Atheism: What's the point?

[Treznor]

Then...doesn't his statement still fit?

It attempts to lock atheists into a single state: that we all actively believe there are no gods. The lack of belief is not the same, but still qualifies as a form of atheism.

[The Tofu Islands]

That seems to boil down to just semantics to me. They're the same thing.

Not really. One states an actual belief whereas the other states a lack of belief.

[Omega Uliza]

Then...doesn't his statement still fit?

It attempts to lock atheists into a single state: that we all actively believe there are no gods. The lack of belief is not the same, but still qualifies as a form of atheism.

Ok, it's po-tay-toes and pah-tah-toes to me. I'm just gonna go again and try to enjoy lunch.

[Deus Malum]

Then...doesn't his statement still fit?

It attempts to lock atheists into a single state: that we all actively believe there are no gods. The lack of belief is not the same, but still qualifies as a form of atheism.

Ok, it's po-tay-toes and pah-tah-toes to me. I'm just gonna go again and try to enjoy lunch.

No, it's "The actual fucking definition of the word," (Lack of a belief in god(s)) and "What people who suck at the English language want to believe" (Believing there is no god).
Waving your hands dismissively doesn't actually prove your point for you.

[Hydesland]

No, it's "The actual fucking definition of the word," (Lack of a belief in god(s)) and "What people who suck at the English language want to believe" (Believing there is no god).
Waving your hands dismissively doesn't actually prove your point for you.

Except that there has never actually been a universally accepted exact definition of atheism. So stating "x is the exact definition of the word" is essentially pointless and making shit up as you go along.

[Hydesland]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

It's 79 pages on my settings. I could see why you wouldn't want to read all of that.

Suffice it to say, "no".

However, that is what the words mean in common usage. 99% of people, barring a few philosophers and armchair philosophers (who need to use properly standardised definitions) use the words that way, and this has been happening since 5th century BCE.

[Treznor]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

It's 79 pages on my settings. I could see why you wouldn't want to read all of that.

Suffice it to say, "no".

However, that is what the words mean in common usage. 99% of people, barring a few philosophers and armchair philosophers (who need to use properly standardised definitions) use the words that way, and this has been happening since 5th century BCE.

Does that mean intercourse really means talking to someone, and communication really involves sexual contact? Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[Deus Malum]

It's 79 pages on my settings. I could see why you wouldn't want to read all of that.

Suffice it to say, "no".

However, that is what the words mean in common usage. 99% of people, barring a few philosophers and armchair philosophers (who need to use properly standardised definitions) use the words that way, and this has been happening since 5th century BCE.

Does that mean intercourse really means talking to someone, and communication really involves sexual contact? Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Or the 80 definitions of "pass."

Or the fact that fornication, long and long ago, specifically referred to prostitution.

Words change, and if they change in a reasonable manner, I don't see a problem with that.
We define "theist" as one who believes in a god or gods. We SHOULD define atheist as anyone else.
Just as if we were to refer to the people who believed the coin flip in the earlier example was heads as Headists, anyone who was not a Headist would be, by reasonable definition "Aheadist" as opposed to "Coin Agnostic."

[Hydesland]

Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm sorry, what? How the HELL does that address anything I said. If anything, that AFFIRMS what I said.

[Treznor]

Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm sorry, what? How the HELL does that address anything I said. If anything, that AFFIRMS what I said.

Then I'm glad to have reaffirmed it. I guess I misread which side you were arguing: that atheism has to be active disbelief, or can encompass the lack of belief.

[Hydesland]

Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm sorry, what? How the HELL does that address anything I said. If anything, that AFFIRMS what I said.

Then I'm glad to have reaffirmed it. I guess I misread which side you were arguing: that atheism has to be active disbelief, or can encompass the lack of belief.

Again, I'm saying that there is no universally agreed upon, or 'correct' definition of the word, so asserting that x is the correct definition is meaningless and pointless. Your ranting about definitions being flexible and changing only affirmed this.

[Dyakovo]

....Can you prove X?
No? Well then until you do I don't believe X.

That is not quite true. Science does not prove anything, as it can only disprove things abd find supporting evidence for theories, but it can't prove them.

So, it may be more correct to say that you don't believe things that don't have some sort of solid evidence to support them.

Show me where I said something about science...

[Treznor]

Then I'm glad to have reaffirmed it. I guess I misread which side you were arguing: that atheism has to be active disbelief, or can encompass the lack of belief.

Again, I'm saying that there is no universally agreed upon, or 'correct' definition of the word, so asserting that x is the correct definition is meaningless and pointless. Your ranting about definitions being flexible and changing only affirmed this.

I do not disagree with any of that. So we've established that a lack of belief is just as valid for an atheist as an active disbelief in gods. Thank you.

[JarVik]

Then I'm glad to have reaffirmed it. I guess I misread which side you were arguing: that atheism has to be active disbelief, or can encompass the lack of belief.

Again, I'm saying that there is no universally agreed upon, or 'correct' definition of the word, so asserting that x is the correct definition is meaningless and pointless. Your ranting about definitions being flexible and changing only affirmed this.

