Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It seams, shiningone, you have very specific definitions of these words. Help me understand why it’s important to you that folks understand and accept those definitions. What would be different if folks did?
@ CyberLN
I appreciate that insight because I do care about these things. The definitions I use are the standard dictionary definitions. I am aware that these definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, but it gives us a base line for comparison and communication.
If you will allow me a little indulgence I will give you a brief description of my life. Which will hopefully explain to you what you are asking.
From the age of about thirteen I was deeply unsatisfied with adults around me who not only had no answers for my deep questions, they just displayed confusion when talking to each other. So I started to examine books. I started off reading books by Carl Jung borrowed from my uncles book case, to his dismay, he wondered why I was not outside playing with the other kids. I had a real thirst for the truth at that age. For the next 30 years I studied, psychology, reason,philosophy, metaphysics,mysticism, religion. Any book I could get my hands on. One book would lead me to another and so on, always having a kind of intuitive understanding of what I was looking for, something concrete, something practical that would lead me to the truths I so desperately wanted. My searching ended when I came across Buddhism. Not in the incense burning, chanting, ceremonial sense, but in the rational understanding that it was a prescription for understanding our minds and how they work.
From this you can basically see I had a strong desire to understand things. The thing that irritated me the most was people's inability to be specific. How can we fully understand something when we only pay it lip service?
We live in a world that is full to the brim of confusion and misunderstanding. The only way we can develop is by reaching a common reference point in are understanding and follow on from there. Without that common understanding of a reality we are wasting are time in meaningless opinionating. There is after all, our entire species at stake here.
This may seem overly dramatic, but in a world that is controlled by forces far beyond my capabilities of influencing, the only thing I can do as an individual is make a small effects that hopefully will grow exponentially. If I am wrong in areas of understanding, I want to know it, so I can improve my message. I care about the planet we inhabit. I care about human beings.
We spend time on this little website debating our issues and opinions, all the while extreme life changing events are being played out all over the world with disastrous results. What is the cause? Ignorance. Ignorance of what it means to be a human being and all it entails.
shiningone, thanks for the info. But I’m curious...you wrote, “We live in a world that is full to the brim of confusion and misunderstanding. The only way we can develop is by reaching a common reference point in are understanding and follow on from there. Without that common understanding of a reality we are wasting are time in meaningless opinionating. There is after all, our entire species at stake here.”
I am not disagreeing with you but am wondering why you spend the time in an apparent push to cattle-shoot other posters into accepting the definitions you find appropriate instead of just driving past that to more substantive subjects. Seams to me that it would save you a lot of time and aggravation to say, “okay, I understand your definition, and we can use it, let’s talk now.”
Believe it or not, the definitions I am using are accepted definitions, not my own personal ones. They are not definitions I find appropriate they are definitions established by reason and logic. It is not my fault that others have not fully comprehended them. Hence the reason I am delineating them.
Sure, I could ignore it all and use other peoples ideas of what they are, but, who's? Most people have different ideas of basic reality. Who's definition are we going to use if everyone has a different idea? On an individual bases, that can work, but not when you are relating to several people.
Now, you say more substantive subjects, that is a good choice of words. Substantive: having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable. What is more substantive than agreeing with the basic concepts we use to understand reality?
shiningone, you wrote that the definitions you are using are the ‘accepted ones’, not your personal ones...must admit that gave me a bit of a chuckle. Since you have accepted them then they are now personally yours. Obviously, though, they seem not to be accepted by everyone as is evidenced in these threads.
You also accuse folks of not understanding them. Really? Could that be just conjecture? Might they continue to argue their point simply because they disagree with those definitions?
You also asked, “What is more substantive than agreeing with the basic concepts we use to understand reality?”
Okay...then why not forgo doing what could appear to some as digging your heals in over a definition and just get on with it?
@ CyberLN
Okay...then why not forgo doing what could appear to some as digging your heals in over a definition and just get on with it?
I intend to now. I've exhausted this post.
"I do understand what an atheist is. It is a dis-belief in a belief."
Not even close...
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity or deities, again this is the common usage or dictionary definition of the word.
And again it baffles me what you hope to gain by using a personal definition as if the dictionarycand all atheists must pay due deference to your capricious interpretation.
Why not just apply these definitions to yourself as you're entitled to do, instead of trying to rewrite the dictionary and tell all other atheists what they think and believe.
@ Sheldon
"An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity or deities"
Yes I know. What that entails in actual practice though is, dis-believing until you believe. Where as, I, conclude that deities do not exist.
@shiningone
"Scientific understanding is knowing that nothing outside of our reality can be proven to exist."
