The definition of atheism

Well since the quoted definition doesn't specify absolute acceptance and common usage is also against your claim it seems quite clear that you are wrong. This page is generally relevant to the subject of the thread and this paragraph is also relevant to the particulat issue: This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-21-2005 04:58 PM

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Hello CS Yes, I guess you would have to say that I do. I have held that position since age 16 and I am 53 now (but don't tell anyone). I have to tell you, I have been struggling to get my head around that one. It is not something I have given any thought to before. I call myself an atheist because I am convinced that we do not share the universe with any higher form of power that you might define as a deity. There may be life out there that is so technologically advanced that they may seem like gods to some people, but I do not subscribe to the notion (see, I avoided the word 'belief') that God, god or gods as defined in the usual contexts ever existed. It is not for shock value that I say this.Crashfrog made the point that there is a world of difference between John Kerry and the new Pope. I agree with him. I also agree with you that they share some core values. Kerry and his wife probably used birth control despite the Pope's opposition -- and there are many other points of difference between them. That, however, does not mean that I think we need a new word to define the differences between Catholics. That said, I would keep the word 'atheism' and simply recognize that atheists share one core belief but differ on their requirements for proof (and perhaps a few other things).This message has been edited by Born Again Atheist, 07-21-2005 04:31 PMThis message has been edited by Born Again Atheist, 07-21-2005 04:40 PM

I would just like to ask then, what part of "to hold as TRUE" appears to you to allow a "tentative" acceptance? If I hold something as TRUE then that implies to me a firm resolve that it is actually TRUE, not some wishy washy "maybe true"
In my experience I would say that common usage of "accept" or "hold as true" pretty much ALWAYS implies an absolute unless the term is preceded by a word such as "tentatively".Why not just do as I have been suggesting in my last couple of posts and look at this from the intended angle of religion and whole hearted belief in god. There really shouldn't be any kind of problem here. I mean do you actually know many religious people who kind of tentatively believe that just maybe there is a god? To many people it's black and white.(Incidentally your link didn't work but I got the url by peaking your message)
This quote from the web page that you linked to places me as a "weak Atheist" though "agnostic" could fit. (emphasis added)

Uhhh, Would you believe the difinition of Atheist?I'm not sure I would at this stage. It's getting a bit weird.

quote:

---

I would just like to ask then, what part of "to hold as TRUE" appears to you to allow a "tentative" acceptance?

---

The whole of it, in that it makes no reference to how strongly the view is held. Therefore it shoudl be read inclusively, covering everything from tentative to absolute accpetance. (And why capitalise "TRUE" ? There's no good reason to do so)Equally the bolding in your quote is not of great significance. The point is that the term is inclusive and covers a wide range of positions.

Which is a bad idea, as the link says:

quote:

---

More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of atheism. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between weak atheism and strong atheism.

---

and it goes on to show the problem of the solution:

quote:

---

Technically, then, every strong atheist will also be a weak atheist, though not every weak atheist will be a strong atheist.

---

and

quote:

---

And someone who confidently and dogmatically affirms that there is no God, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

​

...

​

A weak atheist is therefore someone who both lacks belief that God does exist and lacks belief that God does not exist. Weak atheists are thus what people often refer to as agnostics.

---

Which is why i wrote the OP and asked the following questions:Why do people who are without a belief in god but not with a belief in no god want to be called atheists, even thought that’s not what the word really means?Why change the meaning of the word? Why not come up with a new word? Or find the word that does mean without a belief in god?And I would like to add that being a 'strong' atheist and holding the position of a positive affirmation of the non-existance of god is just as illogical, to science, as believing in god.So then, they could all call themselves weak atheists, but then nobody will no what they believe because the term is so ambiguous and "inclusive and covers a wide range of positions".

It all depends on where a person believes that the source of wisdom resides. If the source of wisdom or truth is believed to originate from human wisdom (within oneself) then and only then can the claim be made that an atheist can determinethe truth and relevance of God, by definition. If, however, and as in times past, God is assumed to be an absolute value and an absolute truth (as well as the source of wisdom and reality) then an atheist simply believes in no such definition.

Obviously I can't speak to the motivation of others. But I can think of several reasons. For instance anyone who wishes to adhere to Huxley's original definition of agnosticism does not have a term to describe the position of neither beleiing that God does exist or that God does not exist. Thus a new term is needed, and "weak atheist" seems a reasonable coinage.

