Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[Kordie]

OK, so here are some holes with this idea. You make points like we dont have a word for non-skydiver... The thing is, we do have words for that. The words are whatever you do instead. sky diving is a hobby, so instead of a non-sky diver, I am a gamer, or a stamp collector, or a soccer player. Same deal with atheism.

Here is another parralel, we have employmed and unemploymed. Why then do we not have a word for non-lawyer? Because that is a specific. We have words for general systems like employment vs unemployment and atheism vs theism because its creates a distinct split in groups. those who work and those who dont. Those who believe in god(s) and those who dont. Very distinct differences in general systems. We do not have a word for non-astrologers because it is sepecific. we use superstitious vs rational.

To return to the origional quote,
"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

-- Sam Harris

What Sam Harris is saying, is that he believes theists belong in the same group as astrologers and people who believe elvis is alive. He is saying it to make theists seem like a fringe group that should not be taken seriously. Your argument seems to be missing the point he is actually making.

 

[Aerosteam]

So, you either ignored it entirely and rushed to try and one-up me, or you believe Atheism and Buddhism are one in the same.

If I had to choose one of them, it'll be rushing your claim and one-upping you, since Atheism and Buddhism are different.

Buddhism is all about stopping the suffering in life that is caused by desire and the way to end it is through enlightenment. Being enlightened is to be free from the cycle of personal reincarnations, which others would otherwise be in.
Atheism is not as much into all the meditating and enlightenment things. See the difference?

I just... I just said they aren't the same, like, in the very post you quoted... And then you tried to explain how they are different... Despite me saying they are already...

I don't even...

All I was doing is telling you I do not think Atheism and Buddhism are the same thing. I was just answering your query.

I'm also going to stop replying to this thread because I see no point in arguing with you and I see no outcome on this thread where you will be convinced about the proper definition of 'Atheist'.

And you seen to have more than enough people disagreeing with you already.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

And in both cases you provided, there is a clear absence of belief in a deity, thank you for proving our point for yourself at last.

Oh, hey, I noticed you don't understand that not believing something isn't the same as believing something doesn't exist. Thought I'd try and point that out so you could learn about it. For example, I don't believe there is a unicorn on your head, but I can't say there isn't because I can't prove it.

I love sharing knowledge with people. Makes the world feel warm.

And yet you still seem to miss the point. Atheism is the absence of theism, Theism is absent in both of the examples you gave and while the method may be different, it has little relevance to the end result, and that result is the lack of theism. Case closed.

Yeah, again, you don't seem to understand what's going on. I'll type it out:

Some people believe there is no god. At all. End of. Some people think there isn't, as no one can prove it, but since they themselves cannot disprove it, they refrain from actually stating that there is no god. I believe Atheism is the latter, while some believe it to be both or only the former. There is debate going on (and has been going on since the word was created) as to what definition is accurate. I believe to state as fact that there is no god is silly, as you cannot actually prove that and saying something is a fact without having proof is... well, religion. I believe (and those debating the latter definition believe) Atheism means thinking there is no god--not believing there is no god. It's like if someone says the answer to a math question is seven, while the other says they think it is seven, but can't prove it.

"Some people think there isn't, as no one can prove it"

This right here.

All that Atheism requires is the absence of belief. Acknowledging the possibility of something isn't the same thing as believing in something. Get it?

You are saying Atheism is stating there is no god. I am saying Atheism is saying I have no reason to believe there is a god. I'm not saying there isn't--just that you can't show me that there is.

It comes down to this:

Definition a - there is no god.

Definition b - no one can prove there is a god.

Atheism, in my eyes, should not refer to rejection of the notion, but rather assertion that no one has shown proof to support it. It's similar, but different. I don't like the terms, but "weak and strong" Atheism are indeed the issue.

 

[viranimus]

"Because I believe there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of an invisible man in the sky" is just a different, arguably more intellectual (and definitely more condescending), way of saying "because I have no reason to."

One could perhaps argue that atheists have an ideology based on the virtues of science and critical thinking, but on the other hand you'll find plenty of theists in that same camp (except when their religion is involved) and atheists that believe in other sorts of superstition.

Finally, belief in "the evils of religion" and atheism are wildly different things. If the religions in question are exclusively theistic ones, then we've got us a case of antitheism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism], rather than atheism.

