Definitions and Atheism

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.

Moderator: JoeWallack

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Definitions and Atheism

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:Most atheists are passively so; that is, they're agnostic-atheists
MrMacSon wrote:Some atheists veer into anti-theism in various ways...
MrMacSon wrote:(i) anti-religion rhetoric
MrMacSon wrote:(ii) asserting God does not exist; etc., ...)
I would say that (i) can be considered a solid indication of "anti-theism," which has a negative and emotionally-charged connotation.

I would say that (ii) is not. Even Thomas Aquinas considered the proposition that God does not exist, and arguments for it (though he favored the arguments for God's existence, obviously). If someone agrees with an argument to the extent that they would assert that "God does not exist" for some definition thereof, that doesn't make them "anti" anything. It makes them "for" the belief. In the mid-90s, anyway (I have no idea if this has changed under my feet), we (the atheists on Usenet) called this either "strong atheism" or "positive atheism" (contrasted with "weak atheism" or "negative atheism" or "atheism" simpliciter). We didn't completely eliminate it as one meaning of the word "atheism"; that's a good way to lose out on credibility by sweeping under the rug several centuries of good, solid English usage.

Just as importantly, there's simply no reason to snub the atheists who believe there is no God as a minority who are "veering" into "anti-theism."

Yes, the definition of "atheism" as a disbelief in god(s) prevails as the primary contemporary meaning of the term (although some muddy these waters).

Split from:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3121&start=10
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by iskander »

What is an atheist? An atheist is a polite person that answers a question about god in the foreign language of the questioner.

beowulf wrote:What is an atheist[any sort? An atheist is a polite person that answers a question about god in the foreign language of the questioner.

The polite person speaking in a foreign language replies:

There is only one ultimate reality, which cannot be understood or be described by humans and this one and only one reality is God. God is without any attributes and in particular, nameless and formless. It is never the object of perception or thought.


Some humans try to explain this ultimate reality by asking transcendental questions about the possible nature of God. Different people first asked this type of question many years ago in several places on this earth more or less simultaneously. The answers were and are very different one from another and they can be classified in two overlapping disciplines; religion and philosophy.

It is impossible to even speak of God. Insistence on answering certain questions will unavoidably get the answers wrong, and the constructed god will be unreal, non-existent. I think this is what the Buddha meant when he told people not to ask certain questions because they were impossible to answer. If some people believe in God then these people only believe in a god of their own making; in a non –existing false god since it is impossible for anyone to even think what God might be.



For the atheist any god is as good as any other if it satisfies the need felt by many humans to find answers to certain questions and for as long as the created god contributes towards the happiness of humanity.

For people that do not require answers to impossible questions the word ‘ god’ has no meaning whatsoever since god is a word only meaningful as an answer to a mystery. How could rules be formulated for any question relating to a word that cannot have a reliable meaning; an empty word from which they feel totally detached and indifferent?

Whether God exists or not is of no importance and since all gods are constructed by men it follows that all morality is also constructed by men, [women are of no importance to gods, priests are always male]
Human rights should be valued above divine privileges
Question for those that identify as "weak atheists"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=227#p3054
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by iskander »

G-d looks a more meaningful word when it is written as some orthodox Jewish believers do.G-d, d-o, g-tt. d-eu, d-os ...
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote:To the readers of this broken thread,

I had no intentions of turning the O.P. into a debate on atheism.

....

For those who wish to continue to debate if Dawkins is agnostic, atheist, or something in between, please start a new thread. For the matter is not up for debate.
If the matter is not up for debate, then it obviously turns against your view on the simple etymology and standard meaning of the word.

The Greek prefix a- most simply means "not". That is all there is to it. If a shape is not symmetric, it is asymmetric. If a species is not sexual, it is asexual. That species does not even have to know that sex exists. The Wiktionary article on the prefix a- (and we are speaking here of the one that derives from ancient Greek, as in the word "atheist", not one of the Germanic ones) has a good note: "Different Germanic senses of a- became confused – vaguely 'intensive' – and are no longer productive. The Greek sense of 'not' (e.g., amoral, asymmetry) remains productive." (Productivity here is not a value judgment; it simply means that English speakers can still hear the "notness" of the Greek a- and at least hypothetically formulate new words from it.)

