Origin of Athiesm

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disbelief

Pronunciation:/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun
[mass noun]
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
lack of faith:



edit:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism (your source)
Noun 1. atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
godlessness
religious orientation - an attitude toward religion or religious practices
theism - the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
2. atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
unbelief, disbelief - a rejection of belief

By the way, I don't think how interesting a word (or definition for one) is is a valid ground to dismiss that definition.

 

[Akka]

What's the difference between not belief and disbelief?

Not going to enter the agnostic/atheist semantic debate, but there is a pretty huge difference between "lack of something" and "actively opposed to something".

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Not going to enter the agnostic/atheist semantic debate, but there is a pretty huge difference between "lack of something" and "actively opposed to something".

If you don't think there's any reason to believe in something, you're not "actively opposed" to it.

 

[Akka]

If you don't think there's any reason to believe in something, you're not "actively opposed" to it.

Let me rephrase it then :
There is a pretty huge difference between having no opinion on a subject, and having the opposite opinion than someone else.

 

[Winston Hughes]

My point was, you're making such a minor semantic point.

In the case of this debate, the point is hardly minor. The difference with regards to atheism's origin is something in the region of 14 billion years, and between a potentially interesting answer and an invariably tedious one.

Although atheist means disbelief in god, I can't think of a similar term for someone who has never been exposed to the idea of god, or isn't intelligent enough to comprehend the concept.

On the rare occasion that you need to lump all the different cases together, you could use 'non-believers' or 'non-theists'. Or even 'atheists'. The point isn't that it's wrong to use 'atheism' to refer to a lack of belief in a given case, but rather that it's wrong to suggest its general meaning is merely 'the absence of belief', when it is usually taken to be more than that (and for good reason).

By the way, I don't think how interesting a word (or definition for one) is is a valid ground to dismiss that definition.

Firstly, with reference to those dictionary entries, I didn't say that they only use the 'disbelief' definition, just that they all use it (which, I might add, is not true of the 'absence' definition).

It is entirely justified when creationists (for example) are called out for using convenient definitions to the exclusion of more widely-accepted, but less convenient ones. But atheists must apply the same standards to their own arguments, or they too can quite fairly be accused of intellectual dishonesty. And, what's more, atheism is much, much easier to defend than theism, even if you use the least helpful definitions in the dictionary. We can and should take the high ground on such matters - being more consistent, more coherent, and, above all, more honest in our answers is exactly how we end up winning.

Secondly, while I'm not in the business of dismissing any definitions as far as day-to-day use is concerned, I do believe it right to prioritise definitions based on how interesting and/or useful they are, when it comes to debates that turn on those definitions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not arguing in order to make atheism more defensible. If it weren't defensible enough I'd not be an atheist. (I have a reasoned disbelief in God but I don't claim knowledge. Easiest thing to defend already )

I'm just saying, I think the word "disbelief" also can be used to portray lack of faith or belief (in gods).

Lastly, I still disagree that level of interest has something to do with definitions. And if you want to specify, there are other definitions available.

 

[El_Machinae]

So then, what do you call someone who chooses to disbelieve in a way that makes him different from an atheist chair.

 

[warpus]

@Whom it may concern, but especially those of you covered in mozzarella and tomato.

It's wrong to define 'atheism' as merely the absence of a belief in god(s). Under any useful definition, it must always involve some level of disbelief.

Under the former definition, all things that don't believe in god are atheist. Under the latter type, only those things which have both the ability to believe and the opportunity to reject that particular belief can be described as atheist (and then only to the extent that they actually reject the belief). Thus, in one case we can speak of such oddities as atheist chairs or atheist hydrogen molecules, while in the other we will only categorise certain human beings (and, in theory, some non-human minds) as atheist.

That's all fine and dandy, but I happen to be an atheist who does not hold a belief that God doesn't exist. Yet I am an atheist.

How would you reconcile my atheism with your definition of it?

"Those who do not believe that God exists" is a perfect definition of atheism. Does it mean that rocks can be atheist? Of course not.. but if it makes you happy, why not.. I guess!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the issue here is that atheists didn't divide themselves into easily recognisable sub-groups like theists did. They were kind enough to label themselves Christians, Hindus, Muslim, etc. There are no Ministry of Atheists Who Believe There Is No God, or Atheists Agnostics United.

