1
   

Atheism

 
 
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2014 07:51 pm
What Is Atheism? Strong vs. Weak Atheism

Definition of Atheism and Atheists Today

By Austin Cline

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist.
Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.
Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principal burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined — so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 995 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2014 09:22 pm
@anonymously99stwin,
There are already way too many threads dealing with atheism on this site. I was tempted to ignore this one as I do most of them.

However, this Austin Cline person does raise one significant point at the end of the essay.

Quote:
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.


Well said, indeed. It's silly to talk about 'god' without a solid definition of the word in mind. I do not consider myself an atheist. But when I ask an atheist to tell me what he/she means by this 'god' which they say they don't believe in, nine times out of ten I find that I agree with them -- I don't believe any of that stuff either.

For me, a true atheist is one who professes not to believe in the existence of anything which cannot be explained by scientific investigation and reasoning. I can't buy that. I think that there is plenty in the universe which we not only do not understand but which we are quite incapable of understanding. If a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or any other monotheist chooses to call this unexplained (and unexplainable) phenomena 'god,' I have no objection at all to that use of the word.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2014 11:13 pm
@anonymously99stwin,
Long standing thread seeking to define God here:
http://able2know.org/topic/64673-1
anonymously99stwin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2014 11:30 pm
@neologist,
neologist. You are too funny. I sarcastically speaking.

Hope everything's alright with you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:33 am
Quote:
I sarcastically speaking


English is not your native language, huh?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:45 am
To me, the minimum criterion for a God is that he be responsible for the creation of the universe, able to change it in pretty much any way he wants, and be capable, if not desirous, of speaking to me in my language. I don't believe that such a being exists.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 05:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
To me, the minimum criterion for a God is that he be responsible for the creation of the universe,
To me Bran the Universe didn't require creation because it has always existed in one form or another. Why not

Quote:
able to change it in pretty much any way he wants,
To the contrary She is pretty much limited to doing only what's possible, which seems pretty obvious inasmuch as the impossible can't be done

Quote:
and be capable, if not desirous, of speaking to me in my language.
Yes I'd agree that She speaks voluminously to all of us every day, eg one's own ruminations

Quote:
I don't believe that such a being exists.
I think eventually it will be shown or at least strongly suggested that her existence or non- is merely a semantic issue
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 06:53 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
To me, the minimum criterion for a God is that he be responsible for the creation of the universe,
To me Bran the Universe didn't require creation because it has always existed in one form or another. Why not

The real truth is that the only way to know the answer to this question is with physics and unless you have, at an absolute minimum, a BS in physics, your opinion on this is worthless. No, in fact you can't just think about creation and know as much as people who spent years learning physics.

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
able to change it in pretty much any way he wants,
To the contrary She is pretty much limited to doing only what's possible, which seems pretty obvious inasmuch as the impossible can't be done

And your supporting evidence for this is what?

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
and be capable, if not desirous, of speaking to me in my language.
Yes I'd agree that She speaks voluminously to all of us every day, eg one's own ruminations

I mean actually talk in an audible voice.

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
I don't believe that such a being exists.
I think eventually it will be shown or at least strongly suggested that her existence or non- is merely a semantic issue

As I have described this being, it is not a semantic issue. How is it a semantic issue whether a being exists who created the universe, can do pretty much anything, and could, if he chose, speak to me out loud? If there has ever been anything that isn't merely a semantic issue, that is it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
To me, the minimum criterion for a God is that he be responsible for the creation of the universe,

To me Bran the Universe didn't require creation because it has always existed in one form or another. Why not

Quote:
The real truth is that the only way to know the answer to this question is with physics….your opinion on this is worthless…..
I quite agree. So what exactly does "physics" say; and if it doesn't say then why am I not entitled to my version

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
able to change it in pretty much any way he wants,

To the contrary She is pretty much limited to doing only what's possible, which seems pretty obvious inasmuch as the impossible can't be done

Quote:
And your supporting evidence for this is what?
If one supposes She meant well, then earthquakes, war, disease, and all sorts of suffering apparently are the unavoidable byproducts of "creation". In other words, She found She couldn't have the humanoid without a rock ball full of cracks spewing lava, orbiting at 17,00 mph a huge hydrogen bomb destined eventually to burn out

But if you're asking what evidence that the impossible can't be done, then the answer is, to my knowledge at least, nothing impossible has ever been observed

If She could do the impossible for instance, She could make Herself both exist and not exist

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
and be capable, if not desirous, of speaking to me in my language.

Yes I'd agree that She speaks voluminously to all of us every day, eg one's own ruminations

Quote:
I mean actually talk in an audible voice.
The apodictical existential pantheist maintains that in addition to your rumination all speech everywhere is Her audible voice

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe that such a being exists.

