Well then, if they never stopped, surely you can name one public act that was performed recently that cannot be reasonably explained by science such that it must obviously be divine in nature? EG, a man walking on water, blood turning into wine, people being turned into pillars of salt, flooding the entire earth, etc?
So if someone rewords that, say, to "I don't have the belief that there is a God," or "I don't agree with the belief that there is a God," are you saying that's still going to be a belief?
Here's the deal: "I don't believe there is a God" can involve either the statement of disbelief that there is a God, a statement that the person neither believes nor disbelieves in God; or that one specifically disbelieves in God, but not necessarily other theistic entities or beings.
Of these three statements, only the former falls under the category "atheism." And disbelief that there is a God is equivalent to one believing that there is no God.
I think some people here are confusing Atheism with science. Atheism, though it does not 'believe' in the divine, or supernatural, etc, is still a world-view philosophy. It's a set of basic assumptions you assume to be true, so you can make sense of the world around you. This counts as believing, in the sense that you ultimately can't prove it to be 100% true. Science on the other hand, is the process of extracting an objective truth (or as close as we can get) from the world around us. It doesn't matter if you believe in science or not, its findings will still be the same, and true in a near objective context.
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
So if someone rewords that, say, to "I don't have the belief that there is a God," or "I don't agree with the belief that there is a God," are you saying that's still going to be a belief?
Here's the deal: "I don't believe there is a God" can involve either the statement of disbelief that there is a God, a statement that the person neither believes nor disbelieves in God; or that one specifically disbelieves in God, but not necessarily other theistic entities or beings.
Of these three statements, only the former falls under the category "atheism." And disbelief that there is a God is equivalent to one believing that there is no God.
I disagree on all points.
Disbelief in something is not a belief that that thing does not exist; it is a lack of belief that thing does exist. This is a subtle but important difference. "I do NOT believe X" is different from "I do believe NOT X". Only the negation has changed, but what's being negated matters.
Given that, "the person neither believes nor disbelieves" is impossible, since you can either believe something or you can not believe something, you can't be neither. But more importantly, how do you justify jumping from "I don't believe" to "neither believe nor disbelieve"?
If the speaker isn't being sloppy with their language, "I don't believe there is a god" cannot mean a lack of belief in specifically the Abrahamic god without making any statement about other theistic beliefs, because the statement was "a god", not "God". The statement as presented covers all god claims. (If the speaker is using sloppy language, it may be the case that they only mean the Abrahamic god, but I'm not going to assume that to be the case for a hypotheical person.)
Even if I grant in the third interpretation that the statement only refers to the Abrahamic god, it is still an atheistic statement with respect to that god claim. Every theist is atheistic with respect to thousands of other god claims, and the first people labeled as "atheist" in history were the Christians, because they didn't believe in the Greek gods. The people who label themselves "atheist" are generally atheistic with respect to all god claims they have encountered, but in truth they've just gone one god further than any given monotheist (and several gods further than a polytheist).
Like theists, atheists don't all think exactly the same about their (lack of) belief.
There are many people who would begin early life as a theist and later become atheist and vice-versa.
A giant glowing, golden figure descending from the sky one day performing groundbreaking miracles and claiming itself to be God would impress most people, and convince a good number of atheists while giving many theists a sense of affirmation.
But there would be many atheists and even some theists who would still question the veracity of this claimant. Maybe it's an alien attempting to con us, maybe it's Satan in disguise tempting us with the promise of knowing God before death, etc.
The point is, it would certainly be reasonable to expect people to want to be certain. For some people the giant glowing miracle worker is good enough for them. For other people they're still not convinced.
The real test of doubt is whether the object of doubt is still functional despite the doubt. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in gravity, you're going to fall when you lean too far off that cliff.
Now, if there really was a giant, glowing miracle worker from the sky performing miracles (spontaneous transmutation etc), then the most objective atheists and canonist theists alike would still only be able to confidently say "Well, the golden creature is indeed performing miracles. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the god of X faith, even if it claims to be."
