The definition of atheism

quote:

---

atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.

---

No, negetive to the theists.For example, a converstation between an Atheist (A) and a Theist (T):A: blah blah science blah logic blah blah, I'm an Atheist.T: What!? There's no evidence to suggest that god doesn't exist, how can you positively affirm that he doesn't?A: Well, I don't hold the belief that he does not exist, I am just lacking the belief that he does.T: ok, whatever.That initial What!? is the shock value I'm talking about. I don't know if thats why they choose the word, which is why I asked the questions in the OP.It seems that we don't have a word to describe that position, so it gets lumped in with atheist. Which I think makes the word athiest too broad, it makes it abiguous. Like it was said, everyone who isn't a thiest is an atheist, it kinda ruins the word.

I didn't mean to: I was just taking it to the logical conclusion in the case of your "most extrem absolute" end of the spectrum with:"So you would agree that {confident and absolutely certain} would be an extreme position based on {faith\belief} in the absolute truth of no-god?"I also note that having a wide spectrum within the definition leads itself to qualiers to denote the levels involved.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But I don't see atheist viewing this position as shocking, rather just a statement of fact, no different than saying "I'm a catholic" or whatever.And if the speaker doesn't think of it as having shock value then they would not use it for that.I also do not know of a single atheist, apatheist, agnostic that thinks their beliefs make them immoral, but rather that a logical and objective outlook makes them more so, so they would be looking at the first or second definitions and dismissing the synonyms {there have been other threads on this aspect if you want to pursue this line -- maybe an admin can point to one}.And again, if they dismiss the immoral issue as nonsense, then they have no negative connotation themselves and would not see the term as having that for others.If I wanted to go for shock value I would say something more like "I'm a godless heathen who thinks all theists have been brainwashed and that all religions are cults ..."{... theist slowely backs away with look of mounting alarm ...}Start with the concept that everyone thinks their belief is logical and rational and see where that takes you.This message has been edited by RAZD, 07*25*2005 08:33 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

a childs first god is his mom.can't you believe in gods before having a concept of them?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The hypethetical scenario is that the person doesn't fit the definition of atheism, but chooses to use that word to describe themself, knowing that the theist will be shocked that someone would hold such an irrational position, then the self proclaimed athiest reveals that they hold a position that is different from the literal definition of the word atheism. Is this some idealistic scenario? I'm sure that the atheist knows that many theists, particularly the extreme ones, see atheism as having a negetive connotation, which is prolly why the synonym is in there in the first place. When a fundy christian sees "atheist", don't you think that they see something closer to "a godless heathen who thinks all theists have been brainwashed and that all religions are cults" rather than "a person who is without a belief in god"?I'm not trying to support the idea that the person who uses the term athiest is actually using it for shock value, I'm supporting my position that if I don't know why they use that term, then shock value is a legitimate reason to consider.

It is right before your eyes CS. Its stated in the definition your qouted - "Godlessnes". If you do not have a god, you are an atheist. Wether you believe that there can exist no godsm or you just dont believe in gods you are godless.A newborn baby is godless and thus an atheist. Only when it is smart enough to meet the concept of a god can it start believing and thus become a theist.And really believing in no god or not believing in any god is to a large extend semantics./SorenThis message has been edited by kongstad, 26-Jul-2005 11:33 AM

quote:

---

The hypethetical scenario is that the person doesn't fit the definition of atheism, but chooses to use that word to describe themself, knowing that the theist will be shocked that someone would hold such an irrational position, then the self proclaimed athiest reveals that they hold a position that is different from the literal definition of the word atheism.

---

Atheism is irrational? Pot, Kettel Black. Why is strong atheism irrational in the mind of a theist? Doesn't a theist believe in an unprovable entity?

quote:

---

When a fundy christian sees "atheist", don't you think that they see something closer to "a godless heathen who thinks all theists have been brainwashed and that all religions are cults" rather than "a person who is without a belief in god"?