No, because that statement is very flawed. The correct terminology is "scientific understanding is knowing".
@shiningone
Maybe the problem is that some atheists are using one definition of "dis-belief" as lack of belief, while you may be defining "dis-belief" as "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real".
If you take your argument and use the second definition, then it holds water. But many of us atheists use the first term, which is about just a lack of belief, not a negative belief.
yeah, that's how this has turned out. As my other recent replies have shown, I have revised my point of view. I was conflating belief and faith. Just being to pedantic at the end of the day. We're on the same page, but I was complaining about the wrinkles in it. I'm moving on.
@shiningone
Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require an explicit statement about the nature of reality, thus to that degree, is not irrational or rational.
Anti-theism is making an explicit statement about the nature of reality. It is only rational to say that "supernatural beings are not a part of reality if reality is defined as everything that is natural". It is not rational to explicitly say that "supernatural beings do not exist because they cannot be observed or because they are not a part of nature". It would be better to say that "supernatural beings do not meaningfully exist, as they have no effect on reality". But that would simply be an argument over the meaning of words rather than an actual observation about reality.
Why describe yourself as "anti-theist" when it is irrational, and judging from your description, "anti-supernaturalist" would be better. Personally, I'd prefer "naturalist".
Hi Sapporo, thanks for your comment.
"Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require an explicit statement about the nature of reality, thus to that degree, is not irrational or rational."
How do you arrive at that lack of belief? You measure the evidence based on the scientific method. You are correct, it does NOT require an explicit statement, it does however require you to base that dis-belief on evaluating the evidence by the scientific method.
Anti-theism is not making an explicit statement either. It is saying you can not have belief or dis-belief based on our only way of determining reality.
"It is only rational to say that "supernatural beings are not a part of reality if reality is defined as everything that is natural"."
Reality IS defined as everything that is natural.
"It is not rational to explicitly say that "supernatural beings do not exist because they cannot be observed or because they are not a part of nature".
Yes it is rational. Nothing, supernatural can be observed. Neither can they be a part of nature. If they are a part of nature they are NOT supernatural.
As @arakish has said in this thread, people are born lacking a belief in the gods: i.e. they are implicit atheists. A person does not need to base a lack of belief on any evidence.
Personally, I have never understood "god" to be meaningfully defined, so I don't understand what others mean by the term.
You went above and beyond saying "we can only prove things to exist that are natural": You said that "God is Nothing", and essentially that "supernatural things do not exist". I cannot know that supernatural things do not exist, only that they have no meaningful effect on the natural world.
Sure, that is our definition. But people who believe in the supernatural would say they are part of reality. Again, this is an argument over the meaning of words rather than about what exists in reality.
It may be true by definition that nothing supernatural can be observed, nor can it be a part of nature. But it would be irrational to say something that cannot be falsified or is redundant.
@ Sapporo
"As @arakish has said in this thread, people are born lacking a belief in the gods: i.e. they are implicit atheists. A person does not need to base a lack of belief on any evidence."
That is complete nonsense. People are born, ignorant, about everything. Atheism is a position held in regards the evidence put forward for the existence of a god. For a person to be 'born atheist' they would have to have, foreknowledge of the proposition.
Is this the common standard for what passes for logic and reason on this site?
"I cannot know that supernatural things do not exist, only that they have no meaningful effect on the natural world."
Yes you can. No one has EVER proved supernatural things exist, if they proved anything exists it has to be natural.
"But people who believe in the supernatural would say they are part of reality. Again, this is an argument over the meaning of words rather than about what exists in reality."
It does NOT matter what people say. Reality is reality. You, are trying to make it an argument over the meaning of words, not me.
"But it would be irrational to say something that cannot be falsified or is redundant."
Makes no sense what so ever.
It is simply a matter of fact that the most basic definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in the existence of gods.
Term such as "agnostic" or your use of the term "anti-theist" by comparison require an explicit position.
I cannot dispute that "Reality is reality". But you should understand that what is considered part of reality differs from person to person.
The supernatural cannot be proved true or proved false. So why go round saying that you know it does not exist? Why say "god is nothing", when this is at best, redundant?
You said in your OP:
Why then are you asserting the properties of something outside of nature that you have no evidence for?
There is a myth that Napoleon asked the astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace why he had not mentioned God in his work, and that Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis."
I think similarly, it would be irrational to describe myself as an "anti-theist" as you describe it, as though that adds meaning to the world, and as though you know that the supernatural does not exist despite only having experience of the natural. I also don't understand why you don't favor "anti-supernaturalist" over "anti-theist", which is inconsistent. I would still think that "anti-supernaturalist" would be making unfounded assertions compared to a "naturalist" however.
