'Atheism' - what the heck is it?!

[_marg]

I've always considered myself an agnostic atheist.

In the above agnostic is an adjective of atheist, it modifies by adding a qualifier to atheist.

If we are going to divide the world of people up into different maincamps regarding whether thy hold a god belief or not..and you've acknowledged one camp.."atheist" ....I assume you acknowledge theist...are there any other camps? I appreciate you are able to subdivide atheists into sub camps but right now I'm interested in main groups in which use of qualifying words are not necessary. Given the notion of holding a belief or not holding a belief can any people be considered to fall out of the either atheist or theist category, if so what would you call them?

[_Canucklehead]

So now - a bit of a follow up question:
For those who rejected definition 1 (and for the purposes of this question, pretend that the word 'doctrine' isn't there, and focus on the word 'belief'), are you rejecting it on the grounds that you don't feel it accurately represents YOUR viewpoint - as an atheist?
....or do you reject is as essentially an 'impossible' situation - as in those kinds of atheists don't 'really' exist - even if they think they believe 'in that way'?

My issue with #1 is that I'm wary of how "belief" is being defined. Is it meant to be a synonym of "opinion", or does it connote a faith-based acceptance of the fact that there is no god? If the latter, then I utterly reject it. I seriously doubt that there is an atheist in the world who would state that, even though the evidence for the existence of a god is strong, he still chooses to disbelieve. On the contrary, there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

If #1 were restated as "the opinion that there is no god", then I would have no problem accepting it.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Canuck,

Well, I'm sort of a pantheistic/nature religionist, type of "believer"... I think Spinoza and Einstein come close to expressing how I view the world, along with some eastern philosophies. :-)

I honestly don't understand what any of those mean.

Well, basically I think the universe is largely unknowable from a human perspective... so there is the mystery. In other words, everything that is beyond our comprehension. My opinion is that humans have anthropomorphized the mystery into a being but if we let go of the man/being could the mystery still be God? Could God be a name for the unknowable mystery?

I believe that there are mysteries that are unknown (and maybe verging on unknowable) to human beings.

Yes I agree with this.

I don't know what what is meant by "Source" (with a capital "S"), but the concept of the entire universe exploding out of a singularity makes sense to me as the ultimate source of existence.

Yep.. that is how I view it, knowing that there is MUCH more than we understand about this. I think there is something of from which we emerged. Whatever that is (the closest I can come is something like infinite potentiality, or something along these lines), is Source.

I highly value creativity ... but I would never worship "Creativity" as though it were a conscious entity.

I think the Universe is creativity... I'm not saying I worship creativity but OTOH, I think there is much more to it than we imagine. Creativity (another word for transforming energy perhaps), is at the core of the unfolding of existence. (I don't mean human conscious endeavor).

I think that people can have transcendent and spiritual experiences, but I think that Mormonism and other religions have tried to co-opt these experiences by putting boundaries in what they mean and trying to define them for people.

Totally agree with you here! :-) Absolutely how I see it.

I'm interested in how you'd define the concepts you listed above.

Does that sort of give you a taste of how I experience the world? :-)

I do not think there is even a remote chance that there are human beings/Gods in heaven living on a planet near Kolob or any other planet directing, commanding, intervening, demanding, the universe or humankind on Earth.

I do however deeply believe there is more to existence than we yet comprehend, it is mysterious and amazing, and I often feel overwhelming awe at the wonder.

So, I have a difficult time saying I am an atheist because I resonate so strongly with the divinity of the universe (which is everything in my opinion), although Dawkins & Co. may not appreciate the practice of using the word God as something other than a being, it still works for me.

:-)

But I'm open to learning and expanding my views...

~dancer~

[Guest]

If we are going to divide the world of people up into different maincamps regarding whether thy hold a god belief or not..and you've acknowledged one camp.."atheist" ....I assume you acknowledge theist...are there any other camps?

I suppose the other main category would be this 'Apatheist' category that Bond raises. The people who just don't give a... yanno. I used to think of those as 'pure' agnostics, but I think this 'Apatheist' category is actually far more appropriate.

Given the notion of holding a belief or not holding a belief can any people be considered to fall out of the either atheist or theist category, if so what would you call them?

At the moment, I'm happy with these three groups:

* Atheist
* Theist
* Apatheist

I think you can reasonably assign anybody into these three categories. I think anyway - although I'm sure I can be persuaded otherwise with some reasoning and some examples...

Is it meant to be a synonym of "opinion", or does it connote a faith-based acceptance of the fact that there is no god?

Ahhh - interesting. I think I see what this is about now.

I was taking the objection to be that #Def 1 was too 'strong' a statement.
But actually, I get the impression that your objection (and perhaps the objection of others?) is that it is too 'weak'? i.e. the word belief would elude to doubt...?

I've just looked up the word 'belief', and I'm quite astounded at the stark difference between the first two definitions of belief presented:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

First is the Dictionary.com definition:

be·lief

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

...and now here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition just below it:

be·lief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

I suppose the first definition in each one are pretty close - but look at the example given in the top set of definitions!

"a belief that the earth is flat"

...that example makes 'belief' look as daft as can be!
The second definition in the top section specifically talks about things 'not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof'. The second set of definitions don't use any such words. In fact, the first two definitions in the second section seem very similar, and don't make any mention of the 'reasonableness' of the thing 'believed'. The only requirement is that the person is confident in it, or convinced of it.