So, yeah I can see the argument that it's hard to talk about the Atheist. But I don't see how that would need a stricter definition of Atheists. Just like the case with theists, if you want to talk about a specific group, you talk about Christians, or Muslims, or Agnostic Atheists, or Strong Atheists.

Or better yet, talk about individuals. Even within each specific theistic group there are many differences, and generalisation will always be less precise.

 

[Haseri]

My point was, you're making such a minor semantic point. Although atheist means disbelief in god, I can't think of a similar term for someone who has never been exposed to the idea of god, or isn't intelligent enough to comprehend the concept. Those people are not theists by definition.

I believe the terms implicit and explicit are used. An explicit atheist would be like you or I, where we actively reject the idea of the supernatural.

An implicit atheist is one that has never heard of god, like newborns.

 

[Winston Hughes]

That's all fine and dandy, but I happen to be an atheist who does not hold a belief that God doesn't exist. Yet I am an atheist.

How would you reconcile my atheism with your definition of it?

Based on the evidence and argument you've seen in your life thus far, you do reject the idea that god exists, at least to some extent, don't you?

Well, to that extent, you are an atheist under the 'disbelief' definition. You're not so full-blooded in that rejection to reach the outright 'god doesn't exist' position, but nor are you buying the arguments which say that 'god does exist'.

If, on the other hand, you say that you don't reject the idea of god at all, then I guess it's best to call you 'uncertain' or 'undecided' (or, perhaps, 'agnostic'). In that case, lumping you under the term 'atheist' merely serves to confuse matters.

So, yeah I can see the argument that it's hard to talk about the Atheist. But I don't see how that would need a stricter definition of Atheists. Just like the case with theists, if you want to talk about a specific group, you talk about Christians, or Muslims, or Agnostic Atheists, or Strong Atheists.

Or better yet, talk about individuals. Even within each specific theistic group there are many differences, and generalisation will always be less precise.

With regards to their disposition towards the idea of god, the difference between theists, or even between theists and 'disbelief' atheists, is vanishingly tiny compared to the difference between the extremes of 'absence' atheism. It's a definition stretched to the point of absurdity, and used almost exclusively by people who themselves can be described as atheists under the much tighter and more commonly-used alternative.

I believe the terms implicit and explicit are used. An explicit atheist would be like you or I, where we actively reject the idea of the supernatural.

An implicit atheist is one that has never heard of god, like newborns.

That's not a bad approach to take, so long as the default assumption remains that the word 'atheist' refers to explicit atheists unless otherwise specified.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

With regards to their disposition towards the idea of god, the difference between theists, or even between theists and 'disbelief' atheists, is vanishingly tiny compared to the difference between the extremes of 'absence' atheism. It's a definition stretched to the point of absurdity, and used almost exclusively by people who themselves can be described as atheists under the much tighter and more commonly-used alternative.

I disagree entirely. I don't see the big deal. I don't see the absurdity. And I don't see the stretching since that implies an effort to chance (stretch) the definition, while changing the definition seems to be your argument here.

There couldn't be a more simple definition of atheist than "not a theist". The way you'd like to have it, you have theists, atheists and ...? I did see you opt the term agnostic, but I'm an agnostic as well. An agnostic is not a term you can use to fill the gap you are creating. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, what you are proposing is muddying the waters.

We can agree to disagree, and you can have a burr up your saddle about the way people use the term, but you can't walk in and say: "look, this is how we're going to define atheism from now on". Well, you can actually ... because you did. But that doesn't mean we should.

 

[Maniacal]

It also doesn't mean anyone is going to immediately adopt your definition either.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's not my definition. I accept disbelief in Gods. But disbelief simply does not exclude lack of belief.

edit: To be clear. With regard to most specific Gods, I am a strong atheist. Because you don't simple belief in God and stop there. Nope, the moment you make such a statement you also attribute all kinds of characteristics to that God. Either that or you'd believe in "something" and you've named that something "God" and yeah, I can't say I believe there is no "something". With regard to for instance the Christian God, I'm a pretty strong atheist. The claims made towards that particular flavour of God are of such a nature (which I won't go into) that I believe there is no Christian God (also not in the least because of the subjectiveness when that God is described. There seem to be millions of them). But Punkbass and I discussed the pantheistic version of God (God Alone Is), and I can't make the same judgement there. Because as far as I can see it's impossible to find evidence for or against that kind of God, I can't say: I believe there is no God.