Well, your certainly not wrong. My point was focused with the underlying theme that what people say, and what people actually do, are rarely if ever the same thing. Hence the "evils of religion" atheists (basically a subset of atheism) because we have all seen people argue against religion,(IE: wars, social intolerance, etc) cite that they simply have no reason to believe , but use a long and intricate stack of arguments and speculations justifying why they have no reason to believe.

As for the Invisible man in the sky, It was left there as a call back to George Carlin, May he rest in peace.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Definitions aren't opinions. So when Webster or whomever decides to change the definition based on a global intellectual consensus of some sort, i'll go ahead and mail you an apology.

So... definitions are not defined by opinion. But if lots of people have an opinion, they change the definition...

Yeah, that about sums up your presence in this thread, lol.

 

[Kordie]

You are saying Atheism is stating there is no god. I am saying Atheism is saying I have no reason to believe there is a god. I'm not saying there isn't--just that you can't show me that there is.

It comes down to this:

Definition a - there is no god.

Definition b - no one can prove there is a god.

Atheism, in my eyes, should not refer to rejection of the notion, but rather assertion that no one has shown proof to support it. It's similar, but different. I don't like the terms, but "weak and strong" Atheism are indeed the issue.

So here is the core problem, being open to the possability of its existence and looking for proof is not atheism, it is agnosticism. Believe there is no god is atheism. Believeing god is possible, or that gods existence is unkowable/unproovable is agnosticism.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You are saying Atheism is stating there is no god. I am saying Atheism is saying I have no reason to believe there is a god. I'm not saying there isn't--just that you can't show me that there is.

It comes down to this:

Definition a - there is no god.

Definition b - no one can prove there is a god.

Atheism, in my eyes, should not refer to rejection of the notion, but rather assertion that no one has shown proof to support it. It's similar, but different. I don't like the terms, but "weak and strong" Atheism are indeed the issue.

So here is the core problem, being open to the possability of its existence and looking for proof is not atheism, it is agnosticism. Believe there is no god is atheism. Believeing god is possible, or that gods existence is unkowable/unproovable is agnosticism.

Agnosticism is more believing there could be a god, but you don't know what or how. It's basically flimsy Atheism. My side is arguing Atheism isn't rejecting the notion of a god, nor is it saying there could be a god per se. More that no one has shown a reason why we should believe. It's more or less stepping out of the arena and waiting for someone to offer up something interesting enough to decide if there could or couldn't be a god.

I dislike the idea that Atheism should mean KNOWING there is no god, because that would mena you believe something without evidence and that is a faith.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Definitions aren't opinions. So when Webster or whomever decides to change the definition based on a global intellectual consensus of some sort, i'll go ahead and mail you an apology.

So... definitions are not defined by opinion. But if lots of people have an opinion, they change the definition...

Yeah, that about sums up your presence in this thread, lol.

There's a difference between you saying Atheism is whatever is convenient for your argument and a group of literary professionals coming together to form a general consensus on the legitimacy, accuracy or integrity of a definition. Sorry, I should have been more clear on that.

Good to see you took on board the comment and corrected yourself.

 

[Kordie]

Agnosticism is more believing there could be a god, but you don't know what or how. It's basically flimsy Atheism. My side is arguing Atheism isn't rejecting the notion of a god, nor is it saying there could be a god per se. More that no one has shown a reason why we should believe. It's more or less stepping out of the arena and waiting for someone to offer up something interesting enough to decide if there could or couldn't be a god.

I dislike the idea that Atheism should mean KNOWING there is no god, because that would mena you believe something without evidence and that is a faith.

As I sourced earlier, there are accepted definitions for atheism and agnosticism. You refuting that with your opinion does not change it.

There's a difference between you saying Atheism is whatever is convenient for your argument and a group of literary professionals coming together to form a general consensus on the legitimacy, accuracy or integrity of a definition. Sorry, I should have been more clear on that.

As he said, you disagreeing with a decision, and the actual definition changeing are not the same thing.

And to reiterate, here are the definitions;

There needs to be some serious clarification here over the definition of "Atheism" before you can actually decide if the word is needed...

Here is line 1 from the "Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy" article titled "Atheism and Agnosticism First published Tue Mar 9, 2004; substantive revision Mon Aug 8, 2011", "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/)

From wikipedia, "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

From the mirriam-webster dictionary,
"athe·ism noun \ˈâ-thç-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546"

There is more, but I can leave it as that. Atheism means the you do not believe in god. Period. If you are claiming to be looking for evidence, or proof that there is/isn't a god, you are not an atheist. You are more accurately labelled an agnostic...