That can seem extreme to some people, but it's a perfectly defensible position.
Now, the objective atheists and canonist theists may be categorically wrong in their (lack of) belief, but whether they're right or not is independent of reality.
Arguably, whether the position these people hold is correct or not is only important if there is consequence for it in reality.
To that end, if the golden glowing miracle worker began making demands of the population to go to church every Sunday or face fantastic yet tangible punishment, then if those atheists and theists who did not believe the being to be a divine authority decided not to obey, then they'll simply be punished. They'll still be made to walk with their heads on backwards for a week or whatever. Meanwhile those who did go to church became increasingly blessed with, say, good looks.
Well, that sort of thing would lend credence to the claims of the glowing miracle worker. Obvious directly related evidence for existence, in addition to obvious consequences for objection or trust.
In such a scenario, you can consider foolish those who don't believe in the glowing being.
Still, those people are entitled to their own personal opinion. The opinion does not have to be valid, and they can face detriments in the real world for holding it, but they're capable of having the opinion. Maybe some of them just can't get over that the golden being happens to have a pair of horns on its head. You can at least understand their opinion.
Now, appreciate that atheists in our world have considerably less to go on than a glowing golden giant who works miracles. There just simply isn't enough to go on. You also have theists who hold a personal headcanon of beliefs that keeps them from considering many denominations valid. The thing is there just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence, or obvious directly related consequence for objection or trust in most if not all religions.
Add to that a wealth of details that make the religion harder to swallow or even disagreeable and it's easy to see why someone can lack belief.
For the earnest nonbeliever, they can't bring themselves to believe even if they would like to, because the evidence just doesn't add up for them.
You might like to believe you can fly, for instance. People who believe they can fly can find happiness and meaning in it, but that doesn't mean they can fly.
Your average conventional modern day true believer may go about life thinking God has their back, will reward them in life and grant them eternity in paradise upon death.
Your average conventional modern day atheist just can't manage to convince themselves of all that.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Disbelief in something is not a belief that that thing does not exist; it is a lack of belief that thing does exist.
Which is the same thing as believing that the thing does not exist.
The only way it would not be is if one had neither a belief that the thing exists nor a belief that the thing does not exist. However, this is not atheism.
Given that, "the person neither believes nor disbelieves" is impossible
It isn't. A person could have no opinion about the subject either way, or be unaware of the subject. If I ask someone who has never heard of the nation of Micronesia whether he/she holds a belief in the existence of the nation of Micronesia, that person would be an example of neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of Micronesia. That person would hold no belief one way or the other, because that person never conceived of such a nation.
The statement as presented covers all god claims. (If the speaker is using sloppy language, it may be the case that they only mean the Abrahamic god, but I'm not going to assume that to be the case for a hypotheical person.)
Fair, but one can disbelieve in gods but believe in spirits or Buddhas.
Even if I grant in the third interpretation that the statement only refers to the Abrahamic god, it is still an atheistic statement with respect to that god claim.
If I ask someone who has never heard of the nation of Micronesia whether he/she holds a belief in the existence of the nation of Micronesia, that person would be an example of neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of Micronesia. That person would hold no belief one way or the other, because that person never conceived of such a nation.
I agree that person holds no belief about Micronesia. Which means they do not believe it. Not that they do believe it doesn't exist, but that they don't believe that it does. As I attempted to stress in my previous post (and you didn't quote), the thing being negated matters.
The statement as presented covers all god claims. (If the speaker is using sloppy language, it may be the case that they only mean the Abrahamic god, but I'm not going to assume that to be the case for a hypotheical person.)
Fair, but one can disbelieve in gods but believe in spirits or Buddhas.
I would say that someone believing in supernatural entities which are not gods would not be someone who holds theistic beliefs, though, which is what you said. I certainly agree that someone can believe in supernatural things but not believe in gods, but it requires belief in at least one god in order to be described as holding theistic beliefs.
