The tread closed just as this question was asked. I think it is disingenuous to state simply that atheism is a mere "lack of belief" in God or gods. There is typically a constellation of other positions (which one may call beliefs, since they are not definite knowledge) surrounding this central lack, the atheists' psychological stance. Not all atheists accept these "tenets" but they appear on this board with enough frequency for one to propose a connection:

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.
7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative.
9. Only they have the truth (theists and deists are ignorant of facts, reason, and critical thinking).
10. They are continually intruded upon or oppressed by theists.

11. Religion is the cause of most social ills, historically and now.

I've consulted the Atheist Handbook and I could find none of these "beliefs". I think you are making stuff up again.

Kaffee:
Cpl. Barnes, turn to the page in this book that tells me how to get to the mess hall.

Cpl. Barnes:
Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.

Kaffee:
You mean the whole time you've been at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?

Cpl. Barnes:
No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.

Kaffee:
Then how did you find the mess hall if it wasn't in this book?

Cpl. Barnes:
Well, sir, like everybody else, I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.

Kaffee:
No further questions.

I will tell you that I believe in the Bell Shaped Curve, and its representation of the distribution of bad, average, great.

It's very simplicity makes me sleep good nights.

You’re an ass man?

...I...don't...know...

I must have forgotten my beliefs. I do accept the scientific method and peer review, so there's that.

Richard,

You start with a fundamental misapprehension. The history and meaning of the term "atheist" is complex and multiform. That said, "atheist" literally means "someone without God." The fundamental word goes no further.

When you move from "atheist" to "atheism," you add a suffice that implies, according to the OED, "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy." In other words, you implicitly demand that people in a NEGATIVE state, "without God," in fact have a POSITIVE and definite system of thought or doctrine. You are insisting that people, most of whom have abjured religion or ideology, in fact have their own ideology.

Once you do that, you win the argument. You have done that, however, tautologically: by putting your opponents (too strong a word) in a false position through your choice of terms.

Words matter. Suffixes matter.

What use is it to speak of some pristine grammatically-defined "a-theist," when the term refers to human beings whose minds are filled with beliefs on other topics?

I was noting the frequency of association between atheists and certain ideological, psychological, and social beliefs--enough to say with some likelihood that atheists gravitate toward them. No, they are not part of the parsed meaning of the word, but I think that atheists who claim simply a "lack of belief in god" are also invoking a fake innocence which dodges these other linked views.

Yet more strawman.

Who says these other "views" are linked ?

The reason you don't want to use actual definitions is because you intend to impose your own meanings on those words. It's a common argumentative technique, frequently employed by political and religious tyrants who want to change the public perception of reality in order to support their own views. Don't be surprised if many of the participants on this board refuse to play along. Words matter, Richard. And people understand what you are trying to do.

This is an apple. Some people might tell you it is a banana. They might type banana in all caps. But it is still an apple.

Was that meant as a reply?

Just a chuckle. I don't get how I'm like "political and religious tyrants" for acknowledging that many atheists may have a worldview with some interrelated beliefs that go beyond the bare "lack of belief in god" denotation of the word. And I did spell out those beliefs and offered them for consideration. No intent to subvert any meanings to stigmatize atheists, just an attempt to unpack some of their own carry-on bags.

I accept that. I get touchy when people redefine words because there are reasons behind those terms, particularly when one gets into psychological territory--and religion is preeminently such. I don't think people fit into narrow categories.

I will address your points, despite my discomfort, in a following post.

I consider myself an agnostic, though some definitions of atheist would work too. I don't think your scheme fits me well and I believe it probably doesn't work for most of the other people who may appear atheistic on this board.

My comments follow in all caps.
---------


1. There is no God or devil.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD. I SEE MANY PEOPLE WHO PERSUADE THEMSELVES, ON WHAT I CONSIDER INADEQUATE EVIDENCE, THAT GOD EXISTS. BUT MY SKEPTICISM FALLS FAR SHORT OF PROOF.
-----------


2. There is no supernatural realm.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE HOW ONE COULD KNOW GIVEN THAT HUMANS WORK AND THINK THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES.
------------


3. Miracles cannot occur.

I NOTE THAT MOST 'MIRACLES' ARE LATER EXPLAINABLE IN MUNDANE TERMS, BUT THAT DOES NOT LOGICALLY MEAN THAT MIRACLES ARE IMPOSSIBLE.
-------------------


