|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 12/27/2004 : 19:52:42
|
Which definition is correct?
Atheist:
1) Someone who does not believe in God.
2) Someone without belief.
3) A person who denies God so they can do whatever they want without being judged. (j/k)
1 seems to be a more colloquial definition. I have problems with this because it seems to imply that the person has some sort of belief. And as someone said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. Well I just have no idea of how exactly to resolve this one. I cannot remember which dictionary this one was in. This seems to be a better definition than 1.
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2004 : 20:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Which definition is correct?
Atheist:
1) Someone who does not believe in God.
2) Someone without belief.
3) A person who denies God so they can do whatever they want without being judged. (j/k)
1 seems to be a more colloquial definition. I have problems with this because it seems to imply that the person has some sort of belief. And as someone said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. Well I just have no idea of how exactly to resolve this one. I cannot remember which dictionary this one was in. This seems to be a better definition than 1.
Hi, woolytoad, and welcome to SFN. As for your question, I went over to Websters on-line and did a search. They had two definitions. The first had two parts:quote:
a Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I think most atheists here would accept some version of this or these definitions. The second seems to feature the term used as a perjorative:quote:
Godlessness; immorality.
Only a far-right Christian would find atheism equivalent to immorality. Nevertheless, since Christians-- particularly the far-right variety-- dominate this country, the word's use in this sense is not uncommon.
Hope this helps!
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2004 : 23:06:40 [Permalink]
|
I honestly hate this subject because it can just be so damn confusing and I can never make up my mind over it. But anyways, there are a few different systems to "rank" atheists:
1.) No belief in a super natural power known as God.
Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter how much, all that matters is that a belief in God is not there. That would make all babies atheists, as they don't believe in God. Everyone is born an atheist, go figure. This includes all agnostics and non-cognitists as well as those who say "God can not exist" (extreme atheists).
2.) Denial of God's existence.
Only if they say, "I do not believe in God." This would take out babies and agnostics from being atheists, all though I think non-cognitists would still be atheists. Basically to be an atheist under this label, you must have considered the possibility of a god, and then rejected it.
3.) God can not exist.
This is a much more extreme view of atheism. It basically says that there is no chance of any god existing at all. This eliminates everyone besides strong atheists, it even eliminates weak atheists.
I personally think it is all up to you to, as there are multiple ways of defining an atheist. That is why I always take the approach of stating exactly what I think. Instead of saying I am a weak atheist, I say:
As of right now with the lack of evidence, I dismiss the existence of a god. My position will remain until new evidence is provided.
I like that much better than any label, I think it clearly states what I think and why. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 12/27/2004 23:09:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2004 : 23:20:46 [Permalink]
|
How about:
Atheist- A person who dismisses claims of god/s as unevidenced nonsense. A rational individual who does not accept the extrordinary claims made by religions without supporting evidence.
As far as those who equate atheism with immorality.... the religious zealots of the world use every opportunity to demonize anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.
The idea that ethics/morals only comes from god/religion is laughable.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 06:24:26 [Permalink]
|
Most scholars distinguish between the strong and weak definitions, as does Ricky, whose first definition (i.e., non-theism) describes weak-definition atheism, while the second and third definitions he offers are stronger versions of atheism. I agree that very few would fit description number three, though the religious community often uses this extreme version as a straw man when attakcing atheism.
The weak definition is the most appealling to skeptics, I would think, in that it neither affirms or disavows anything of a metaphysical nature. To resurrect an old skeptical bromide, the weak definition atheist simply believes that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the claimant (of theistic truths, in this instance), and that such proof has yet to be conclusively presented. Certainly, this isn't the strong definition that many of us learned in church school, but if pagans can reject the definitions of themselves handed down by the church, why shouldn't atheists be able to do the same?
Having said this, I'm still not sure how I would classify my own beliefs, or lack thereof! |
"The amount of noise which anyone can bear stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." --Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 06:24:34 [Permalink]
|
Sorry man, no good. There are many pagan woo-woo experts who are considered Atheists and I for one dont like to be clumped in with them.
My definition: Life without deities.
Personally Im an aspiritual atheist, and am offended when grouped with wiccans and other neo-pagans/reconstructionists. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 06:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Which definition is correct?
Atheist:
1) Someone who does not believe in God.
2) Someone without belief.
3) A person who denies God so they can do whatever they want without being judged. (j/k)
I think the third definition "A person who denies God so they can do what ever they want without being judged" stems from a belief that one must be Christian to be moral:
(From Dictionary.com)
mo·ral·i·ty (P) (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1.) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2.) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3.) Virtuous conduct.
4.) A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
We have moral stories, fables that include a lesson. The Bible (IMO) attempts to do this, though I'm not certain what the lesson is there.
It would seem the word "moral" has religious connotations, while the word "ethical" remains secular. I am only guessing that this is why atheists are so frequently accused of being immoral - not because of their behavior, but rather due to a perceived inability to be moral.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 07:59:57 [Permalink]
|
Wendy, while your contribution is both valid and valuable, I just want to point out that woolytoad did append "(j/k)" - for "just kidding" - to number 3.
Mr. Spock wrote:quote:
The weak definition is the most appealling to skeptics, I would think, in that it neither affirms or disavows anything of a metaphysical nature.
