Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

1356

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭goingpostal1


    Yeah, dem atheists should stop believing in goats, they are so closeminded its unreal, with their fecking goat worship. Give it a rest already.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    john47832 wrote: »
    Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

    You seem to be confusing not believing something exists with believing something doesn't exist.

    Rookie mistake, so don't feel bad :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Ah this again! control...c.

    There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. Yet a lot of theists find beliefs like this untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
    Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?

    Let's take vampires for a moment.
    I don't believe vampires exist.
    Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
    To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
    So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
    If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.

    But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
    Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

    There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
    There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
    Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
    Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
    However people seem to define god as something which is just powerfu. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

    Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    That is clearly wrong crazy beliefs or not. If someone follows a religion and it says to cover there body I do not accept that however that is there religion and that is what they do. As long as they don't try to make me change my religion then I say fine. In relation to killing people because of there sexuality that is very wrong. you say it in but I would say that is more extremists which you get in all beliefs (religions or atheist). By the way this thread is about religon's ans atheists so I am not talking about laws of a country.

    A link to extremist Atheists demanding people be killed because of their sexuality?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    dd972 wrote: »
    another atheist ''who was there'' at the omega <facepalm>

    The only thing here requiring a face palm is your continued, even after it has been explained with pictures, misunderstanding of what an agnostic is. I, like most of the regulars on this board, am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if gods exists or not (the agnostic bit) but given that there is currently so satisfactory evidence that gods do exist I live my life as if they don't (the atheist bit).

    Give that this is the majority view here, why should there be a separate agnostics forum simply because you can't or won't understand what agnostic actually means and give that the forum in it current guise perfectly fulfils the needs of its users?

    No need for anyone to have been present at the beginning or have any secret revealed knowledge, except perhaps the proper definition of some words. They hide that information in books.

    MrP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    dd972 wrote: »
    Agnostic in peace here.

    I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

    But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.
    I really dislike the term "militant" atheist. Atheist don't blow people up or shoot abortion doctors. But that's for another discussion.
    I "know" because there isn't a shred of evidence for any divine being whatsoever but overwhelming evidence for science, evolution and plain reason.
    Agnostics are pussies that want to be atheists but are too afraid to commit ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    swampgas wrote: »
    You have beliefs but cannot explain why they are true. In other words, faith. Which is just pretending something is true, either because you were indoctrinated with it, or because it makes you feel happier.

    How much does it matter to you whether your beliefs are actually true?

    They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith
    Well you clearly think so in the cases of gods and other fictional creatures aside from your own.

    Does people's belief in stuff like Nessie actually make her appear in the loch for everyone to objectively see?
    Does that belief make the creature any less fictional?

    Why is your preferred one different to the others you don't believe in?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    A link to extremist Atheists demanding people be killed because of their sexuality?

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well you clearly think so in the cases of gods and other fictional creatures aside from your own.

    Does people's belief in stuff like Nessie actually make her appear in the loch for everyone to objectively see?
    Does that belief make the creature any less fictional?

    Why is your preferred one different to the others you don't believe in?

    Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.

    Are you conceding that all unsubstantiated claims or beliefs, as you call them, are not open to criticism because they are deeply held?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Are you conceding that all unsubstantiated claims or beliefs, as you call them, are not open to criticism because they are deeply held?

    Of course they are open to criticism that's my whole point. Why shouldn't they be there is no substantiated claim either way if they exist or not. I say challenge away however I say don't force people to accept your views


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Of course they are open to criticism that's my whole point. Why shouldn't they be there is no substantiated claim either way if they exist or not. I say challenge away however I say don't force people to accept your views

    Who is forcing anyone to change their stance? I think its fairly reasonable to assume that you are aware that it is the religious who actively try to force religion on other with various degrees of punishment if you do not accept it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.
    But that's subjective. All the other people who all believe different things to you think the same way. But does that make their beliefs more real or less fictional? No it doesn't.
    Yours is no different. Just really really believing something does not change reality. It does not make things pop into existence.
    And you believe this is true for everything, except for you alone...


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Who is forcing anyone to change their stance? I think its fairly reasonable to assume that you are aware that it is the religious who actively try to force religion on other with various degrees of punishment if you do not accept it.

    I will accept that and it is wrong to sat that there are not atheists who do not try to do the same is wrong.

    But is that not the answer to the OP title to this thread is atheism close minded and the answer would be yes but is so far as anyone who has a belief in something will be close minded. Like someone who thinks a football club is the greatest will be close minded to believe anyother club is better then them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    I will accept that and it is wrong to sat that there are not atheists who do not try to do the same is wrong.

    But is that not the answer to the OP title to this thread is atheism close minded and the answer would be yes but is so far as anyone who has a belief in something will be close minded. Like someone who thinks a football club is the greatest will be close minded to believe anyother club is better then them

    Atheism is defined as a lack of belief.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I actually came to realise I was of the atheist persuasion when I opened my mind to the nuttiness of the claims made by the Catholic faith. I thought about it very deeply in fact. I grew up with lovely memories of the church. I was the first female alter server in our parish and did lots of plays, was in the church choir and genuinely liked going to mass. The first chink came in school, when a battleaxe of a nun pointedly told the one protestant girl in our class that she wasn't part of the real Catholic church and wasn't it a shame she had no faith. Then the sex abuse scandals broke. I was in first year in school when the Brendan Smith/AG/Government falling stuff happened and I'll never forget my mum telling me her and her sister had a lucky escape as that beast was in her school giving 'special confessions' and retreats.

    That started me thinking and the more I thought about it the less I believed any of it. The final straw came a few years later at a school mass. I just had a moment sitting in an expensively decorated church with gold on the alter and a man in a dressing telling a captive audience of schoolgirls to never taint ourselves by using any form of contraception and sex was a gift for our husbands, not something we could play around with whenever we felt like it. This was a young enough priest who'd seemed reasonable enough in a religion class he stepped into. Then and there I though, nah, this is not for me.

    I find I'm more open to reading and learning about other faiths than many of my peers. I've had people who describe themselves as practicing Catholics tell me the host is symbolic and that they don't believe any of that auld nonsense about contraception or non Catholics not getting into heaven. To me, that's a closed mindset, going along with rituals without asking why or not even believing in what your faith is supposed to be about because it makes you uncomfortable to believe things you know are wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,582 ✭✭✭swampgas


    They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith

    Faith is believing something without evidence, mostly people do this because they have been brought up with it, so to some extent it "feels" real. At least, that was my experience anyway.

    I would say that there is a problem with having faith - blind faith, anyway - in that it distorts your perception of the world you live in. It restricts the way you think. It can make you afraid or unwilling to think certain thoughts. It can make you do or say things that you really don't agree with, deep down.

    IMO, obviously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Of course they are open to criticism that's my whole point. Why shouldn't they be there is no substantiated claim either way if they exist or not. I say challenge away however I say don't force people to accept your views

    You seem to be defining "force" as "mention out loud"?

    Is this another don't contradict religious people because they might get upset argument?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You seem to be defining "force" as "mention out loud"?

    Is this another don't contradict religious people because they might get upset argument?

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

    No it is not one of those arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Atheism is defined as a lack of belief.

    I would not have put atheism that way but ok


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I would not have put atheism that way but ok

    How would you put it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    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.
    :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭TheNap




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...
    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    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.
    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
    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?
    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.
    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.


Advertisement