Atheism is specifically a rejection of theism. Atheist is derived from the greek word Atheos which means A=Without theos=Gods( this was actually a pejorative used against early christians by Roman Pagans prior to Edict of Milan) if we examine the word Atheist the A =Without. Theism= a belief in a personal God so to put it literally an Atheist is one who posses no belief in a personal God. Theism in contrast to Deism (a non personal God who cares nothing for humans but set up the collective laws for creation) See Spinozea.
So by this line of reasoning it could very well be argued that a Deist is an Atheist in practice. As deism was created as a rejection of Theism. See Thomas Jefferson.
(This is shorter version of an old post titled Atheism, Theism and Deism explained, which goes into greater detail, if anyone is interested)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I agree.
However, as some atheists proclaim to know (or at the very least believe) that there is no god, I would define "gnostic atheism" or "strong atheism" as a subset of atheism.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
True, over time as Atheism became more popular it kind of became a philosophy of it's own and as with all philosophy fragments occur due to a myriad of factors, but on the picture you posted i disagree with the "belief there is no god" Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in itself.
That is what the picture is supposed to show, perhaps not clearly enough though:
The blue circle are atheists who, just as the outer circle, lacks faith in god, but on top of that also claims to know or believe that there is no god.
That claim is of course a position that cannot be defended any more than theistic belief.
God is just one of an infinite number of things that I have no evidence for, such as the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or a moon made of green cheese. Talk of believing or not believing makes it a matter of faith. That puts god in a special category and puts us on the same wavelength as theists, albeit on the opposite side of the divide. I wouldn't dignify the Santa Claus myth by talking about faith and belief, because I know it's a fairy story created by people. The same applies to god. So for me, atheism can best be defined as the evidence-based knowledge that gods are created by humans in their image.
What I do accept is that the majority of people have god-shaped holes in their hearts.
AlphaLogica,
There is no correct definition of "atheism" or anything else! A definition is simply a declaration as to what a particular word or phrase means to an individual or a group. A dictionary lists the more popular definitions for words. Such a declaration, making no factual statement about the nature of things, is neither true nor false.
As I use the word, an atheist is someone (even some intelligent alien!) who consciously rejects the idea of a god or gods, goddesses, and the supernatural trappings of theism. I don't like the terms "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism. For "weak" atheism I'd use "evidential" atheism; for "strong" atheism I'd use "deductive" atheism. "Doctrinaire" atheism would apply to those who take a stand with no appeal to reason. Those who simply lack a theistic belief, because they never considered the matter, I would call "undecided." I would still count Deism as a form of theism. I use "agnostic" for someone who can't quite buy into theism but considers it a serious possibility.
The definition often seen in atheist literature is simply a lack of theistic belief. It would apply to a newborn baby for example. I like to think that atheists are more than mental ciphers, that they actually reject theism for whatever reasons.
I disagree, I'll give some examples to attempt to clear it up.
Atheos= Without Gods
Atheist= without theism
Agnostic= Without knowledge
Remember these words are all derived from Greek, which DO have exact definitions. I agree that common use has moved away from these definitions, and as such could be argued that the evolution of language has made these definitions pointless. But that is not to say that there is no exact definition at all
"I would still count Deism as a form of theism."
You cannot, as they are separate classifications. The speak of a God with completely different characteristics. It is unreasonable to lump them together. WordsnDO have exact definitions, i do not see how you can believe that its all juat choose your own definition. If that were the case then language itself would be meaningless.
AlphaLogica,
We can argue over what various words meant to an ancient Greek, but we can't argue over the correctness of their definitions. The definition for any word is no more and no less that what that person says it means! You can argue that a definition is conducive to poor communication, that it induces needless confusion, that it is not a definition at all because it is incoherent or self-contradictory, but you cannot say that a definition is right or wrong. A definition is not an argument that can be right or wrong; it is an instruction as to how the user uses that word. Therefore, arguments over the "correctness" of a definition can never be resolved. Your argument must use one of the above themes, not the notion of "correctness."
But that is absurd, if I told you that I am not writing to you on a computer but a banana, no matter how much I personally identify a computer as a banana, it does not change the definition or meaning of either of these words.
Yet according to the argument you put forth words mean whatever any one person chooses them to mean.
How can a person claim that a god is impossible when there is no evidence to prove that?
Who told you that there is no evidence to prove that a god is impossible? Doesn't it depend of the definition of "god" and of "proof"? I see lots of evidence. See my thread "Science Gives God The Bump!" (8/7/2016) for one strong argument.