I think eventually it will be shown or at least strongly suggested that her existence or non- is merely a semantic issue

Quote:
As I have described this being, it is not a semantic issue.
That's true. Such a conclusion requires an ever-so-slightly different view of Her works

Quote:
How is it a semantic issue whether a being exists who created the universe, can do pretty much anything, and could, if he chose, speak to me out loud?
Yes, no, Bran, it's not. My apologies for introducing a side issue. However, I don't see why it isn't possible for Her, It, to suddenly have come into existence by necessity. In other words, it might eventually be suggested that the idea of nothingness entails contradiction and paradox making it impossible

There'd be nothing previous to Her because nothingness implies the absence also of time

So She's here 'cause She hastabe

Quote:
If there has ever been anything that isn't merely a semantic issue, that is it.
According to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, your Universe can be made to look like mine through only the most subtle and delicate semantic twist

Thus whether or not She created It when She popped into existence depends upon your precise def of "creation"; while as I said, She does indeed "speak out loud" everywhere and at all times. However we do differ, as I said, on whether She can do "anything"

We can reasonably suppose She can and will, and perhaps has, done anything or everything possible. So yes, you're right on this point, here's where your Him differs from my Her

In other words, you maintain that the impossible is possible while I maintain that's contradictory

It's logic I guess, it's all I have to work with
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 02:48 pm
@anonymously99stwin,
See what you started, anon?

Laughing
anonymously99stwin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 05:06 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
All I have to say is, don't stop.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2014 06:08 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
To me Bran the Universe didn't require creation because it has always existed in one form or another. Why not

Brandon9000 wrote:
The real truth is that the only way to know the answer to this question is with physics….your opinion on this is worthless…..

dalehileman wrote:
I quite agree. So what exactly does "physics" say; and if it doesn't say then why am I not entitled to my version

The answer is a little over my head, since it is at the frontiers of physics, but my understanding is that all of time and space were created in an explosion and that 13.8 billion years have elapsed since then. You can ask whether there is a prior cause, and I frankly don't know whether the physics answers that question or not, especially since time itself was created in the explosion. However, even if it were true that physics doesn't currently hold that answer, this is a matter of physics and you are only entitled to come up with your own answer in terms of freedom of speech, certainly not in terms of being qualified with your "common sense" to simply "sense" the truth.

Brandon9000 wrote:
.able to change it in pretty much any way he wants,..

dalehileman wrote:
To the contrary She is pretty much limited to doing only what's possible, which seems pretty obvious inasmuch as the impossible can't be done

In this case, I simply didn't read what you wrote carefully enough. Whether my definition of God includes or excludes the ability to do things that are logically impossible is uninteresting and not central to my definition. I can go either way on this.

Brandon9000 wrote:
and be capable, if not desirous, of speaking to me in my language.

dalehileman wrote:
Yes I'd agree that She speaks voluminously to all of us every day, eg one's own ruminations

Brandon9000 wrote:
I mean actually talk in an audible voice.

dalehileman wrote:
The apodictical existential pantheist maintains that in addition to your rumination all speech everywhere is Her audible voice

Do you not know what the word "audibly" means? The God of my definition has the ability to speak with ordinary "sound waves." If you're hearing God with your ears, then I'd say you're psychotic.

In conclusion, this is my definition of what is indicated by the word "God."
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2014 12:14 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The answer is a little over my head,
Mine too Bran

Quote:
since it is at the frontiers of physics, but my understanding is that all of time and space were created in an explosion and that 13.8 billion years have elapsed since then.
My understanding too--except I'm not sure about the time assertion

Quote:
You can ask whether there is a prior cause, and I frankly don't know whether the physics answers that question or not, especially since time itself was created in the explosion….you are only entitled to come up with your own answer…....
That's somewhat q'able, Bran. I skirt the q'able need for a "beginning" by asserting that She has always existed in one form or another. So if I provide answers free of contradiction and paradox, aren't they more logical thus more likely to be the case

Without any sort of evidence except it skirts certain problems as above, Given your entitlement I suppose the moment to be the culmination of the last Big Crunch when all the matter has been crushed into a very heavy but infinitesimal point of uniform consistencey. Maybe of zero diameter but infinite mass

Quote:
…...certainly not in terms of being qualified with your "common sense" to simply "sense" the truth.
No Bran, yes, it's almost purely intuitive. But so were Einstein 's early revelations with relativity

It's not that I'm comparing myself with Einstein…...

Quote:
…..the ability to do things that are logically impossible is uninteresting and not central to my definition. I can go either way on this.
Wouldn't you lean though toward the concept that the possible can be but the impossible can't

Quote:
Do you not know what the word "audibly" means?
Means "can be heard"
Sorry Bran couldn't resist. I should explain that the pantheist considers all speech and thought to emanate from Her

Quote:
The God of my definition has the ability to speak with ordinary "sound waves."
No, yes, Bran, I understand what you're saying, I think: That the God you describe as speaking doesn't exist

Quote:
If you're hearing God with your ears, then I'd say you're psychotic.
That makes all us apodictical existential pantheists psychotic
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 03:20:32