I do not disagree with any of that. So we've established that a lack of belief is just as valid for an atheist as an active disbelief in gods. Thank you.

80 pages dedicated to discussing Atheism and we now have an agreeable definition of it?
Sweet, progress is good!

Now stepping away from that can of worms, but I think the problem is that religious people have problems framing anything outside of a framework of belief. I've been told X and I ether believe it or I don't believe it. While the more atheisticly minded would think there lacks evidence to make X credible or there is sufficient evidence to make X crediable and I therefore accept it to be likely to be true. But should new evidnece that yay or nay 's it is to come in I will reconsider. "Belief" does not equal a logically based conclusion despite the common wordage use of it. Such as "I believe it will rain today as its cloudy and the barometer is dropping" That really is an improper use of the word belief, it is more correctly a conclussion based on some evidence and previous patterns of developement. Belief is faith in something being "thus" without needing information as to why it might be "thus".

Anyways, My two cents on what will always be a messy topic.

[Grave_n_idle]

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/r ... sir_12.asp

You should read something like this - my approach to historical sources is pretty standard academic rigour.

Your article, while interesting on the topic of evaluating secondary sources and determining whether the author has sufficient familiarity with and comprehension of the primary sources to be credible, has zero relevance to the question of why you discount most primary sources-- no, your behavior is not at all "standard", inside or outside of academia; I don't know anybody who denigrates primary sources the way you do.

I don't think you really read it, then - it talked about all the same sorts of things I talk about - whether or not you can trust sources because of bias, whether the credentials claimed for the source's creator actually give you carte blanche to accept it, the corroboration and quality of sources. It says that eyewitness testimony is the most reliable primary provider, but it also talks about the limits of persepctive and subjectivity. It also talks about trusting source material from after the fact.

Why I may be even more inclined to discard even primary sources than even that article suggests, is because of my experience with eyewitness testimony... and how unreliable it is.

[Grave_n_idle]

Excuse if I'm confused, but that still sounds exactly what he said.

No, he said:
Atheism is believing there is no god

And I'm saying, as are several of the other folks in this thread:
Atheism is not believing in a god.

The difference has been illustrated probably a half-dozen times in this thread alone.

That seems to boil down to just semantics to me. They're the same thing. It's as if I said, "I believe I'm not going to get a phone call today offering me a job." and "I do not believe I'm going to get a phone call today offering me a job." Both sentences, mean the same thing.

They're different things.

The Explicit Atheist actively believes there is no god. It's a statement of faith, if you analyse it - he is saying "I believe... there is no god".

To a lot of people who don't have that kind of certainty, that act of 'faith' is incomprehensible. I, personally, can't quite see how someneone gets from "the evidence doesn't convince me" to "therefore, it MUST be wrong, wrong, wrong!" And that's what Explicit Atheism looks like to me.

The Implicit Atheist doesn't have an active belief - what he has is a LACK of belief. Do you believe there are gods? No. Do you believe there are NO gods? No.


One is a faith in the absence of gods - the other is a lack of faith in their existence. The two things are similar (hence, both are 'atheism'), but profoundly different outlooks.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it's "The actual fucking definition of the word," (Lack of a belief in god(s)) and "What people who suck at the English language want to believe" (Believing there is no god).
Waving your hands dismissively doesn't actually prove your point for you.

Except that there has never actually been a universally accepted exact definition of atheism. So stating "x is the exact definition of the word" is essentially pointless and making shit up as you go along.

Nonsensical. The definitions of ALL words vary with geography and with time.

[Grave_n_idle]

Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm sorry, what? How the HELL does that address anything I said. If anything, that AFFIRMS what I said.

No, it highlights the nonsense. If you look at a dictionary definition of 'atheism' from even a hundred years ago, you find 'wickedness' as an acceptable definition.

We're all discussing something fluid, and we all know it. The discussion we're having here - which you write off as 'armchair philosophy', is at the leading edge of the discussion - Atheism is being defined AS IT HAPPENS, here... and similar environments. Some formal environments, many informal. This is HOW the language changes. This is HOW those dictionary definitions get written that you and Canuck are getting so twisted up in.

We are aware of what dictionaries say about Atheism. We are also aware that, for the mopst part, dictionaries are anachronistic. This very thread has shown many sources discussing the refined models of Atheism that are in the public domain, now.

So - this attempt to try to define the debate in terms of what historical records say about the terminology, is somewhere between intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to defuse the debate through semantic quibbling.

[Hydesland]

No, it's "The actual fucking definition of the word," (Lack of a belief in god(s)) and "What people who suck at the English language want to believe" (Believing there is no god).
Waving your hands dismissively doesn't actually prove your point for you.

Except that there has never actually been a universally accepted exact definition of atheism. So stating "x is the exact definition of the word" is essentially pointless and making shit up as you go along.

Nonsensical. The definitions of ALL words vary with geography and with time.

It's nonsensical, and yet you then say something that completely agrees with everything I just said, that definitions are flexible, not universal. What.. the fuck?

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, I'm saying that there is no universally agreed upon, or 'correct' definition of the word, so asserting that x is the correct definition is meaningless and pointless. Your ranting about definitions being flexible and changing only affirmed this.