From an article "Atheism vs. Agnosticism"
"Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."
(http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)

Again from mirriam webster dictionary,
"ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something "

After reading a few pages of this, I feel the need to make this clarification. Ask yourself this question before giving yourself a label... Is there a god(s)? No = atheist, Yes = theist, Maybe/I don't know/theres no proof = agnostic.

 

[utopid]

This is kind of a silly thread. Atheism is a word that describes the natural state of a human being; we're all born atheists. Saying that the word "atheist" shouldn't exist is like saying the word "exist" shouldn't exist... it's a self-defeating line of reasoning. Seriously, it's a word, just a damned word.

Lets throw a wrench in all this... Atheism is the belief that there is no god, theism is the belief that there is a god. A child born has no knowledge of the concept of god. Thus a child born does not believe there is no god, or believe there is one. Untill the concept is introduced he is neither a theist nor an atheist. It is only when the concept is added that one can make a choice and say yes there is, or no there isnt...

Think of it as schroedingers baby. he exists in neither and both forms untill the concept is introduced at which point his system collapses and he forms an opinion/belief.

This is the first post ive seen that has called grey out on this. His entire argument is based on a baby having a default blank setting. Which also means that baby must choose to be atheist, therefore we need a word for that choice.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

lots of space

And my point, again, is that the definition of Atheism should not be as you two describe. That is the debate that has existed for as long as theologians have existed. Some people like the definition you linked, and some people want it changed. Some people believe Atheism means knowing there is no god. Some people believe Atheism means having no reason to believe there is a god.

But I don't think the two of us arguing about it will achieve some sort of epiphany, so maybe we should leave it there. I don't think either of us are going to budge, lol.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

This is kind of a silly thread. Atheism is a word that describes the natural state of a human being; we're all born atheists. Saying that the word "atheist" shouldn't exist is like saying the word "exist" shouldn't exist... it's a self-defeating line of reasoning. Seriously, it's a word, just a damned word.

Lets throw a wrench in all this... Atheism is the belief that there is no god, theism is the belief that there is a god. A child born has no knowledge of the concept of god. Thus a child born does not believe there is no god, or believe there is one. Untill the concept is introduced he is neither a theist nor an atheist. It is only when the concept is added that one can make a choice and say yes there is, or no there isnt...

Think of it as schroedingers baby. he exists in neither and both forms untill the concept is introduced at which point his system collapses and he forms an opinion/belief.

This is the first post ive seen that has called grey out on this. His entire argument is based on a baby having a default blank setting. Which also means that baby must choose to be atheist, therefore we need a word for that choice.

My entire argument from the very first post has been that Atheism is the lack of a choice, not choosing not to believe. You are born with no religious agenda and no beliefs at all. You don't even know what religion is.

Also, stop calling me a man -_-

 

[utopid]

This is kind of a silly thread. Atheism is a word that describes the natural state of a human being; we're all born atheists. Saying that the word "atheist" shouldn't exist is like saying the word "exist" shouldn't exist... it's a self-defeating line of reasoning. Seriously, it's a word, just a damned word.

Lets throw a wrench in all this... Atheism is the belief that there is no god, theism is the belief that there is a god. A child born has no knowledge of the concept of god. Thus a child born does not believe there is no god, or believe there is one. Untill the concept is introduced he is neither a theist nor an atheist. It is only when the concept is added that one can make a choice and say yes there is, or no there isnt...

Think of it as schroedingers baby. he exists in neither and both forms untill the concept is introduced at which point his system collapses and he forms an opinion/belief.

This is the first post ive seen that has called grey out on this. His entire argument is based on a baby having a default blank setting. Which also means that baby must choose to be atheist, therefore we need a word for that choice.

My entire argument from the very first post has been that Atheism is the lack of a choice, not choosing not to believe. You are born with no religious agenda and no beliefs at all. You don't even know what religion is.

Yes, but then you cannot call yourself atheist. You choose to not believe, therefore you need something to describe the choice. Their isnt a word for what a baby believes because it is unneeded, a baby is not an athiest.