Even if I grant in the third interpretation that the statement only refers to the Abrahamic god, it is still an atheistic statement with respect to that god claim.
Which is not atheism.
Not atheism as generally defined in the modern day (which is by and large with respect to all god claims), no. But it is an atheistic belief with respect to one god claim.
Not believing a proposition is not the same thing as believing the counter-proposition.
I didn't say it was. What I did say was that of the possible positions that could be included under not believing the proposition, ONLY the counter-position could be called atheism.
I agree that person holds no belief about Micronesia.
Or disbelief.
Which means they do not believe it.
Or disbelieve it.
Not that they do believe it doesn't exist, but that they don't believe that it does.
Correct. However, this is not the case with an atheist. An atheist is not someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in God.
I would say that someone believing in supernatural entities which are not gods would not be someone who holds theistic beliefs, though, which is what you said.
Which is ridiculous. One can worship spirits and form a religion around them. One can worship Buddhas and form a religion around them. If this is atheism, then we broke the dictionary.
Not atheism as generally defined in the modern day (which is by and large with respect to all god claims), no. But it is an atheistic belief with respect to one god claim.
No, it's just not atheism. That's like saying purple is "red" with respect to blue. No, it's purple, which is different from red. Words have meanings.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
I would say that someone believing in supernatural entities which are not gods would not be someone who holds theistic beliefs, though, which is what you said.
Which is ridiculous. One can worship spirits and form a religion around them. One can worship Buddhas and form a religion around them. If this is atheism, then we broke the dictionary.
If it's not a god, it's not theistic. That's what theos means. Something can be supernatural without being theistic.
And yes, there are atheists in the world that believe in supernatural things such as spirits. They are atheists by virtue of the fact that they do not believe in a god. That's not breaking the dictionary, that's using words correctly.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist.
Then they're not atheists.
If it's not a god, it's not theistic. That's what theos means. Something can be supernatural without being theistic.
And yes, there are atheists in the world that believe in supernatural things such as spirits. They are atheists by virtue of the fact that they do not believe in a god. That's not breaking the dictionary, that's using words correctly.
Ok, so if someone were to not believe in gods, but worship Saturn, who is a TITAN, then that person would be an atheist? A titan isn't the same thing as a god, after all.
If it's not a god, it's not theistic. That's what theos means. Something can be supernatural without being theistic.
And yes, there are atheists in the world that believe in supernatural things such as spirits. They are atheists by virtue of the fact that they do not believe in a god. That's not breaking the dictionary, that's using words correctly.
Ok, so if someone were to not believe in gods, but worship Saturn, who is a TITAN, then that person would be an atheist? A titan isn't the same thing as a god, after all.
Or are you starting to recognize the absurdity?
Um... in Greek mythology (and the stolen/re-branded Roman mythology), Titan is a classification of god. The Titans are the second order deities in Greek mythology, after the Primordials (Uranus, Gaia, etc.). The commonly worshiped Olympians (Zeus and his ilk) were the third order deities.
So no, I would not call someone who believes in a Titan but not any Olympians an atheist, because Titans are gods.
I'm sorry if you think that, but there are many self-described atheists who disagree with you.
Demonstrate how one can be an atheist without disbelief in God.
Um... in Greek mythology (and the stolen/re-branded Roman mythology), Titan is a classification of god. The Titans are the second order deities in Greek mythology, after the Primordials (Uranus, Gaia, etc.). The commonly worshiped Olympians (Zeus and his ilk) were the third order deities.
So no, I would not call someone who believes in a Titan but not any Olympians an atheist, because Titans are gods.
Alright, walked into that one.
However, the notion that spirit worship, Buddha worship, and worship of something that isn't semantically a god making someone still an atheist is complete absurdity.
I'm sorry if you think that, but there are many self-described atheists who disagree with you.