Likewise, therefore, as all good dictionaries will state in one way or another, atheism is "not theism". If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

Richard Dawkins, I daresay, is not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

That is the meaning of the word and has been for centuries, in any language which picked it up from the ancient Greek. If you are wanting to redefine the word, I would have to ask why. And, of course, it would require the matter being up for debate.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by John T »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
John T wrote:To the readers of this broken thread,

I had no intentions of turning the O.P. into a debate on atheism.

....

For those who wish to continue to debate if Dawkins is agnostic, atheist, or something in between, please start a new thread. For the matter is not up for debate.
If the matter is not up for debate, then it obviously turns against your view on the simple etymology and standard meaning of the word.

The Greek prefix a- most simply means "not". That is all there is to it. If a shape is not symmetric, it is asymmetric. If a species is not sexual, it is asexual. That species does not even have to know that sex exists. The Wiktionary article on the prefix a- (and we are speaking here of the one that derives from ancient Greek, as in the word "atheist", not one of the Germanic ones) has a good note: "Different Germanic senses of a- became confused – vaguely 'intensive' – and are no longer productive. The Greek sense of 'not' (e.g., amoral, asymmetry) remains productive." (Productivity here is not a value judgment; it simply means that English speakers can still hear the "notness" of the Greek a- and at least hypothetically formulate new words from it.)

Likewise, therefore, as all good dictionaries will state in one way or another, atheism is "not theism". If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

Richard Dawkins, I daresay, is not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

That is the meaning of the word and has been for centuries, in any language which picked it up from the ancient Greek. If you are wanting to redefine the word, I would have to ask why. And, of course, it would require the matter being up for debate.
I have spent many, many hours listening to so-called atheists like Richard Dawkins try to define what a real/strong atheist is or is not. So, I am quite familiar with the origins of the term. Perhaps you should spend a half-hour and watch Richard Dawkins have a go at it. Then, if you find a place in the video (TED talk, 2002) where he admits he is a real atheist please mark the spot and I will look at it.

Pretending to be an atheist (pandering to the crowd) and claiming to be one are too different things.
https://youtu.be/VxGMqKCcN6A

Dittos for his book: "The God Delusion". I have a personal copy of his book, so if you can find a spot where he admits to being a real atheist then simply quote it with the page number.

Dawkins should stick to what he knows best, i.e, Natural Selection and stay away from what he knows least, i.e. theology.

Enjoy! :popcorn:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
John T wrote:To the readers of this broken thread,

I had no intentions of turning the O.P. into a debate on atheism.

....

For those who wish to continue to debate if Dawkins is agnostic, atheist, or something in between, please start a new thread. For the matter is not up for debate.
If the matter is not up for debate, then it obviously turns against your view on the simple etymology and standard meaning of the word.

The Greek prefix a- most simply means "not". That is all there is to it. If a shape is not symmetric, it is asymmetric. If a species is not sexual, it is asexual. That species does not even have to know that sex exists. The Wiktionary article on the prefix a- (and we are speaking here of the one that derives from ancient Greek, as in the word "atheist", not one of the Germanic ones) has a good note: "Different Germanic senses of a- became confused – vaguely 'intensive' – and are no longer productive. The Greek sense of 'not' (e.g., amoral, asymmetry) remains productive." (Productivity here is not a value judgment; it simply means that English speakers can still hear the "notness" of the Greek a- and at least hypothetically formulate new words from it.)

Likewise, therefore, as all good dictionaries will state in one way or another, atheism is "not theism". If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

Richard Dawkins, I daresay, is not a theist. He is, therefore, an atheist.

That is the meaning of the word and has been for centuries, in any language which picked it up from the ancient Greek. If you are wanting to redefine the word, I would have to ask why. And, of course, it would require the matter being up for debate.
I have spent many, many hours listening to so-called atheists like Richard Dawkins try to define what a real/strong atheist is or is not. So, I am quite familiar with the origins of the term. Perhaps you should spend a half-hour and watch Richard Dawkins have a go at it. Then, if you find a place in the video (TED talk, 2002) where he admits he is a real atheist please mark the spot and I will look at it.