 

[Kordie]

lots of space

And my point, again, is that the definition of Atheism should not be as you two describe. That is the debate that has existed for as long as theologians have existed. Some people like the definition you linked, and some people want it changed. Some people believe Atheism means knowing there is no god. Some people believe Atheism means having no reason to believe there is a god.

But I don't think the two of us arguing about it will achieve some sort of epiphany, so maybe we should leave it there. I don't think either of us are going to budge, lol.

I do agree that we should end it here. However I will make my closing statement to say this. Your argument has shifted fundamentaly from whether the word should exist to what the definition of the word is. This in itself shows the importance that that the word holds. So back to the origional question, yes Athiest should exist as a word as it allows us the means and tools to better define ourselves and our beliefs. Should the definition change? maybe. But untill the time that god can be (dis)proven, or religion becomes irrelevent, the word does need to be here.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

lots of space

And my point, again, is that the definition of Atheism should not be as you two describe. That is the debate that has existed for as long as theologians have existed. Some people like the definition you linked, and some people want it changed. Some people believe Atheism means knowing there is no god. Some people believe Atheism means having no reason to believe there is a god.

But I don't think the two of us arguing about it will achieve some sort of epiphany, so maybe we should leave it there. I don't think either of us are going to budge, lol.

Actually, your point was originally that it shouldn't be a thing as it was redundant, and has since been changing consistently.

My point was that your definition, and by extension, entire point, was incorrect.

Can you stop quoting me and arguing out of context? I was obviously saying that my it was my point from the start of the argument around the definition of Atheism, not that my the entire point of the thread was an argument about my definition of Atheism.

You continually fail to grasp the discussion and I think I'm going to have to ignore you to avoid further pointless argument.

 

[DugMachine]

Because as everybody else has said, we need to shit to label ourselves. It's a whole lot easier to say "I'm Atheist" than it is to say "Sorry, I have no belief in any gods as there is no proof." And saying "None." and just leaving it at that makes you seem more like a dick than just saying atheist.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Again, not all atheists actively believe there is no god(s). It can be passive. To be an atheist you don't have to believe there is no god(s) you just have to not believe there is.

Weren't you just arguing with me because I said Atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack?

Or were you arguing that Atheism can mean that and also the belief of lack? In which casem ignore this post entirely.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Your argument has shifted fundamentaly from whether the word should exist to what the definition of the word is.

I'm only arguing the definition because everyone else is arguing against my definition. In reality, I don't care. My point regarding the definition stands--that I believe Atheism refers to a lack of belief, not a belief of lacking--but I didn't want this to be about that. I wanted this to be about how insane it is that the world is so overcome with religion that we feel the need to label ourselves no religious.

 

[Kordie]

This is kind of a silly thread. Atheism is a word that describes the natural state of a human being; we're all born atheists. Saying that the word "atheist" shouldn't exist is like saying the word "exist" shouldn't exist... it's a self-defeating line of reasoning. Seriously, it's a word, just a damned word.

Lets throw a wrench in all this... Atheism is the belief that there is no god, theism is the belief that there is a god. A child born has no knowledge of the concept of god. Thus a child born does not believe there is no god, or believe there is one. Untill the concept is introduced he is neither a theist nor an atheist. It is only when the concept is added that one can make a choice and say yes there is, or no there isnt...

Think of it as schroedingers baby. he exists in neither and both forms untill the concept is introduced at which point his system collapses and he forms an opinion/belief.

This is the first post ive seen that has called grey out on this. His entire argument is based on a baby having a default blank setting. Which also means that baby must choose to be atheist, therefore we need a word for that choice.

My entire argument from the very first post has been that Atheism is the lack of a choice, not choosing not to believe. You are born with no religious agenda and no beliefs at all. You don't even know what religion is.

Yes, but then you cannot call yourself atheist. You choose to not believe, therefore you need something to describe the choice. Their isnt a word for what a baby believes because it is unneeded, a baby is not an athiest.

Last post here... maybe... Found a word for it, Ignosticism
The term "ignosticism" is a play on the words "ignorance" and "gnosticism." A direct meaning of ignosticism would mean something like, "ignorance of god(s)," meaning the ignostic doesn't know anything about gods, or doesn't know what the term "god" means
http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Ignosticism

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Nobody else sees it this way because we all own a dictionary. Get it?

Nobody else sees it my way? Did you not read the OP? You know, where I quoted the neuroscientest who wants the word Atheist gone?

Yeah. Nobody. lamo.