Demonstrate how one can be an atheist without disbelief in God.
Under one of the, if not the, most common definitions of atheism used by self-described atheists is about a lack of belief in gods not a complete disbelief in them. Which means you can be agnostic atheist i.e. don't believe but don't claim to know. For examples of self-described atheists who use this definition, see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and various youtube creators who talk about such subjects.
If you don't want to call this atheism, then a lot of atheists are now just agnostics.
However, the notion that spirit worship, Buddha worship, and worship of something that isn't semantically a god making someone still an atheist is complete absurdity.
No it isn't. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists. Literally all there is to atheism is not believing in a god. Atheist doesn't mean rational, it doesn't mean secular, it doesn't mean naturalist, it doesn't mean materialist. It means no god. That's it. It's very, very simple.
An atheist can believe in ghosts, faeries, dragons, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, Roswell Greys, etc. and still be an atheist. An atheist can believe every single crackpot conspiracy theory under the sun and still be an atheist. An atheist can disbelieve the existence of gods for good reasons, for bad reasons, or even because they've never been exposed to the concept of deities. They're still an atheist if they don't hold the positive belief that one or more gods exist.
I like to think of it like the US court system. There are two options: guilt and innocence. The court is only concerned with the first one (guilt). If sufficient evidence isn't presented, then the court finds a dude not guilty. Not "innocent", but "not guilty." His innocence isn't the issue at hand. It's similar to the god claim. There are two options: exists and doesn't exist. Atheism (in the way I and many others use the term) is only concerned with the first one (exists). Given a lack of sufficient evidence, I find god not guilty of existing.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
Of course they're making claims about reality. If I say that I don't believe the statement 'god exists' it means I don't believe god exists. (or, alternatively, I'm saying that I don't believe it can be known if god exists (or not) which makes me an agnostic). If the athiest is lying about their athiesm then their just lying and it's irrelevant to what actual athiests believe.
Athiesm isn't a religion, and it's not a belief *structure* in that - unlike, say, buddhism - there's not a defined set of beliefs to be an athiest.
It can be a philosophy, but doesn't have to be, but it *is* a belief. Are we getting confused about the difference between 'belief' as in faith and 'belief' as in 'thing that is believed?' Because to my mind, the statements 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'the statement 'I believe their is a god' is false' are pretty damn equivalent.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
Atheists believe things. I don't think it's possible to be functional without believing things. But the only trait required to be classified an atheist is not believing one specific thing.
As I said earlier, the reason any given atheist doesn't believe in a god may be due to some other belief, but atheism itself is not a belief.
Because you are adhering to a different and much stricter definition of "disbelief" than most atheists.
You didn't answer the question. Demonstrate that a person can be an atheist in a manner other than the way I have described.
No it isn't. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists.
Which is, again, ridiculous. By this logic, Buddhism is an atheist religion. It is most certainly not. When you're worshiping and venerating a divine being, it is a divine being regardless of whether or not it is semantically a "deity."
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using,
Except that is a completely wrong-headed definition of the word "atheism."
As I've said before, one can lack belief in gods by disbelieving in gods, or by neither believing nor disbelieving in gods. The latter cannot possibly be said to be atheist. As Blinking Spirit said, a rock can neither believe nor disbelieve in gods. It truly holds no beliefs either way. However, a rock is not atheist. It holds no beliefs on religion whatsoever. And that's the point. We can conceive of something that holds no religious beliefs whatsoever and yet is not atheist. We just did that. THEREFORE, "holds no religious beliefs whatsoever" =/= atheism.
There's also the example of an infant child. An infant child cannot be said to either believe or disbelieve in God, because such a child doesn't conceptualize the idea of deities. This child cannot be said to be atheist, nor can he be said to be not-atheist. He cannot be said to be theistic, nor can he be said to be not-theistic.
There's also someone who just has never heard of the concept of deities and has never actually thought about it one way or the other. Not atheist. Not theist.
