'Atheism' - what the heck is it?!

[_Moniker]

Okay, I'm back. Now this is troubling me. :)

I'm more of a de facto atheist. Agnosticism just doesn't seem right for me anymore. I'm not agnostic about the Easter Bunny or the Shadow Monster.

[_marg]

Marg: : 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?

Marg: 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?

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

* Atheist
* Theist
* Apatheist

My response: What I was getting at essentially can be shown in a hierarchical vertical organizational tree form

At the top are all people whether they hold a belief in a God or not.

In the next level down do you think it would be valid to say that ..atheist, theist and apatheist should be equal at that level? Do you think an argument can validly be made that an atheist can be further categorized into those who care and those who don’t? And same with theist those who care and those who don’t? Can an apatheist be an atheist, be a theist?


What I am getting at RoP is that mankind sets up categories. If we think of theism as being a belief in any God, not a particular God then the world is filled with theists who believe in any god and atheists who hold no beliefs in any gods. Those 2 categories can be further divided, one can look at knowledge of God. In either category atheist or theist can be further subdivided into one can believe God is ultimately knowable or God is ultimately unknowable. If we want to add the manner of belief with regards to caring one can include that as well probably on the same level as knowable/unknowable…one either cares or one doesn’t.

Essentially though as far as holding beliefs god, on the first level assuming all Gods are included.. yields only 2 categories and they are valid given that the “a” in atheism says nothing more than “without”.

Arguing a restricted category and insisting that it must be accepted is disingenuous argumentation once it has been explained that “atheism” does not entail one must actively believe no God exists. You yourself recognize that is not a requirement by your acknowledgement of a further specialized categories of atheism or theism.

[_beastie]

I used to participate quite a bit on a board for atheists, and most atheists there defined atheism, in general, as a lack of belief in any god. However, there were acknowledged subsets:

1. strong atheism - actually asserts there is no god
2. weak atheism - simply asserts a lack of belief in a god

There are very few strong atheists, because most atheists recognize there is no way to categorically prove a negative. So most atheists on the board identified with "weak atheism".

I'm not sure where these terms originated, but I don't really care for them, although I do recognize that the subsets exist. I think we need better terms.....not that the majority of the world cares. Technically, I also consider myself an agnostic atheist, but practically speaking, since most people seem to think agnostic means "on the fence", I rarely use the term. I have absolutely zero hope, inclination, or suspicion that a god might really exist. I think it is as unlikely as the infamous Santa Claus analogy. So "weak" atheist seems a misleading term for my position. Yet I would never assert that it's possible to prove god/s doesn't exist. How the heck would I know if a being completely outside our dimension exists?

So I just settle for the term atheist.

[_Ren]

There are very few strong atheists, because most atheists recognize there is no way to categorically prove a negative.

I certainly wouldn't claim that I think it is 'proven' there is no God. But I have no issue asserting the 'opinion' that there is no God.

So "weak" atheist seems a misleading term for my position.

This is exactly how I feel too :) I don't think 'weak 'atheist accurately represents my position. But then, if 'hard' atheist is taken to mean that I think my atheism is 'proven', then I also reject that too. Maybe a new term is required or something :)

Arguing a restricted category and insisting that it must be accepted is disingenuous argumentation once it has been explained that “atheism” does not entail one must actively believe no God exists. You yourself recognize that is not a requirement by your acknowledgment of a further specialized categories of atheism or theism.

I do accept that the term 'atheist' can be further split down. I definitely think this is true. As you say, into some kind of hierarchical tree structure.
One quantifier is 'agnostic'.
I think the quantifiers 'hard' and 'soft' also make sense to an extent - although I've just voiced some concerns about how to place myself using those categories above - just as beastie has commented on it.

I'm not really sure if I'm 'hard' or 'soft'. (Said the bishop to the nun...)

It just seems to me that both side in 'debates' seem most interested in declaring atheism to be what 'their' preferred idea of it is, rather than acknowledging the breath of possible attitude within the 'category'. That is not meant to be an accusation leveled at any one person. I don't want to turn this thread into a 'he said, she said' commentary on other threads...
What I want to do is to bring those discussions here, rather than having them clogging up other conversations. If we have disagreements about what atheism can and cannot mean, then lets bring it here...