I think i have answered my own question you have evidence that the traditional biblical definition of god is impossible very well put and im right there with you on that. My first thread was about looking at the origin of the universe as always existing, came from nothing or doesn't exist at all. The universe could very well have came from something and infinite cycles of universes being created but the origin of that cycle would have to start or not start in 1 of those 3 ways. The 3rd option is extremely unlikely but it could be true but that leaves us with 2 possibilities of likelihood which i have came to the conclusion of different universal laws aka a multiverse were the origins of existence is coming from nothing, or always existing if there are any holes in my argument please let me know honesty and if you have a theory on the origins of the universe i would like to hear it.
Andrewcgs,
My argument doesn't actually claim that God is impossible (unless God is defined in a way to allow such a conclusion). It's an argument about drawing the most rational conclusion, the conclusion that bests fits the evidence, the conclusion most likely to be right because of adherence to good principles of reasoning. Thus, I argue that the application of good reasoning gives God the bump (along with all other gods possessing magical powers).
As to the origin of the universe, allowing for the very real possibility that our Big Bang universe is but a subset of a greater universe, we are on the fringe of knowledge and should avoid the temptation to fill in the gaps when we have no good means to do so. In several recent posts (I don't keep track!) I questioned the underlying assumption that you make--namely that an absolute, philosophical "nothing" must have preceded our universe, that our universe could not come from that type of "nothing." But, what if a perfect vacuum of "empty space" was as empty as reality could get? If that were true--and why couldn't it be a serious possibility?--then nature could never go below that ground floor. Something, as compared to the philosophical "nothing," would necessarily have to always exist. Given the nature of quantum fluctuations, Big Bangs might well arise from nature's "nothing."
The point of all this is not to make a claim as to what really happened but to say that all the physical options, including eternal existence of something, are open. Therefore, we are in error in trying to insert our favorite explanation as though it were forced by logic/science. Inserting God (or some god) is even worse in that something more complex is used to explain something less complex. Given that God is unproven (the point of the cosmological argument being to offer proof) inserting God into this gap of our knowledge to make the cosmological argument prove God is both circular and constitutes the error called "god of the gaps." The god-of-the-gaps error assumes that no further progress in our knowledge is possible and, based on a false dichotomy, plugs in an answer--often "God." Since the subject of origin for our universe is on the fringe of our knowledge, it is reasonable to expect that a lot more will be learned in the coming decades.
That is what i was looking for greensnake if there is evidence that proves a god is impossible i didn't know and want to know, but i have a question does this also proves aliens are impossible because a god or an alien can be the same thing and what about just a conscious force, i what to know do you have evidence of a traditional definition of god being impossible or all concepts of a god?
No one can argue that a god is impossible, especially by using natural observations, as a god is supernatural, that means it would exist beyond the natural realm, and therefore beyond any natural observation. If one cannot draw supernatural conclusions from natural phenomenon, then one cannot refute supernatural conclusions from natural phenomenon. Now if you said a God is improbable, then you actually have a reasonable argument. That there exists 70 feet tall monkey eating from a pez dispenser inside the center of the sun is technically possible, but it is so improbable that one can dismiss such a claim out of hand. But no one can say it's impossible.
Your absolutely right greensnake said he has evidence that a god is impossible i have read his thread were the evidence stands and what i see is evidence of a biblical god being impossible, if we start looking at things in unnatural ways we then might get supernatural answers.once we know whats on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole that will be a major breakthrough in science and we will have a better understanding of the universe.
I have to agree with Greensnake.
But it's not exactly the god that is disproved, it's the definition of that god that is disproved.
If the definition of the god you are arguing for, is that the god is literally omnipotent, it cannot logically exist:
- Can this god create an object that this god cannot lift?
Both 'yes' and 'no' shows that the definition of that god does not hold up.
But this only requires the theist to redefine the definition of god, by for example adding special interpretation to what omnipotence means.
I always viewed the question of God and the rock as a means of demonstrating the inherit paradox of a God with the 3 Omni's. Since the answer to the question is both yes and no at the same time, but the answer to the question cannot be both yes and no at the same time. Therefore God is a logical paradox that is so improbable that anyone is justified in dismissing the entire concept, no evidence required as it's very nature proves it cannot exist.
Strange that I'd take the theist side, but I have to disagree with that argument. It seems to be saying: "God create object 'A' that you cannot lift and then lift it." Thus, God is required to bring into existence an object that he can lift and not lift. It seems that God is required to do what is logically impossible.
The argument is whether or not god can create a rock he (god) cannot lift (some times destroy) the only possible answer is both yes and no. To give only one, yes or no, imposes a limit to God who is supposed to be limitless. Therefore if god is limited then he is not all powerful, if he is not all powerful then he is not omnipresent, if he is not omnipresent then he is not all knowing.