4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT GOD EXISTS, AND I CAN NEITHER PROVE NOR DISPROVE THAT PROPOSITION.
---------------


5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

THE MATERIAL AND MEASURABLE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE IS A DEMONSTRABLE FACT. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT? I SUSPECT YOUR PROPOSITION SHOULD BE THAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE IS "ONLY" MATERIALISTIC AND MEASURABLE.
---------------


6. Man is material.

HUMANS AND OTHER ORGANIC BEINGS ARE CERTAINLY MATERIAL. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT?
----------------


7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART?
---------------


8. Ethics and morals are relative.

FALSE.
---------------


9. Only [atheists] have the truth (theists and deists are ignorant of facts, reason, and critical thinking).

TRUTH AND FACTS SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH REASON AND CRITICAL THINKING. ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE REALLY DISCUSSING REASON AND CRITICAL THINKING, ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THOSE SKILLS.
---------------


10. [Atheists] are continually intruded upon or oppressed by theists.

I OFTEN FEEL INTRUDED UPON BY THEISTS, OR BY POLITICIANS AND OTHERS WHO MOMENTARILY CLAIM TO BE THEISTS, WHICH ARE COMMON. I DO NOT FEEL 'OPPRESSED' BY THEISTS ALTHOUGH IN MAY PLACES THAT DOES HAPPEN--AS DOES THE OPPRESSION OF THEISTS BY ATHEISTS AND THEIR IDEOLOGIES.


-------------
11. Religion is the cause of most social ills, historically and now.

MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE DISENTANGLEMENT OF SELF-INTEREST, HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, POLITICS, AND OTHER PHENOMENA FROM RELIGION. SINCE I DO NOT THINK THOSE THINGS ARE SEPARABLE, I CANNOT ADDRESS YOUR POINT. I DO BELIEVE THAT IN SOME INSTANCES RELIGION AND OTHER IDEOLOGIES INTENSIFY NEGATIVE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS.


-------------
My conclusion, once again, is that theists, deists, and atheists represent points on a spectrum and cannot be subsumed by precise definitions. That is why the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are inevitably so imprecise.

Science is not an ideology.


Some religionists try to make this assertion, in attempts to manipulate the argument.

I really fail to see the point, as science attempts to describe the *exact* physical properties of physical things, where religion seeks to define physical things using supernatural properties.

They will *never* agree.

Science neither proves nor disproves any god, but religionists want to make it so, because science does disprove the bible as accurately describing the physical world's history. If the bible is wrong about that, then it may be wrong about other things. Can't have that supposition dangling out there.


As to "ethics and morals" being relative, that is true for all humans, regardless of claims otherwise, else every human being who has ever been would agree on the "one true" god-law(s). We can talk about offering one's son as a burnt offering but being forbidden to murder, or, a daughter for rape by strangers, in lieu of the raping of a male stranger, or even, destroying the wares of merchants, exercising their trade and "religious freedom" (free will). How about the murder of an entire planet of people being a moral action, vs. " the murder six million non-Christians being absolutely amoral. - Relative to what?? Please. There is no system of beliefs as prone to subjectivity as those contained in the bible, and especially, from "the laws" of the god described therein.

Believing a negative is still belief. Switching from “I know” to “I do not know” makes one agnostic. I think an agnostic can be an atheist. If you believe in the supernatural but don’t believe in sky daddy, you still may be an atheist.

The problem is that there are as many kinds of atheists as there are gods. Everyone who doesn’t believe in Odin is an atheist. So, do theists actually exist?

Maybe people like the Atheist label because it’s hip, but the correct term is agnostic.

agnostic is not the correct term. Maybe you can tell us which gods agnostics know are not real and which gods they are unsure of.
What ? you claim that all other gods are not real but you are unsure of the christian god.

I think Christian God is as crazy as Mormon God. I’m more of a Tao guy. The comic book characters come and go. Jesus? Sure let’s go with that made up character until the next made up character comes along.

The problem with Mormonism isn’t the fact that it’s made up. The problem is a leadership structure that can’t make course corrections. The stories of religion are like threads of a blanket woven together. Threads fray over time and must be replaced. Doctrine needs to change to keep up with the times. TSCC decided to stay static, so now they’re dealing with a blanket that’s unraveling.

Well, that and all the lies and guilt and treating people like shit.

The kind that invites rational discussion.

For rational people, that is.

;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2018 11:12PM by Amyjo.

Considering that Richard Dawkins is no longer an atheist because he "cant be sure God doesnt exist."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

then either Richard Dawkins is not rational or atheism is not rational.