No - the correct definitions ARE the definitions we're using. We're discussing concepts like 'Implicit' and 'Explicit' Atheism - and that means the discussion is defined in the terms that can accomodate that vocabulary.

You show me a 1800's dictionary that defines the term 'Implicit Atheism', and we can debate whether or not there is space to contest the vocabulary.

[Hydesland]

Or maybe words and definitions are a little more flexible than you admit? As our understanding of religion and nature evolve, so do some of our definitions. We reject the definition that says gods cannot exist in favor of a definition that concedes the possibility without tying ourselves down to actual belief in gods.

The Oxford Dictionary may list "atheist" and someone who believes that God does not exist, but that just means Oxford hasn't found a reason to update their definition yet. Look up "communication" and "intercourse" and see what you find.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm sorry, what? How the HELL does that address anything I said. If anything, that AFFIRMS what I said.

No, it highlights the nonsense. If you look at a dictionary definition of 'atheism' from even a hundred years ago, you find 'wickedness' as an acceptable definition.

We're all discussing something fluid, and we all know it. The discussion we're having here - which you write off as 'armchair philosophy', is at the leading edge of the discussion - Atheism is being defined AS IT HAPPENS, here... and similar environments. Some formal environments, many informal. This is HOW the language changes. This is HOW those dictionary definitions get written that you and Canuck are getting so twisted up in.

We are aware of what dictionaries say about Atheism. We are also aware that, for the mopst part, dictionaries are anachronistic. This very thread has shown many sources discussing the refined models of Atheism that are in the public domain, now.

So - this attempt to try to define the debate in terms of what historical records say about the terminology, is somewhere between intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to defuse the debate through semantic quibbling.

Now please relate this to something I said, because I'm just not seeing how this disagrees with ANYTHING I said. It's one thing to try to come up with a more useful pragmatic definition of the word for use in philosophical discourse, I have nothing against that and often partake in that myself. It's another thing entirely to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with your definition as simply 'wrong' or 'shit at English', that's what is bullshit.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's nonsensical, and yet you then say something that completely agrees with everything I just said, that definitions are flexible, not universal. What.. the fuck?

Definitions change. To say that you can't talk about the topic with a certain vocabulary is nonsensical, you can - and we are. The vocabulary that is being used here is the current and appropriate vocabulary for this debate.

Language changes... from place to place, and time to time. But that doesn't mean there is NEVER an appropriate vocabulary for a debate.

[Bottle]

It's nonsensical, and yet you then say something that completely agrees with everything I just said, that definitions are flexible, not universal. What.. the fuck?

Definitions change. To say that you can't talk about the topic with a certain vocabulary is nonsensical, you can - and we are. The vocabulary that is being used here is the current and appropriate vocabulary for this debate.

Language changes... from place to place, and time to time. But that doesn't mean there is NEVER an appropriate vocabulary for a debate.

By way of a parallel example:

If you are invited to a formal dinner reception and you choose to show up wearing a toga, this will very often be taken amiss because the toga is not currently viewed as appropriate formal attire in most circles. If you attempt to argue that the toga was accepted formal wear at one point in time, this is unlikely to convince many people because, duh, times change. Furthermore, the fact that the toga is no longer accepted formal wear does not mean that everyone must show up naked to dinner parties (however refreshing that might be). Times change. Clothing that was appropriate 100 years ago is not appropriate now, yet somehow many of us have managed to find a non-nudist path in life.

[Grave_n_idle]

Now please relate this to something I said, because I'm just not seeing how this disagrees with ANYTHING I said. It's one thing to try to come up with a more useful pragmatic definition of the word for use in philosophical discourse, I have nothing against that and often partake in that myself. It's another thing entirely to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with your definition as simply 'wrong' or 'shit at English', that's what is bullshit.

NSG is not 'coming up with' definitions, here.

We're using the accepted definitions that are the currency of this debate.

When people try to impose archaic, anachronistic, or lay definitions on the debate, they ARE 'simply wrong'. They CAN be dismissed, because they are not taking part in the actual debate.

If we were talking about mental illness, and I kept talking about masturbation, you'd know I was speaking from a 1900 perspective. If I was talking about 'elf-strike', you'd know I was using an even earlier 'heathen' vocabulary. If I said it was 'the road to freedom', you could probably pin me to the later half of the last century. If I said 'you are nuts', you'd assume my entire vocabulary was lay. And, in all those cases, the main body of the debate would progress, roughly on topic, dismissing and correcting anyone who tried to join in with inappropriate approaches, and working with the received idiom of the debate.

[Hydesland]

Definitions change. To say that you can't talk about the topic with a certain vocabulary is nonsensical, you can - and we are.

I didn't say that, of course you can. I'm just saying that you can't dismiss someone as categorically wrong JUST because they don't use the same vocabulary as you.

The vocabulary that is being used here is the current and appropriate vocabulary for this debate.

Then why don't you say "the appropriate definition is blah blah blah, although it may be common to define atheism as blah blah, there are actually different types of atheism, that can be split into explicit and implicit blah blah blah" rather than "no! you suck at English, the definition is blah blah blah". That probably would have avoided 50 pages of semantic crap.