ever could as individuals.

Ok to an extent, but you'll find many notable figures throughout history who acted very much as individuals coming to the fore by manipulating the masses. Doesn't matter whether we're talking Hitler, Jesus, or Genghis Khan, these are very much identified as strong leading individuals with a lesser supporting cast controlling the masses around them. By considering yourself part of a collective, you risk becoming a sheep to someone else's shepherd

There's a Chinese saying along the lines of Confucian at work, Taoist at home, which basically means we have a collectivist work ethic but and individual family ethic. I don't quite agree with it, but do believe that we can operate as individuals working in the best interests of the group.

Erik Shin

smacl wrote: »

So the next question is whether the issue you're having lies with you or a word which has not changed in definition in centuries? People get stuff wrong and misunderstand words all the time. For example, in this thread I had understood certain to mean without any doubt whatsoever, but after being corrected by Michael O'Brien and checking a number of standard dictionaries, this is not the case. I was wrong, as I have been on many occasions and will no doubt continue to be on many more. Getting stuff wrong is how we learn. I would respectfully suggest that in this case you re-visit your understanding of the word atheist by looking it up in a number of reputable sources.

I understand the word atheist , I understand it's meaning ..I also understand that you don't grasp the concept, so I shall leave you to your own devices, thank you

smacl

Erik Shin wrote: »

I understand the word atheist , I understand it's meaning

If that was the case perhaps you could furnish us with a broadly accepted source of reference that supports your understanding of this meaning as being the commonly understood meaning of the word atheist in common use in the English language. If not, you may want to revisit your understanding.

beefburrito

I wouldn't identify with being an Atheist because Atheisms origin is from the abrahamic religion's.

I remember one goon telling a Christian he was an Atheist because he didn't believe in Thor

Like that's the ludicrousness you're dealing with.

Christian believes in God =Thiest
Christian doesn't believe in Thor=Thiest

Jebus wept

CalamariFritti

You're projecting stuff into a word that isn't there. Atheist is just a noun. Its not a club and it doesn't associate you with other atheists beyond the meaning of that word.
It's like saying you're not smoking, but don't want to be called a non-smoker because you feel they can often be intolerant and militant antagonists. Well, some are but many more actually just don't smoke.

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

I wouldn't identify with being an Atheist because Atheisms origin is from the abrahamic religion's.

I remember one goon telling a Christian he was an Atheist because he didn't believe in Thor

Like that's the ludicrousness you're dealing with.

Christian believes in God =Thiest
Christian doesn't believe in Thor=Thiest

Jebus wept

Assuming the Christian believes in God, which apparently not all do, she's a theist, Thor doesn't come into it. If she wasn't a Christian but believed in Thor, she'd still be a theist. Theists are people that believe in a god or god. Doesn't matter which god or whether its one god or many. Could be Thor, Danu, Christian 'God', Allah, Kali, or one of ten thousand others, they're all gods, you believe in any of them, you're a theist.