[_marg]

It just seems to me that both side in 'debates' seem most interested in declaring atheism to be what 'their' preferred idea of it is, rather than acknowledging the breath of possible attitude within the 'category'. That is not meant to be an accusation leveled at any one person. I don't want to turn this thread into a 'he said, she said' commentary on other threads...
What I want to do is to bring those discussions here, rather than having them clogging up other conversations. If we have disagreements about what atheism can and cannot mean, then lets bring it here...

RoP in debate/argumention participants should discuss what they mean by various terms used. If one participant refuses to acknowledge the more encompassing definition of atheism(the issue in this discussion) and it is a critical factor, that is disingenuous in argumentation. The discussion in effect must cease. In essence what the individual is attempting to do is set up strawmen arguments, strawmen such as 'atheists believe or claim God (Gods) don't exist, never existed', or atheists claim science disproves God. And they are attempting to shift burden of proof away from the theistic position.

[_beastie]

In the vast majority of cases, I think that the definition of atheism as simply the lack of belief in any god is adequate. When people start attaching other characteristics to atheism (such as "agendas" and "dogmas"), they just need to be reminded that they are talking about a possible subset of atheism, and not atheism in general. If the poster is not willing to concede that point, you're not going to be able to reason with them, anyway.

[_EAllusion]

There are very few strong atheists, because most atheists recognize there is no way to categorically prove a negative. So most atheists on the board identified with "weak atheism".

The issue is more with inductively proving a universal. It is just as difficult to prove a statement like, "All swans in the universe are white" as it is, "There are no dodos in the universe."

[_Tarski]

You're and atheist if you truthfully answer "no" when someone asks if you believe that there is a God".

[_The Dude]

For a long time I've called myself an atheist because it's easy and I'm lazy about the complicated nuances. But now I think the label is worn out. The fact that atheist can be confused with a doctrine of "atheism", and can be split into strong and weak forms, is just too exhausting to me. People think of Stalin, and for some reason Hitler, when they think of atheists. And so, I've decided from now on to speak only of skeptics and believers. Tarski made this point in another thread and I'm going to stick with it from now on.

Everyone is skeptical of something so I think -- I hope -- this will translate well when I speak to those who believe in God. I can say "everyone is a skeptic, just not with respect to their own religion" and Mormons (or whatever) should recognize the truth of this. It doesn't work so well when you try to force them to admit they are atheists towards Zeus and the Flying Spagetti Monster. This is a confrontation. But skeptical? Yeah, sure they are skeptical about the existence of Zeus. So I feel the same way about Elohim -- it should be easy for anyone to understand. No problemo.

I'm not an atheist -- I'm a skeptic. I reject faith.

[_Tarski]

For a long time I've called myself an atheist because it's easy and I'm lazy about the complicated nuances. But now I think the label is worn out. The fact that atheist can be confused with a doctrine of "atheism", and can be split into strong and weak forms, is just too exhausting to me. People think of Stalin, and for some reason Hitler, when they think of atheists. And so, I've decided from now on to speak only of skeptics and believers. Tarski made this point in another thread and I'm going to stick with it from now on.

Everyone is skeptical of something so I think -- I hope -- this will translate well when I speak to those who believe in God. I can say "everyone is a skeptic, just not with respect to their own religion" and Mormons (or whatever) should recognize the truth of this. It doesn't work so well when you try to force them to admit they are atheists towards Zeus and the Flying Spagetti Monster. This is a confrontation. But skeptical? Yeah, sure they are skeptical about the existence of Zeus. So I feel the same way about Elohim -- it should be easy for anyone to understand. No problemo.

I'm not an atheist -- I'm a skeptic. I reject faith.

But Hilter, Stalin and Pol Pot were skeptics and look at what it led to. Anyways being a skeptic takes FAITH in skepticism.

Bwah hah hah hah hah --just kidding :)