Pretending to be an atheist (pandering to the crowd) and claiming to be one are too different things.
https://youtu.be/VxGMqKCcN6A

Dittos for his book: "The God Delusion". I have a personal copy of his book, so if you can find a spot where he admits to being a real atheist then simply quote it with the page number.

Dawkins should stick to what he knows best, i.e, Natural Selection and stay away from what he knows least, i.e. theology.
John, I feel like you are playing with words. Specifically, I feel like you are trying to bait me with the word "real" in your expression above ("real atheist"). I gave several instances of Dawkins both claiming to be an atheist and implying that he is an atheist. They evidently are not good enough for you, which means that you are defining words differently than both he and I would. Furthermore, you yourself pointed out that he places himself at #6 (going on #7) on his own scale, a degree which he defines as follows: "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Ask yourself: is Dawkins a theist? If the answer is no, then he is an atheist, by definition. Living one's life on the probabilistic assumption that there is no God is not something a theist does; it is something an atheist does.

And, for the record, asserting your experience with Dawkins is useless here; I, too, have read many of his books; I, too, have watched many of his videos. What would be far more helpful is if you would simply quote the parts of his books and/or videos which you feel disqualifies him from being an atheist.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by John T »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
John, I feel like you are playing with words. Specifically, I feel like you are trying to bait me with the word "real" in your expression above ("real atheist"). I gave several instances of Dawkins both claiming to be an atheist and implying that he is an atheist. They evidently are not good enough for you, which means that you are defining words differently than both he and I would. Furthermore, you yourself pointed out that he places himself at #6 (going on #7) on his own scale, a degree which he defines as follows: "De facto atheist.
Actually, it is Richard Dawkins that is playing with words. Hence the reason I asked you to watch his TED talk.

I remind you that in his book he admitted to being an agnostic and denied being an atheist according to his own ad hoc definition. A de facto atheist, a semi-atheist, a non-theist, a bright, I'm moving towards the direction of becoming a strong (real) atheist, all those things fall short of being what quantifies/qualifies as an atheist. Please pay attention next time. Dawkins always leaves room for the probability of a creator/deity, however slight that may be. By definition that makes him an "agnostic" but he hopes you can't figure out his little word game.

Atheism: The doctrine there is no God or gods.
Agnostic: One who believes that there is no proof of existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

During the TED talk it is obvious that Dawkins' ploy/goal is to silence creationists (read fundamentalist Christians) and is pandering to the real atheists in the audience in hopes they will become militant enough to join forces with him.

The age ole, the enemy (atheists) of my enemy (creationists) is my friend tactic.

Now, I haven't heard from Dawkins lately, so perhaps he has taken the final step and converted to atheism.
If so, and you provide the evidence, I will concede the point.
Until then, by Dawkins' own admission, he remains an agnostic.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
John, I feel like you are playing with words. Specifically, I feel like you are trying to bait me with the word "real" in your expression above ("real atheist"). I gave several instances of Dawkins both claiming to be an atheist and implying that he is an atheist. They evidently are not good enough for you, which means that you are defining words differently than both he and I would. Furthermore, you yourself pointed out that he places himself at #6 (going on #7) on his own scale, a degree which he defines as follows: "De facto atheist.
Actually, it is Richard Dawkins that is playing with words. Hence the reason I asked you to watch his TED talk.
It sounded like you wanted me to watch it so that I could see that he never mouths the words "I am an atheist" or some such. Which would be silly. What exactly do you want me to watch for? (I have started the video, and will have time to finish it later, but not if you do not tell me what exactly I am looking for.)
I remind you that in his book he admitted to being an agnostic and denied being an atheist according to his own ad hoc definition.
That is simply not true, at least not in the terms that you are presenting. Please provide quotes that actually support the words you are using.
A de facto atheist, a pseudo-atheist, a non-theist, a bright, I'm moving towards the direction of becoming a strong (real) atheist, all those things fall short of being what quantifies/qualifies as an atheist.
Again, that is not true. All it takes is not to be a theist. By definition.
Dawkins always leaves room for the probability of a creator/deity, however slight that may be.
This is the crux of it, I think. Simply put, an atheist can do that. Allowing for a tiny bit of probability that God exists does not make one a theist, any more than allowing a tiny bit of probability that fairies exists makes one a believer in fairies. There is a 5% of rain tomorrow, but I do not truly believe that it is going to rain. Probability and belief can correlate to some extent, but they are not the same thing. You are using your definition of atheism to trump almost literally everybody else's.
By definition that makes him an "agnostic" but he hopes you can't figure out his little word game.
You are simply mistaken in your definitions. That is all there is to this.
Atheism: The doctrine there is no God or gods.
That is not a complete definition. These are closer:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
— Google