I believe that "weak atheism" is what Thomas Huxley was referring to when coining the term 'agnostic', and that someone else (I forget who) suggested that it is the only position regarding god(s) which is logically defensible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 08:31:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wendy, while your contribution is both valid and valuable, I just want to point out that woolytoad did append "(j/k)" - for "just kidding" - to number 3.
Thanks, Dave. I did understand that woolytoad was just kidding, but I assumed (yeah, I know ass/u/me) he included the j/k definition to make the point that many believe it to be a valid definition of the word.  |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 08:50:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Which definition is correct?
Atheist:
1) Someone who does not believe in God.
2) Someone without belief.
3) A person who denies God so they can do whatever they want without being judged. (j/k)
1 seems to be a more colloquial definition. I have problems with this because it seems to imply that the person has some sort of belief. And as someone said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. Well I just have no idea of how exactly to resolve this one. I cannot remember which dictionary this one was in. This seems to be a better definition than 1.
1 is closest to what I've seen.
Atheists lack a God belief. The whole concept of a supreme being is meaningless to them as it is an absurd concept to them.
To analyze the particular philosophy of atheism one must look at why people are theistic. Mostly, theists require some sort of higher power to blame things on/give credit to and have a need for mysticism and ceremony. Atheists lack these psychological needs and therefore have no use for theological constructs such as God, Anti-God, etc.
If someone was to present absolute scientific proof for God, few atheists would stick to their philosophy. In my travels through the net, I've met several athiests. They come in two types.
1) atheists - lack a God belief
2) angry theists - angry at their chosen diety for some personal tragedy, they choose not to believe because they are "punishing" God.
#1 are reasonable, excelent debaters. #2 are too caught up in their own emotions to make reasonable arguements on the subject.
Like BigPapaSmurf, I am offended when lumped together with atheists and other religions usually under the umbrella of "devil worshipers". It's not being associated with the atheists which is a problem, it's the lumping together of disparate philosophies in complete ignorance.
Welcome to SFN, woolytoad. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2004 : 08:59:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
Thanks, Dave. I did understand that woolytoad was just kidding, but I assumed (yeah, I know ass/u/me) he included the j/k definition to make the point that many believe it to be a valid definition of the word.
Whoops. That's something I hadn't considered. So, the embarrassment is mine, Wendy. Continue on.
Ack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2004 : 22:06:15 [Permalink]
|
Actually #3 was from a link I found somewhere here. It linked to an MSN group which had crazy YEC definitions for words. I only meant it as a joke but now that I think about it, Wendy makes a good point. But Dave's assumption was correct.
The reason for my question is that I have read "Aetheism is a Religion" criticisms. By dictionary definitions this is not correct. But by more colloquial definitions, I would have to agree with the arguments. And at the end of the day, if most people use a colloquial definition, then what does it matter what the dictionary says? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2004 : 23:12:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
The reason for my question is that I have read "Aetheism is a Religion" criticisms. By dictionary definitions this is not correct. But by more colloquial definitions, I would have to agree with the arguments. And at the end of the day, if most people use a colloquial definition, then what does it matter what the dictionary says?
Because it is a principal of logic that is it impossible to hold an "anti" belief. You either subscribe to a belief or you do not. Just because most religious people are so blinded by their own beliefs that they consider them the "default" position, there is no reason to accept their flawed reasoning. Point out to them that their thinking is simply wrong. How wide-spread a misconception is has no bearing on its correctness.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2004 : 00:50:37 [Permalink]
|
The 'atheism is a religion' claim seldom fails to amuse me, as does the same one for 'darwinism.' Religion implies worship. What is an atheist to worship? A void?
I think that there are almost as many degrees and types, for a lack of better words, of atheists as there are atheists themselves. But unlike religion(s), they can't be cataloged into sects simply because few atheists much care.
As for the morality part, it is interesting to note that satisticly atheists are far under-represented in the prisons. As I recall, the percentage of atheists in the US is something like 10 to 12. Only about 2% of prison populations are are admitted (I hate that term) atheists. I got that from a somewhat biased site; American Atheist.
As for myself, I deny the existance of any and all of the assorted deities thrust upon us by believers preaching mightly and with varying degrees of hysteria (and greed) since our species first became sentient. However, not even I can rule out the possibility, however faint it might be, that some sort of monsterous entity could exist somewhere in the cosmos. What the hell; it's a huge universe and we'll never know it all. The Invisible, Pink Unicorn might be out there, yet.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2004 : 08:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The 'atheism is a religion' claim seldom fails to amuse me, as does the same one for 'darwinism.' Religion implies worship. What is an atheist to worship? A void?
Having listened to my fair share of fundie Christian radio, I can say that many would say that atheists do "worship" things, be they money or power or "man" or whatever. Of course, since there's not weekly meetings to actually worship money (what do you put in the collection plate? Little invisible gods?), this doesn't make sense. But making sense isn't something fundies are known for... |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2004 : 12:14:22 [Permalink]
|
Atheist comes from the greek A-theos, without God. To be an, atheist is to be a person without God. Morality is just a side note.
If believing in a religion or a God makes you moral being, would that count if the God was Kali? Thuggees worshipped Kali and in accordance to their faith killed. Were they moral?
Questions of morality just begs more questions.
What is Moral and who defines it?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