There's a similar argument with the opposite intent, which I think was first put forward by Aquinas.
God is perfect. If he did not exist he would not be perfect in the quality of existence. Therefore god must exist.
I think it's an example of begging the question, which is a kind of circular reasoning in which an unproven premise is accepted as given. There's no proof that god is perfect, therefore the agrument is false.
The assumption here is that the "supernatural" is a reasonable alternative at least for a reasonable discussion. If there is no evidence at all for it, then it has no more claim on a serious argument than does the Easter Bunny. We can't take seriously a realm somewhere out there that is beyond natural observation. It is, of course, a truism that anything beyond natural evidence cannot be analyzed by natural evidence. However, if we pursue the evidence, which is what good reasoning must confine itself to, and have no reason to suspect such a realm (the case if it is defined as being beyond observation), then we must accept where that evidence actually leads and draw conclusions accordingly. My argument is that if we follow the principles of good reasoning, God gets the bump, but as you noted certainty cannot be claimed. Indeed, that's how science progresses, by advancing the most credible arguments based on actual data and seeking compelling (but not certain) conclusions. That's the best we can do in our world of atoms and energy.
How does everyone here feel about being defined by negatives? Are we just no-god people and don't-know people? Is atheism just about denial?
I affirm that everything in the universe is natural, and that we can continue to learn more about it. I affirm that people are far more amazing and wonderful than any god ever invented, and that we can become even better.
What is your opinion on the origins of the universe has it came from nothing or always exist or did it come from a infinite cycle what is your perspective sir?
@Andrewcgs
You are out of line. That is not the issue. That was another thread that YOU started and were not satisfied that NO ONE shared your view. So for Pete sake stay on topic or start your own website called, "God and the Big Bang are the same things." Let us just see how many people would even visit your website, let alone agree with you.
Terms like secular humanism are often used by people who feel that, strictly speaking, atheism is only a negative viewpoint. However, why can't we eventually supply our own meaning? Technically, atheism is generally used to express a lack of theism, but there is no reason that we can't bring a richer meaning to the word. Language is always evolving, and other groups have carved out new meanings for key words. Yeah, I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean that my life goes no further than a rejection of religion! Outsiders need to understand that point, and that will never happen if we run away from the label "atheist."
My opinion is that you are off-topic in this thread.
Okay, I get it a technical explanation or maybe a history lesson about atheism. I really don't know what you want to achieve with this thread, but hey, I don't have to. You know what you are after and maybe you have already gained it.
I view atheism as this, I don't believe in a god. I don't want any regulations or rules imposed on me based on a belief in a god or gods. To me, atheism is freedom, pure and simple. I don't care where the term came from, or what is the purest definition. Atheism is actually quite personal as religion SHOULD be.
I usually say when someone asks what atheism is, that it's a label made up by people that made up god.
So "atheist" is a label.
You are of course free to interpret atheism however you see fit, but in light of the original definition of the word you would be incorrect. Now as I have already stated, the common use of the word has moved far from its original meaning, that you could very well argue that it's original meaning is pointless in light of its evolution in the English language. Most do in fact view atheism in the same way that you do, as a sweeping statement dealing with God in all its forms. But the point is to clarify its original definition as a means of alleviating confusion both inside and out of the atheistic community. Definitions matter, Socrates was a stickler for definitions for a reason, if everyone has a different interpretation for the word atheism then no effective conversation can be had, and no common understanding can be achieved.
@ mykcob4
I agree that atheism is a rather silly label.
Apart form being an atheist, I'm also an non-astrologer, non-flat-earther, non-ancient-alien-austronater, etc. But we don't have a specific term for not believing in these things.
However, the term 'atheist' exists and it is used by almost everyone who discusses religion. Therefore I think that defining the term can be very useful as it is misconstrued by many, especially theists. But also among non-believers.
The same goes of course for some other words, for example 'faith'. Some use it as the word 'hope', while the most accurate definition I think is 'belief without sufficient evidence'.
When we have discussions using these words and people define them differently, we get into really stupid arguments, without even talking about the same things.
Personally, when it comes to the word 'faith', I would prefer to redefine it as Peter Boghossian: 'pretending to know things you don't know'.
@The Pragmatic
"Personally, when it comes to the word 'faith', I prefer the definition Peter Boghossian uses: 'pretending to know things you don't know'."
I use the word exclusively in its legal and business sense, as contained in the phrase "in good faith." In that context it means keeping your word, doing what you said you would do. "Faith" came from the Latin word "fides" (as in "Semper Fides"), so I think that's the core meaning. I don't when or how the religious hijacked it.
Pages