So Dawkins being unable to prove a negative proves Atheism is false ?

Interesting find. That he would admit to being an agnostic over an atheist because he's intelligent enough to admit that he can't be sure there isn't a God.

And you are intelligent enough to claim that a god can exist ?

@Dave the Atheist, merely asking a question isnt evidence. Apparently, Richard Dawkins considered atheism and rejected it.

Its easy to doubt anything. You dont have to even research it. Just because you doubt something doesnt make you correct either. You doubt religions you have never heard of or even understand.

Maybe you should email Richard Dawkins and tell him how he got the definition of atheism wrong or how he is just too stupid to understand atheism. Tell him how smart you are and how dumb he is. Tell him any disagreement is only confirmation of how dumb he is and how smart you are. Tell him if he doesnt like the email then he shouldnt be reading it. Send him 100s of copies of the email though to make sure he got it. Just like how you act on RFM.

@Dave the Atheist Throw in some foul language too. That is how Richard Dawkins will know you are really smart and serious.

Keep on telling us how smart you are and how wrong and stupid Atheists are.
That's about your speed.
Nevermind facts to back up what you claim.

lol

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting find. That he would admit to being an
> agnostic over an atheist because he's intelligent
> enough to admit that he can't be sure there isn't
> a God.

The positions aren't exclusive of each other. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.

I don't believe in God and I don't know if there is a God. I see no evidence of one but am happy to consider evidence. Even if a god were proven I likely wouldn't worship it. Our catalog of this is full of things unworthy of worship.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That he would admit to being an
> agnostic over an atheist because he's intelligent
> enough to admit that he can't be sure there isn't
> a God.

Actually, Dawkins usually calls himself an agnostic atheist: He cannot prove their is no god, but he believes it's bloody unlikely.

And so do I.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering that Richard Dawkins is no longer an
> atheist because he "cant be sure God doesnt
> exist."

Whether one exists or not, Dawkins doesn't believe one does.
That makes him an atheist.

Words have meanings...learn them.

@ificouldhietokolob,

You say words have meaning but you ignore the fact that many atheists on this very thread are saying that atheism isnt defined by the dictionary or any ones opinions about it.

The hypocrisy here is unreal. An atheist puts out a definition of atheism. It is proven to be illogical so the atheist changes the definition. But wait. Other atheists arent comfortable with the change. Now we have 2 definitions of atheism. But wait there is more. Those 2 definitions of atheism are proven illogical so they turn into 4 different definitions of what atheism is. Then you have the nerve to say words have meaning...

You claim atheism has a clear definition while other atheists claim it doesnt on the very same thread. I think you are just trying to avoid an open debate about atheism.

Funny how you have to tell Dawkins if he is an atheist or not. Couldnt he speak for himself? Maybe he is just too dumb to get your plethera of definitions straight. Or maybe he isnt trying to play word definition games like you are.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You say words have meaning but you ignore the fact
> that many atheists on this very thread are saying
> that atheism isnt defined by the dictionary or any
> ones opinions about it.

Really? I haven't seen any such posts. Care to point them out?

> The hypocrisy here is unreal. An atheist puts out
> a definition of atheism. It is proven to be
> illogical so the atheist changes the definition.
> But wait. Other atheists arent comfortable with
> the change. Now we have 2 definitions of atheism.
> But wait there is more. Those 2 definitions of
> atheism are proven illogical so they turn into 4
> different definitions of what atheism is. Then you
> have the nerve to say words have meaning...

Again, I haven't seen any such posts. I also haven't seen anyone here show any definition of atheism "proven to be illogical." And I read all the posts. You must be seeing something I'm not.

Please, do tell: what's "illogical" about the dictionary definition of atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" ?
There's nothing illogical about that.

By all means, explain why that's "illogical."

> You claim atheism has a clear definition while
> other atheists claim it doesnt on the very same
> thread. I think you are just trying to avoid an
> open debate about atheism.

You think incorrectly. There is both a clear dictionary definition and an etymological definition, both of which have been given and are consistent. I think you're making things up.

> Funny how you have to tell Dawkins if he is an
> atheist or not. Couldnt he speak for himself?

He can. If he's wrong, though, I'll point that out.
The thing is, he didn't say he wasn't an atheist in the discussion linked to above. He agreed that he was agnostic. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive -- as others have already pointed out. Did you miss that?