"Why do people who are without a belief in god but not with a belief in no god want to be called atheists, even thought that’s not what the word really means?"Because the word litteraly means "godless", and if you have no belief in any gods you are godless!Atheists are everyone who isn't a theist.Its not much of a definition as it applies to everyone from newborn babies to hardcore atheists, that is from people who have no knowledge of the concept "god" to people who have studied the concept, and positively refuses it, but it makes sense as long as theists exist.The discussion of to not believe or belileve in non existence is a discussion of semantics in a large sense. Do you believe in the existense of the invisible pink unicorn? You may think you do not believe that she either exists or doesnt exist, or you may believe she doesnt exist, but basically your stance can at least be described as an aUPIist stance - since your do not fall in the set of UPI belivers./Soren

Agreed Agreed but with the provision that the preceding adverb (strongly, weakly, tentatively) provides the definition of the strength with which it is held. In the absence of any defining adverb, either the phrase is so ambiguous as to have no real meaning or we have no choice but to arbitrarily apply a perceived meaning at one end or the other of the available spectrum. I see that as absolute. ie. HOLD vs. NOT HOLD. You either DO hold it as true or you DO NOT hold it as true OK I will concede that one. It just got to be a habit. That was just to highlight the description that most closely fits my own views. No other reason.
Yes the term is inclusive and as such it loses a lot of its meaning since it encompasses such a wide range of views.Someone (I think CS) Asked me earlier "Do you call yourself an Atheist?"My answer remains NO.
I don't call myself an Atheist, an Agnostic an aIPUist (I like that one ) or anything. Those are all just labels invented by society to pidgeon hole people.
They are imposed on me by others. During this very discussion I have been catagorized as an Atheist, a Weak Atheist and an Agnostic.
I can't be all 3 (or can I?)
I have just never bothered with self labeling. I don't feel the need to belong to some group or other.
Please feel free to call me whatever you like (preferably something polite though )

That makes a lot of sense and really simplifies things.

I don't think that failing to provide all the details is quite the same as being ambiguous. In the case of definitions, if the degree of conviction in a belief is not specified then it should be assumed to cover the entire spectrum from the most extrem absolute to the most tentative. In normal use we should simply accept that that detail is not provided, and ask for clarification if it is needed. If that is not possible, the default assumption should be somewhere in the middle of the range - confident, but not absolutely certain.

Ok purple Youko it is obvious that you are incapable of admitting when you are incorrect. You seem to think that all that is required to accept a fact or truth or event is to map the information out mathmatically, logically or conduct an experiment or glean the information by past experience. All I was saying is that although those are all methods we employ to accept information as factual sometimes people simply decide to believe. Without believing we would be left no option but to check every single fact, every single experiment. And although you state you do that I do not "believe" you. Sometimes there is no time to reference data that stringentley. Sometimes ya just have to believe. I will not argue the point any futher with you. Everytime your premise is refuted you wiggle and juggle the words to suit your self contrived definition of the word "belief" as is spoken in the world of PurpleYouko. Just add the letters: {IMO} after those type of statements and no one will be able to refute you own personal opinion.

I have done so on a number of occasions. I just don't think I am in this case. Right but I never said that you have to perform an experiment and go looking for applicable data each time before making the decision to believe or not. I simply think that past life experiences are those experiments and data and that they have a very large (probably subconcious) impact on what we choose to believe or not. I have no problem with this. I just think that any decision you make is affected or possibly even entirely dependent on your past experiences and knowledge. You don't have to go and check them. You already know them. Or maybe you think that you suddenly start to "believe" something on a random whim. But my point is that you don't have to physically go and check it all. The necessary information is already right at hand in your own mind. Unless you are saying that personal experiences and knowledge have no effect on any decisions that you might make. All I see is a reasoned conclusion based on past experience and knowledge wheras to me belief implies acceptance (whatever degree you like) of an idea without enough evidence, experience, knowledge to really make the necessary determination. ie. assigning more certainty than is warrented. And yes I am sure this happens sometimes. I just think it is irrationalAs for wiggling and juggling meanings, I have never once moved the goal posts. I have always tried to guide the discussion back to the original context which was the definition of the word BELIEF when applied to BELIEF in god. Apart from discussing absolute definitions with Paulk, I have never deviated from this precise definition of the term. When the subject has been dragged away by others widening the field, I have done everything possible to keep within my originally specified narrow scope.
Attempts to clarify my obviously misunderstood position would be more accurate than "wiggling".
If I failed to make you understand what I was driving at then I apologize but I can assure you that I have never changed any of my original meanings just to argue the point.As for adding the letters {IMO}, did you actually read what my first post in message 22 said? Message 22Both of these quotes emphasize that it is my opinion rather than an asserted fact. I may not have actually used the letters {IMO} but my intended meaning should have been pretty obvious. Wonderful. let's move on to something more productive then.