---

When you believe in a god your a theist. when you are not a theist you are an atheist. So one would merely be using the correct nomeclature for oneself when one call oneself an atheist.That some fundies think atheists are immoral, godhating (and propably quers as well) is their problem.Last time I checked everyone is allowed freedom of religion, and that implies freedom from religion. It would be silly to invent new words to soothe the minds of religious freeks. If they are shocked by the fact that some people are different from them, then good! Perhaps they wouldn't be as judgemental./Soren

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. Believing that god does not exist is godlessness but godlessness is not necessarily believing that god does not exist. So, being an atheist is being godless, but being godless isn’t necessarily being an atheist, by definition. Strong atheism is just as irrational as theism, but I write my irrationality off with faith. Why are the strong atheists being so irrational? Not according to the definition in the dictionary.

Depends on the dictionary I think. I googled the definition of Atheist and got this. The very first in the list. Wikepedia.org

quote:

---

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, along with the spread of rationalism and humanism, atheism had become a common position, predominant among scientists in particular (see contemporary atheism).

---

(Emphasis added)
It seems it can mean a lot of things but at least one of them is "being without theistic beliefs"and here is another one. Atheism.about.com. Still on the first google page and so far nothing to suggest otherwise.

quote:

---

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

---

There are plenty of definitions that show this.

The problem is that I still don't see such a person believing in it's having shock value even to a fundie, as that is assuming a naivet on the part of the fundie that is itself irrational: that this person was not aware of the concept of atheism. No. Just "godless heathen"Which is why I added the rest to make it more "in your face" for shock value. Going for "a godless heathen who sacrifices babies ... etc would have been too much and would (properly ...) be taken for sarcasm.What I find many "fundy Christian" actually think are {atheists} are "any person who does not share my specific belief in god" and that whatever belief is held is irrelevant (Buddhist no different than atheist or Hindi or even other Christian ... they're all going to burn eternally) and no one other belief is more shocking than the others. Because you don't believe in the correct god you don't believe in god, or some such logic(al lapse). No, the atheist sees the extremist fundie as closed minded to all other beliefs, and he considers the fundies to be foolish -- which renders their opinion irrelevant no matter if positive or negative.Perhaps you are projecting a fundie outlook on non-fundies without realizing that there are fundamental differences in the way things are perceived.I used a jigsaw analogy for this before on another board:You have different groups of people at different tables each with may 50% of a jigsaw and a box that didn't match the puzzle, a different box for each group. Different groups had different parts of the same jigsaw puzzle and there was some overlap between different groups."scientists" put the pieces together that fit together and traded information on missing areas with other groups, pieces that did not fit were saved waiting for further information."fundies" put the pieces where they needed to be to fit the picture, if they didn't fit together, then you just needed faith that they were in the right place, and they completely discarded those pieces that did not fit as being to the wrong puzzle.The "scientists" are correct if you want to assemble the pieces and see what the picture is, but the "fundies" are correct if you want to reproduce the picture on the box. In any event, they have fundamentally different perspectives.Enjoyps - The synonym is there because the dictionary was written by christians and not atheists. Check it out.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

People are different. Any term used to describe more than 100 people needs to be broard, because that many people hardly ever totally agree on anything.An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in whatever god is currently being discussed. Of course there are varying degrees to it, strong- weak- positive- ..of course people want to describe their positions more accurately. It's the same thing with any word that describes a large amount of people, simply because people are different.It's the same with Catholic. Strict Catholic.. Practicing Catholic.. Non-Practicing Catholic.. People are different. When so many people get labelled with the same term qualifiers and identifiers are always invented to add distinction. But only used when such specification is desired.My name is Geoffrey Robert Rastas. When I meet someone I say "Hi, my name is Geoff". This is not lying, this is not being deceitful or disengenuous. This is being sufficiently specific. Not only will most people not care to hear my full name, but it's hardly worth the breath to draw any idle conversation out to any longer length. If someone is interested to learn more about my personal indentification, they are free to ask.I doubt that any one person can totally sum up their full beliefs in a single identifying word which can be used to equally and validly describe a handful of others, let alone millions.Yes, many people will call themselves atheists. You now know they do not believe in god. If you'd like a more specific answer.. you're just going to have to ask.