> Maybe he is just too dumb to get your plethera of
> definitions straight. Or maybe he isnt trying to
> play word definition games like you are.

Maybe you should read what he said instead of misrepresenting it. That would be honest. The stuff you wrote -- not so much.

I have stuck to this simple statement of atheism as a definition: "The non-belief in the theist unsupported claim of a deity/God."

Technically, we are all agnostic as the definition I like best is that a God/deity is not provable.

All theist claim a belief in a deity/God by faith which is often accompanied by answers to prayer, or other personal claims.

I'll stick to the scientific method.

Any belief by faith is, in my view, a personal right that is protected by our Constitution.

Personally, I prefer to place my faith in that which is verifiable. I place faith in myself and in others, which is a bit nebulous but a requirement to get through this life, in my view. Trust and faith are not the same.

I really couldn't give a rat's ass whether any of yous believe in Me or not. Look, all I want is be left alone to read the racing form in peace.

And you're behind the times -- I intend to plead diminished responsibility for the creation of planet Earth, which I may or may not have created in a moment of weakness when I was bored. And to be honest, I've lost may faith in being God. I mean, what's the point of being God if you can't indulge in a decent killing spree now and then? I wipe out the odd lost tribe or two for a laugh and you softies start complaining.

I'm up to my bushy white eyebrows with complaints. And if Hitchens says I don't exist then that's fine with Me.

And you should have learnt by now that I'm far too busy reading the racing papers to answer prayers. Except one -- I am seriously considering your populist requests to wipe out of existence the Spice Girls.

I accept absolutely no responsibility for anything Richard Dawkins or the Archbishop of Canterbury says or doesn't say. Now while I've got your attention, can any of yous lend me a couple of Benjamins for a promising win-double at Ascot?

Please, I'm on my bended knees, I'm praying you'll get the message and leave me be. Or rest assured you'll be hearing from my legal representatives.

Never yours,

God


Happy New Year esias

So what do you call someone who does not care about the existence of God(s)?

Personally I do not care if there is a God, or many Gods. Such a being has failed to reveal itself to me in any form, and I can find no evidence of its existence. Either it does not exist, or does not care about me enough to provide evidence for its existence. So why should I care about it/them?

I’ve heard the term apatheist. Maybe that word works.

It works for me!

Don't forget my personal contribution: Laztheism!!

I am probably preemptively excommunicated as a Laztheist because I actually made the effort to look up your original contribution. Then again, Laztheist authorities probably can't be bothered to even start an excommunication.

If you wish to submit an application,someone may be around the office a week from Thursday...

Eh, why bother?

Just to clarify Atheism lack of a belief in a deity or deities due to a lack of evidence. We don't claim these supernatural things do not exist just that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claim knowledge of a God? Show me evidence, I claim there is no God, I then have a burden of proof. The atheist claim is there is no evidence of the supernatural the default position of the unverifiable is disbelief or we would have to give credence to every absurd supernatural claim.

But a claim that evidence doesn’t don’t exist is not credible for people who regularly experience evidence of the supernatural firsthand. Some people experience evidence, some don’t. So, the claim is a matter of belief. The same thing you were trying to get away from before.

A-theism means no belief in god or gods. some can't understand the the -a- covers the term theo as well as ism.

We could always spell the words a-theist and a-the-a-isim.

As for me, I don't care what dictionaries say about my non-belief. Is bald a hair style or an a-style? Whoever writes dictionaries isn't in charge of me, nor is anyone on this board or anyone who writes books. Writing a book doesn't make a person the boss. I know because I've written books.

So Atheism is against the belief in God, not disbelief in God per se. Agnostics just don’t care.

Not really.
The prefix a- means "without."
Not "against."

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known.

As I have just found out, not caring would be either apatheism or apathetic agnosticism.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is disingenuous to state simply that
> atheism is a mere "lack of belief" in God or gods.

It's not disingenuous at all -- it's honest and factual.

> There is typically a constellation of other
> positions (which one may call beliefs, since they
> are not definite knowledge) surrounding this
> central lack, the atheists' psychological stance.

Is there? Prove it.
And here's the fun part: even if every single atheist had some "psychological stance" that was the same (which they don't of course), that wouldn't make that part of atheism. Atheism has no beliefs. No doctrines. No dogma. No commandments. No instructions on how to live or not to live. None of that.

> Not all atheists accept these "tenets" but they
> appear on this board with enough frequency for one
> to propose a connection:

Correlation isn't causation...

> 1. There is no God or devil.