No one can know anything for certain, because our senses are not infallible. It seems at best, your "anti-theist" concept is saved from dogmatism through the use of definitions such as "Reality is all there is, and this does not include supernatural things such as gods". I'd prefer to say "I lack a belief in the existence of supernatural beings because they have no meaningful effect in nature and thus cannot be observed." But that would still be redundant compared to saying that I am a naturalist, as I only believe in things that have a meaningful effect in nature.
@ Sapporo
"It is simply a matter of fact that the most basic definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in the existence of gods."
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
This IMPLIES that they are basing their understanding on belief or dis-belief. They just don't have ENOUGH belief YET.
Belief and dis-belief are irrational ways of understanding reality. Belief is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Dis-belief in a belief, IS an explicit position.
Rationality is an acceptance that something is true based on science i.e. proof.
"I cannot dispute that "Reality is reality". But you should understand that what is considered part of reality differs from person to person."
I am very aware that people have different understandings of reality. One is rational, the others are irrational.
"The supernatural cannot be proved true or proved false. So why go round saying that you know it does not exist? Why say "god is nothing", when this is at best, redundant?"
The supernatural cannot be proved true. The supernatural CAN be proved false. It is impossible to prove the supernatural, therefore it does NOT exist.
Nothing, can not be proved to exist, therefore it does NOT exist.
"Why then are you asserting the properties of something outside of nature that you have no evidence for?"
I am NOT asserting properties. I can NOT assert properties for something that DOES NOT EXIST.
"I think similarly, it would be irrational to describe myself as an "anti-theist" as you describe it, as though that adds meaning to the world, and as though you know that the supernatural does not exist despite only having experience of the natural."
You are now defending the position of a theist. It's like, " God does exist because we 'may' have evidence for it in the future!"
The position of anti-theist is not irrational. It also does not "add meaning to the world", where you got that from, I have no idea!
It is simply a statement of fact! God does not exist because it is impossible to prove it does exist.
"No one can know anything for certain."
Correct, no one can know anything for certain. There are no absolutes. This may seem like a contradiction to you, but since we base our reality on evidence, something that can not be proved, does not exist. This does not discount the possibility that our reality may change in the future. This is what we call a paradox.
Is this something that can be proved true or false, or is it something which is true by definition?
Neither. It is simply a way of alluding to two things that have no properties.
In my experiences in the Atheist community, the "lack of belief in god" version is by far the most commonly used. To demand we use something different is kind of nutty. And this is why I don't argue the definition of "atheist".
It seems some people don't want atheists to exist, and often try to define them out of existence, when more violent methods are unavailable/unacceptable.
@ Nyarlathotep
Hi, nice to meet you.
Demanding, people change their definitions is certainly not what I intended. It was just a point of practical intention. Everyone is free to use what ever labels they want. I just felt, dis-believing a belief was irrational, and concluding a belief is not rational, was rational. It kind of turned into a mountain from a mole hill though. I won't be so contentious in the future. I don't want to alienate everyone.
@Shiningone Re: "How do you arrive at that lack of belief? You measure the evidence based on the scientific method. You are correct, it does NOT require an explicit statement, it does however require you to base that dis-belief on evaluating the evidence by the scientific method."
Hey there, Shiningone. Welcome to the AR. Nice to have you with us. Hope you don't mind if I throw my two cents worth into the pot here. I read your OP and a few other of your posts. And as others have already pointed out, there are a few glitches in them here and there. Overall, though, I sorta think I see where you are trying to go with it. However, from what I have read, you also seem to be discounting another factor. Take the above statement you made, for example....
When you talk about having to use science/the scientific method/evidence as a "necessity" for a lack of belief in any god/gods, I'm afraid I do not fit into that mold. My lack of belief in any god(s) has pretty much nothing to do with science/evidence. My lack of belief in any god(s) is based strictly on the absurdities of the "teachings" from the bible, Koran, and any other religious text/dogma you care to offer. The ONLY thing science does for me is basically reinforce my views. Even though I was raised in a religious (Baptist/Methodist) family in the middle of the Bible Belt, I started having my doubts about the whole God/Jesus/Devil/Heaven/Hell stuff when I was just a little kid, loooooong before I ever started learning any type of advanced sciences/history. Then you factor in all the other thousands of gods/religions across the globe, and none of it adds up to anything that makes any sort of rational sense. No science required one way or the other. See what I mean?