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... ut-atheism

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
— Merriam-Webster

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
Atheism

That is why I spoke of the Greek prefix a-. One merely has to demure from belief in a G/god to be atheist; one does not have to actively, aggressively believe in the doctrine that there is no G/god.
During the TED talk it is obvious that Dawkins' ploy/goal is to silence creationists (read fundamentalist Christians) and is pandering to the real atheists in the audience in hopes they will become militant enough to join forces with him.

The age ole, the enemy (atheists) of my enemy (creationists) is my friend tactic.
I care little about his tactics and even less about your assessment of them. I care about what an atheist is (especially since I am one, and am not going to sit in silence while you try to explain away what atheism really, actually is).

I used to call my college self an agnostic, based on how the terms were treated by some people around me (mainly theists, incidentally). But, once I looked into the actual terminology (sparked originally by the knowledge that early Christians were called atheists sometimes, and long before I ever read Dawkins), it became obvious that I had been an atheist, plain and simple, and am one currently, as well.

Atheism and theism correlate, the former being the lack of the latter. Atheism and agnosticism do not correlate. They may even overlap, depending upon how one defines "agnostic" (about which I care little).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by John T »

John T wrote:I remind you that in his book he admitted to being an agnostic and denied being an atheist according to his own ad hoc definition.
Ben C. Smith wrote:That is simply not true, at least not in the terms that you are presenting. Please provide quotes that actually support the words you are using...You are simply mistaken in your definitions. That is all there is to this.
Already asked and answered.

However, since this thread is the off-spring of a cut&paste from another thread from another cut & paste, I will repeat the answer for you one last time.

In his book: "The God Delusion", Dawkins scores himself a 6 on his own 7 point scale. One being a strong theist and seven being a strong atheist. "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."...Richard Dawkins (pg. 51).

If you Ben, object to Richard Dawkins creating his own 7 point scale of what atheism is or is not, as well as his assertion that he is not a strong atheist (7) but instead an agnostic, well...I recommend you go to his web-page and tell him that he got it all wrong because he doesn't understand what a real atheist like you really believes.

Let me know what he says. Until then, I'm done with this thread for I fear no good will come from it.

V/R

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Definitions and Atheism

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote:
John T wrote:I remind you that in his book he admitted to being an agnostic and denied being an atheist according to his own ad hoc definition.
Ben C. Smith wrote:That is simply not true, at least not in the terms that you are presenting. Please provide quotes that actually support the words you are using...You are simply mistaken in your definitions. That is all there is to this.
Already asked and answered.

However, since this thread is the off-spring of a cut&paste from another thread from another cut & paste, I will repeat the answer for you one last time.

In his book: "The God Delusion", Dawkins scores himself a 6 on his own 7 point scale. One being a strong theist and seven being a strong atheist. "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."...Richard Dawkins (pg. 51).

If you Ben, object to Richard Dawkins creating his own 7 point scale of what atheism is or is not, as well as his assertion that he is not a strong atheist (7) but instead an agnostic, well...I recommend you go to his web-page and tell him that he got it all wrong because he doesn't understand what a real atheist like you really believes.
Once again, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive (not even in their names). Atheism and theism are the exclusive pair. Your private definitions are your own issue to deal with.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply