"Mos seem to think that anyone / most everyone who doesn't believe in their version of God is an atheist... because they know 'the Only True God' and others don't."

They are. Atheism means a lack of belief in a god or gods. So if a Mormom believes in Elohim but not Ra, he is atheist in regards to Ra. Likewise, if somebody else believes in Zeus but not Elohim, he is atheist about the Mormon god.

Because most religions are mutually exclusive, one cannot believe in ALL possible and fabricated gods and still be in good standing with each individual religion and their respective deities.

So consider this, EVERYONE is atheist about at least one god.

Those who actually use the term atheist as a description of their religious beliefs simply believe in one less god than most do.

Atheism isn't an assertion, it is a lack of belief. Asserting no god's existence would be antitheism.
"I don't believe in god(s)" = atheist
"I believe there is no god" = antitheist

Im not sure if this was a () or a (), but Im glad it provoked discussion/thought.

I could have sworn Kolobian and MJ were talking about how an atheist is a person who "lacks belief in god" rather than a person who "does not believe in god." No?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,359883

If so, then are people of a particular faith necessarily atheists in some respect?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 10:16PM by thingsithink.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If so, then are people of a particular faith
> necessarily atheists in some respect?

Yes, and that was my point above. Maybe I misread the previous convo. Just wanted to add 2 cents more to what seems like a confusion of what atheism means.

got it. thanks.

No one can believe in every god, because some gods are exclusive.

One cannot believe in Allah AND the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example.

If Allah, then belief in FSM is lacking. If FSM, then belief in Allah is lacking.

Kolobian, here is what you said on an earlier thread:

"atheist actually means someone who simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. Period. That is not the same as asserting that no god or gods exist."


So, a person who believes in on god does not necessarily "lack a belief in Allah." They might asset that Allah does not exist. Hence, not an atheist under your definition. True? Not that it matters. Just curious.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 12:30AM by thingsithink.

Ok here we go, figured out how to word this...

If you believe that Allah doesn't exist (antitheism), would it not also be true that your belief in Allah is lacking (atheism)?

Antitheism is a stronger stance on atheism, but encompasses it. You can NOT BELIEVE in something so much that you BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE of it is true. But you sill carry a lack a belief of the positive claim.

So somebody that believes Allah doesn't exist is not only atheist about the Muslim god, but is also antitheist to it as well.

Does this make sense?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 12:57AM by AtheistMarine.

I just meant any god - none in particular.

For example, if I believe in Elohim and I assert that Allah does not exist. Am I an atheist with respect to Allah? Further, if I assert Elohim exists and I assert no other gods exist, including Allah, am I an atheist at all?

In other words, per Kolobian, I don't think everyone is necessarily an atheist because they might simply assert that the other gods do not exist. They don't simply lack a belief in other gods.

You might have a different definition that Kolob. I don't have a position, I'm just trying to understand what "atheist" means. Thanks!!!

I understand the point being made and believe that the underlying point being made is valid but disagree with it being technically true.

That said, it is only a shade past points I make where I point out to theist that there are thousands of gods people have claimed to be true gods. I then ask what proof do they have that their God is true and why all those other people are wrong.

The word Atheist is defined in relationship to the word theist. If the concept of theism did not exist, there would be no reason for the term atheist.

Basic definition of theist is a belief in a god or gods. Atheist simply means "not theist" (in the same way that atypical means not typical). So, anyone that can not answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe in a god or gods?" does not have a belief in God, thus is not a theist, thus is an atheist. This means that people that do not know if they believe in God are under the atheist banner right along with those that deny the existence of God. The ONE AND ONLY thing that puts them under that banner is that they do not have a belief in God.

I go by the dictionary definition that an atheist does not believe in gods, any gods. If you believe in even one minor little god you are not an atheist. Personally, I find the assertion that we are all atheists because we don't beleive in all gods a silly play on words which depends on changing an accepted definition. I don't see the point and don't find it all that clever.

It's not a play on words, it's using the dictionary definition.
Dictionary.com:
a·the·ism
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

#1 would be s strong atheism stance, or antitheism
Read #2 carefully. "..of a supreme being or beings"

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a supreme being. If you don't believe in Him you are atheist about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think what you are thinking is that because a christian doesn't believe in other deities like FSM or Allah, they are no longer a theist or Christian, but an atheist. What I'm talking about is SPECIFIC gods, not you're ENTIRE religious view as a whole. Not that any of this matters anyway, it's just a way to make a clearer understanding of what the actual word atheism means and what is does and doesn't imply.