That's an affirmative claim that most atheists don't make. More often, it's stated as "there's no reason to believe there's a god or devil." But of course, you apparently fail to recognize the difference between that and your straw-man.

> 2. There is no supernatural realm.

See above.

> 3. Miracles cannot occur.

See above.

> 4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of
> God’s will.

See above.

> 5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and
> measurable.

See above. But this is even worse, since it's a science question, not an atheist/theist one anyway.

> 6. Man is material.

QED. And sexist.

> 7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific
> fact.

No, not generally. Absolutely. It is. Which has nothing to do with atheism. It's a fact that most theists in the world also accept.

> 8. Ethics and morals are relative.

Again, that's an observed fact.

> 9. Only they have the truth (theists and deists
> are ignorant of facts, reason, and critical
> thinking).

Bullshit. This is the biggest straw-man here.

> 10. They are continually intruded upon or
> oppressed by theists.

Actual examples of theists trying to impose their beliefs by law or practice are often given. I suppose you're going to dismiss all of those as made-up?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here -- is it the old canard that "atheism is a religion just like my religion?"
Because it isn't.
And all atheism is, is a lack of belief in claimed god-things. That atheists may (or may not) have other things in common doesn't make those things "atheism." Any more than people having brown hair having some things in common make those things part of having brown hair.

We get it -- you don't like atheists. You feel threatened by our lack of belief. You want to lump us all into one tidy group so you can rail against us collectively.

Too bad. That's not reality. Try dealing with it instead of pretending it doesn't exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2018 09:26AM by ificouldhietokolob.

A quick question.

What do you mean when you say it is "an observed fact" that ethics and morals are relative?

The morals of human beings have varied by time, place and culture. That makes it an observed fact that human morals are relative to time, place, and culture.

For the philsophical view, see here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2018 02:57PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I see.

Yes, there are (at least) two senses to the concept.

First, I interpreted Richard's proposition as meaning that to atheists there are no moral absolutes. I reject that characterization.

Second, you note that moral codes do vary from time to time and place to place. I would argue that most societies have largely similar codes but you are right that that general principle only holds generally.

As I posted on another atheism topic, which is now closed; gods and religions bore me.

I am, however, fascinated by how the mere concept of them are cynically used by some to motivate, manipulate, pacify, or even enrage. What some will do in the name of some notion of "God" never ceases to amaze me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2018 02:10PM by GregS.

Richard Foxe said, " I think it is disingenuous to state simply that atheism is a mere "lack of belief" in God or gods."

Well of course you do Richard. That does not suit your agenda, now does it!

What would suit your agenda would be for atheists to say something ultra ridiculous that you could chomp into and rip to bits. But the phrase "lack of belief" just doesn't give you any ammo. So you grasp at straws and play semantic games and try to put words in atheist mouths. LoL.

I am not atheist because Dawkins or any other big name is or isn't atheist. I was a theist because my parents and their idols were theists.

I am not atheist because of some book I read. I was a Theist because of some books I read, like the Bible, BoM and you know the list.

I am not atheist because I went to some atheist meetings since I was a child. I was a theist because I went to some Theist meetings as a child.

I'm not an atheist due to peer pressure/herd mentality. I was a theist due to peer pressure/herd mentality.

I am not an atheist because I automatically went with the status quo. I was a theist because I automatically went with the status quo.

Considering all of the reasons to be one or the other--theist/deist or atheist--I must say I am not impressed with the reasons to be a theist, like fear and willingness to suspend reason.


When I finally found myself and began to think for myself I could come up with no reason to believe in a God. I was surprised. I had never even considered the possibility. The subject wasn't even on my mind when I had the realization. I happened to be in the middle of studying and considering other religions as an option. But there it was landing on me like a leaf from a tree as pure as could be. My personal chalkboard had been erased and I was never going to write anything on it again because of hearsay. I am very tired of people trying to write their own words on my board.

I have thoughts or considerations regarding the idea of atheism. I also have thoughts, or considerations regarding the idea of theism. Beliefs? Not so much.

Huh! You know how when you buy a Chevy, you almost automatically have to say negative things about Fords?

Maybe Richard is stuck being a deist and so...

I roughly fit the original post. I still consider myself to be kind, tolerant, and open to learning new things. Maybe I’m just evil.

But as an atheist, I must say that I relate only partially to very few of them. I think most of them are likely bogus or they can only be attributed to a minority of atheists, possibly those atheists who might be most vocal.