That is actually how I've always seen belief. I've just seen it to indicate the simple fact that someone is confident in, or convinced of something. I'm not saying that to say that someone 'believes' something means that they don't care about the evidence to go with those convictions. What I mean is that I always saw the word belief as not making a distinction there at all. All the word belief is doing is making a non-judgmental call on the fact that someone thinks a certain way...

Does that make sense?
I mean, looking at the dictionary.com definition of 'belief', I can now appreciate the concern that definition 1 could cause. I guess this is probably down to me not seeing the word belief 'that way'...

Words are tricky man...!

[_Doctor Steuss]

All of us, even Dan Peterson, know what it's like to be an "atheist" in regards to Krishna.

All of us?

[_GoodK]

All of us, even Dan Peterson, know what it's like to be an "atheist" in regards to Krishna.

All of us?

well, not all of us. I actually walked past these fellows that were dancing and playing the tambourines at Venice beach last weekend. Based on the hairdos and the robes, I'm pretty sure they don't know what it's like to be an atheist in respect to Krishna.

[_Ren]

I actually walked past these fellows that were dancing and playing the tambourines at Venice beach last weekend.

...sounds dangerous...

[_Moniker]

I shouldn't reply before reading the other replies -- yet, I'm going to.

If I go with the #2 definition then I'm an atheist:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So, why do I still call myself an agnostic? I'm not certain. Perhaps, it's because I don't want to state categorically that God does not exist. Yet, I don't state it -- yet, I do think it. I discount anything supernatural. So, why do I not state that when discussing God or gods? Perhaps, I should?

I was an agnostic that was open to the possibility of God merely a year ago. That is not where I am now. Not at all.

Oh, shoot, I should have read the other replies...

Okay, I'm editing this 'cause what I wrote above makes no sense. I knew (already) that atheism was the lack of belief in God/gods. And I've argued against those that say there is more to it than that... so I've ALWAYS known that was the "definition". It's just for some reason looking at that right now I recognize that's where I am too. I always say that I don't want to state with certainty anything. Yet, I CAN state with certainty that I have a disbelief in God/gods. I'm so silly -- I was saying that all along (recognizing that IS atheism) and yet, still calling myself an agnostic.

[_Canucklehead]

Is it meant to be a synonym of "opinion", or does it connote a faith-based acceptance of the fact that there is no god?

Ahhh - interesting. I think I see what this is about now.

I was taking the objection to be that #Def 1 was too 'strong' a statement.
But actually, I get the impression that your objection (and perhaps the objection of others?) is that it is too 'weak'? I.e. the word belief would elude to doubt...?

I think that I phrased my previous post in a way which gives it a meaning I might not have intended. I should have left out the word "fact" because obviously it isn't a "fact" that there's no god. What I meant was that there's no real evidence that a personal god exists.

I definitely have doubt that I'm 100% correct in my evaluation of the evidence. I try not to be dogmatic in my atheism, and I was opposed to the word "belief" because I think that it can carry connotations of dogmatism: i.e. one might be so convinced that there is no god that one would simply disregard any evidence to the contrary which might arise in the future.

I've just looked up the word 'belief', and I'm quite astounded at the stark difference between the first two definitions of belief presented:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

First is the Dictionary.com definition:

be·lief

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I object to any of those definitions being applied to the definition of atheism. The first one is ok but it could include a reference to available evidence rather than a reference to flat-earthism! >:(

...and now here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition just below it:

be·lief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

If number 2 were the definition of belief being applied to atheism, I would have no problem with it.

I suppose the first definition in each one are pretty close - but look at the example given in the top set of definitions!

"a belief that the earth is flat"

...that example makes 'belief' look as daft as can be!
The second definition in the top section specifically talks about things 'not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof'. The second set of definitions don't use any such words. In fact, the first two definitions in the second section seem very similar, and don't make any mention of the 'reasonableness' of the thing 'believed'. The only requirement is that the person is confident in it, or convinced of it.

That is actually how I've always seen belief. I've just seen it to indicate the simple fact that someone is confident in, or convinced of something. I'm not saying that to say that someone 'believes' something means that they don't care about the evidence to go with those convictions. What I mean is that I always saw the word belief as not making a distinction there at all. All the word belief is doing is making a non-judgmental call on the fact that someone thinks a certain way...

Does that make sense?
I mean, looking at the dictionary.com definition of 'belief', I can now appreciate the concern that definition 1 could cause. I guess this is probably down to me not seeing the word belief 'that way'...

I think that I'm on board with you with regard to the bolded part above. I just think that for many people the word "belief" connotes acceptance of something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. THAT's why I was leery of definition #1 of atheism.

Words are tricky man...!

Agreed!

[_Moniker]

Okay, well I just read up on Apatheism and recognize that I've been there before too... :)

I'm not there right now, 'though. Since I've actually been reading a lot and attempting to better understand how these beliefs in the supernatural actually do impact our culture and our world. So, that's definitely not me anymore. Yet, I still am not comfortable telling others about my own lack of belief (off the net) or discussing their views and attempting to dissuade them from their beliefs. Although I do find myself slightly interested in opening others to the possibility that certain things they attribute to religion is not strictly contained within the confines of religion.

Oh, well, see... so I am doing that -- I actually am, at certain times, asking people to consider that their religious views are incorrect. Oh shoot, I think I most definitely am an atheist!