If I don't believe in FSM but believe in Zeus, I am not an atheist. I have to deny all gods to be an atheist. That is the common definition. You are changing meanings whether you admit it or not.

No, actually I'm not. I'm talking specifics and not generalities. If you can't tell the difference than there's no need to keep posting on this.

There is a slight difference but it is so slight that it is meaningless IMO and it is toying with the accepted definition of the word.

Accepted by who? And that difference is important whether you want to overlook it or not. It's what separates theism, atheism and antitheism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:24AM by AtheistMarine.

The general public. When I say that someone is an atheist, people assume he believes in no gods, not that he doesn't believe in Zeus or Mithras. They don't assume that a Hindu is an atheist because he doesn't believe in the same god they believe in . All you are doing is confusing the issue.If it makes you feel clever, go ahead, but I fail to see the point.

Oh my god, you haven't grasped a word I've said. FACEPALM

Really? I think you are the one who isn't getting it. To each his own.

I've always thought the same way as you bona dea. But, it is kind of interesting to see how atheists define the word in different ways amongst themselves.

Definition 2 does not require any denial of any gods. As has been pointed out to you again and again, one does not have to deny the existence of any gods or gods and that is consistent with the definition that YOU have put forward. Your definition "an atheist does not believe in gods, any gods" at no point does the definition you put forward require or even imply a denial of God is required. Even you should be able to understand that not believing something is not the same as denying it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:19AM by MJ.

I think I've got it. bona dea is expressing what was my understanding. I believe AthiestMarine and MJ are on the same page or close to each other. But I'll read through these again.

Kolobain seems to have a slightly different take with his definition: "atheist actually means someone who simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. Period. That is not the same as asserting that no god or gods exist."

Any one is cool with me. I find Kolobian's the most intriguing.

Okay. AthiestMarine. You asked this question:

"If you believe that Allah doesn't exist (antitheism), would it not also be true that your belief in Allah is lacking (atheism)?"

My answer to your question would be yes.

However, Kolobian said this about atheism: "atheist actually means someone who simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. Period. That is not the same as asserting that no god or gods exist."

So, Kolobian seems to make a distinction between "asserting no god or gods exist" and "lack of belief." So, I might believe in Allah but I assert the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. I'm not an atheist - because I don't lack belief (under Kolobian's definition). Instead I assert the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

Like you AthiestMarine, I don't see a difference. But, there obviously is to some people. I'm just trying to understand the distinction Kolobian is making. I think MJ explained it, but I didn't quite get it. I'll read his explanation again. Maybe Kolobain will help me out.

Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:37AM by thingsithink.

The statement "All people that deny the existence of Alla do not believe in Alla" would be a true statement, do you agree?

How about "All people that do not believe in Alla deny the existence of Alla"? Would you say that is a true statement? Since there are many that would say, I do not know if Alla exists or not, I can not deny that Alla existed, but I do not believe.

Those that deny the existence of God are a subset of Atheists. As such they do not define Atheism as a whole. The one and only characteristic that defines atheism as a whole is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

The issue that defines atheist has nothing to do with denying or not denying the existence of God.

If you read my definition, everything that is not a theist is an atheist, meaning anyone that does not have a belief in God is an atheist, it is the same thing kolobian is putting froward in slightly different words.

Okay. So that's why you said my prior post was technically correct? And you (and Kolobian) would not agree with AthiestMarine that everyone is atheist with respect to at least one god, I presume.

Like I said, I've always had the bona dea definition. I can understand AthiestMarine's view - its sort of in the middle. I've got you and Kolobian.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to explain it to me.

I said I disagree with other atheists on a point, that their point was valid but the way they make their case is technically not sound, that is NOT at all saying that you have been technically correct.

While I agree with the concept that everyone is an atheist in respect to some gods, I do not believe that it is technically sound based on my understanding of the words.

Theist believes in a God,

Atheist, everything that is not theist.

As soon as a person believes in one god they are a theist, thus can not be an atheist.

But there are thousands of Gods that theists likely reject, it seems disingenuous to harp on Atheists because an Atheist rejects just ONE more god than many theists do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:49AM by MJ.

I get that the distinctions matter to some of you. However, to me this seems as silly as the Medieval debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't care and think you are taking a simple idea and making it unnecessarily confusing. Carry on, but don't expect me to care.

And yes, distinctions are important in communication. The better and the more clear words are defined, the better chance we have of communicating clearly. But I guess that does not matter to you



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:53AM by MJ.

That is exactly my point, MJ, you are taking something simple and making it unnecesariy complicated.