 

[Akka]

There couldn't be a more simple definition of atheist than "not a theist". The way you'd like to have it, you have theists, atheists and ...? I did see you opt the term agnostic, but I'm an agnostic as well. An agnostic is not a term you can use to fill the gap you are creating. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, what you are proposing is muddying the waters.

I'm sorry, but actually he's right.
"theist" means that you believe in (a) god(s).
"atheist" means that you believe there is no god.
"agnostic" means that you just don't know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you have two terms which state something with regard to your believes, and one that states something with regard to knowledge.

Is it impossible to say: I do not claim knowledge, but I (don't) believe ... ?

edit: and that's not what atheist means. Not even using Winston's definition.

edit 2: That's also not what agnostic means by the way, it means you or anyone else for that matter can not know.

 

[warpus]

nor are you buying the arguments which say that 'god does exist'.

Yep.. not buying.. not believing. = atheist

If, on the other hand, you say that you don't reject the idea of god at all, then I guess it's best to call you 'uncertain' or 'undecided' (or, perhaps, 'agnostic'). In that case, lumping you under the term 'atheist' merely serves to confuse matters.

Agnosticism and atheism deal with totally different subjects, though. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief (or rather a lack of, I suppose)

The two are by no means mutually exclusive. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

I don't care who's confused by this. They are very simple definitions. If somebody is really confused and wants to know exactly what I mean when I say "I'm an atheist" they can either look up the definition and realize that I lack belief in God(s).. or talk to me.. *shrug*

That's not a bad approach to take, so long as the default assumption remains that the word 'atheist' refers to explicit atheists unless otherwise specified.

I'm an atheist.. by definition. Just cause this confuses people doesn't mean I should come up with some new term to describe myself. Right?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Warpus, I seem to meet you every time in these threads. How about we call uncle, give up and invent a new name for ourselves. Not Brights because that's stupid.

How about Awesomists? People who recognise knowledge of Gods is impossible, no evidence is available and therefore will not believe in it/them and thus are awesome by definition?

 

[warpus]

Warpus, I seem to meet you every time in these threads. How about we call uncle, give up and invent a new name for ourselves. Not Brights because that's stupid.

How about Awesomists? People who recognise knowledge of Gods is impossible, no evidence is available and therefore will not believe in it/them and thus are awesome by definition?

I might be tempted to join you, but I actually disagree with some of what you say! I think it's totally possible to get knowledge of gods, if they exist. or he.. or whatever.

Just cause we don't have any knowledge or evidence doesn't mean that it's impossible.. far more likely that it just isn't there.

 

[madviking]

Agnosticism and atheism deal with totally different subjects, though. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief (or rather a lack of, I suppose)

The two are by no means mutually exclusive. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

I don't care who's confused by this. They are very simple definitions. If somebody is really confused and wants to know exactly what I mean when I say "I'm an atheist" they can either look up the definition and realize that I lack belief in God(s).. or talk to me.. *shrug*

To add:

Atheism and agnosticism are two completely different axes. That's right. Axes. Religion isn't a one dimensional thing anymore; we've bumped it up to two.

So on one scale we have the God-end of religion. On one extreme you have theism (believe in god(s)) and on the other you have atheism (not believing in god(s)). I don't see any problems there seeing as most of us do not believe in god(s).

But the kicker is in the second axis: the "knowing"-end of religion. One end is gnosticism, or certainty. The other end is agnosticism, or doubt.

So we develop four quadrants, much like the political compass test. Gnostic theism, agnostic theism, gnostic atheism, and agnostic atheism.

Although many atheists claim to be such, you have to look whether they really do know that god(s) don't exist. This is actually pretty damn difficult to be. I'd hazard a guess and say only 10% of atheists are true gnostic atheists. The rest are still a bit tenuous on how to back up their atheism.

tl;dr religion is a two dimensional issue. all atheists are not alike.