Anyway, hope this at least helps you see another angle to the whole thing. Yes, there are many atheists who rely almost solely on the various sciences to maintain their positions. And that is okay, I suppose. As for myself, though, all the sciences could pretty much disappear overnight and I would still not believe in any god/gods.
Hi Tin-Man, thanks for the welcome. Have you found a heart yet?
"And as others have already pointed out, there are a few glitches in them here and there."
This presupposes that their points are valid and you have agreed with them. I don't.
"I'm afraid I do not fit into that mold."
You may say you don't, but you do. You are fooling yourself. Later you say, "and none of it adds up to anything that makes any sort of rational sense." This "rational sense" you are RELYING on, is based on 'reason', which is based on 'logic', which IS a science.
Sorry fella, but you are very confused.
@Shiningone Re: "Sorry fella, but you are very confused."
Yep, you are correct. I AM just a tad confused as to why you are trying to take 2+2=4 and turn it into Advanced Calculus. The shit just ain't that complicated. Ever heard of K.I.S.S.? (Keep It Simple, Stupid) Of course, in all fairness, I must admit I'm just a simple-minded dullard who spent way too much time around explosions, gunshots, and turbine engine noises during my years in the military. No doubt that could have had a few adverse effects on my in-tale-lekt. I must say, however, you have inspired a new hope in me. Perhaps one day I, too, can ascend to your level of over-thinking. Then, together, you and I can stand in snooty hautiness and peer down our noses in disdain at all the other simpleton dolts on this site.
So things don't exist UNTIL we observe them?
You're being absurd sorry, and nothing about your claims is remotely rational.
Atheism is only the lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities. If you want to claim they don't exist that's fine, and you're still an atheist, but epistemology demands you now have a burden of proof to evidence your claim. You can't rationally point to something not being proved as proof it is false, again this is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy..
@ Sapporo
Atheism is an opinion on the opinion of the evidence of gods. It requires an explicit opinion/statement to begin with about the nature of gods. As such, it is irrational, because rationality can not explain the existence of gods or the non-existence of gods.
Anti-theism is making an explicit statement opposing belief and dis-belief. It uses the nature of reality as a bases for it's position.
"It is only rational to say that "supernatural beings are not a part of reality if reality is defined as everything that is natural"."
Reality, is, defined as everything that is natural. Supernatural beings do not exist.
"It is not rational to explicitly say that "supernatural beings do not exist because they cannot be observed or because they are not a part of nature"."
Correct it is not rational. Supernatural beings do not exist, so anything you say about them is irrational.
"It would be better to say that "supernatural beings do not meaningfully exist, as they have no effect on reality". But that would simply be an argument over the meaning of words rather than an actual observation about reality."
Supernatural beings do not exist, meaningfully or otherwise. Something that does not exist can not have an effect on reality.
Atheism is, an argument over the meaning of words, it has nothing to do with reality.
"Atheism is an opinion on the opinion of the evidence of gods. It requires an explicit opinion/statement to begin with about the nature of gods. "
Nothing in there is remotely true. Atheism is the lack or ansencebof belief in a deity or deities, and the definition is in every dictionary. It requires the lack or abseince of that belief AND NOTHING MORE.
shiningone, you wrote, “Atheism is an opinion on the opinion of the evidence of gods. It requires an explicit opinion/statement to begin with about the nature of gods.”
I completely disagree. Perhaps one could, however, say it is an opinion about the CLAIM of god(s). Atheism does another require an explicit opinion/statement to begin with....that would be THEISM. Theism starts the conversation. Atheism responds by requesting proof of the assertion.
"So, the position of atheist is irrational in respect that they are open to someone giving evidence that can be tested under the scientific method and still be supernatural. Which is impossible. This does not, discount future possibilities of another method of determining reality. But that has not happened yet."
So, basically you are in the Lawrence Krauss camp...Why even leave the door open for debate. Good point, and one I agree with. However, do you really think that direct opposition is fruitful? Especially considering the audience is mostly cognitively challenged. As history dictates, if you believe it repeats itself...there may be a time in our future that we have to physically fight against religious fanaticism. I hold my direct confrontation till then. Otherwise I support leaving that door open, and not challenging an unstable group. Theists are the same species you know.(sadly).
Hi, doG thanks for your comments.
I am not familiar with Lawrence Krauss, although I have heard the name. I do not think closing the door works at all. I do not think direct opposition, ( if I understand that correctly ) is useful.
I am a firm believer in debate that relies on rationality as it's bases.
"Atheism is not a concept." I have already said, atheism is not a concept. It is a dis belief in a god or gods. A belief can be changed. If you read my previous comment to LogicFTW it explains it.
Pages