The incapability of belief doesn't preclude someone or something (i.e. a rock) from falling under the blanket of "does not believe in a god". Now, it's obviously a stretch to call a rock an atheist simply because it's a term we usually use to describe people. But I would definitely argue that infants are atheists, as is anyone who holds zero religious beliefs or has never heard of the concept of deities. The way I'm defining it, which I feel is completely suitable and accurate, is strictly a lack of belief in a god. We're all born atheist. Belief in a god must be taught to us.
A general good practice for laying semantic groundwork before a discussion is that words should be defined so as to make useful distinctions between classes of things.
If you choose to define "atheist" in such a way as to make babies and rocks into atheists, you are encompassing a class of objects so large that it's not useful. Because so many things meet the criteria, calling something "atheist" conveys a very low amount of information.
Laying faulty epistemic groundwork ruins useful conversations before they even begin. You don't need to look very far to find examples of the ensuing collapse of discourse that can result.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
If you choose to define "atheist" in such a way as to make babies and rocks into atheists, you are encompassing a class of objects so large that it's not useful. Because so many things meet the criteria, calling something "atheist" conveys a very low amount of information.
That's actually the point. "Atheist" shouldn't convey much information. All being an atheist says about me is that I don't hold one very very specific belief. Period. It says nothing about my values, my beliefs, my attitude, my sense of morality, NOTHING else.
The incapability of belief doesn't preclude someone or something (i.e. a rock) from falling under the blanket of "does not believe in a god".
Welcome to the conversation. Yes, the rocks and babies fall under "does not believe in a god." However, the entire point is that "does not believe in a god" is a larger umbrella group under which "atheist" is a particular subset, namely, the subset that disbelieves in gods, as opposed to those who neither believe nor disbelieve in gods.
We're all born atheist.
No, we are not all born atheist. We are born neither atheist nor theist. We must learn either stance.
... And I mean, one of my pet peeves is when people try to pull in people into their religious stance who are not of that religious stance, and you're taking it to a whole new level. "Rocks are atheist?" Seriously?
We're all born atheist. Belief in a god must be taught to us.
I don't know about this. The concept of a god or gods must be introduced to you before you can form a stance on the matter. And I think that Atheism is certainly a stance, the belief that gods do not exist, the belief that man is the source of morality in the universe, and a lot of Atheists have no problem watching people use religion as a moral crutch or a substitute for drugs as long as it improves their lives.
The incapability of belief doesn't preclude someone or something (i.e. a rock) from falling under the blanket of "does not believe in a god".
Welcome to the conversation. Yes, the rocks and babies fall under "does not believe in a god." However, the entire point is that "does not believe in a god" is a larger umbrella group under which "atheist" is a particular subset, namely, the subset that disbelieves in gods, as opposed to those who neither believe nor disbelieve in gods.
What I'm trying to say is that I disagree with your definition. "Atheist" is not a subset of "does not believe in god"; "does not believe in god" is the DEFINITION of atheist. Those who neither believe nor disbelieve are atheists.
I think this is an "agree to disagree" situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's the deal: "I don't believe there is a God" can involve either the statement of disbelief that there is a God, a statement that the person neither believes nor disbelieves in God; or that one specifically disbelieves in God, but not necessarily other theistic entities or beings.
Of these three statements, only the former falls under the category "atheism." And disbelief that there is a God is equivalent to one believing that there is no God.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
There are many people who would begin early life as a theist and later become atheist and vice-versa.
A giant glowing, golden figure descending from the sky one day performing groundbreaking miracles and claiming itself to be God would impress most people, and convince a good number of atheists while giving many theists a sense of affirmation.
But there would be many atheists and even some theists who would still question the veracity of this claimant. Maybe it's an alien attempting to con us, maybe it's Satan in disguise tempting us with the promise of knowing God before death, etc.
The point is, it would certainly be reasonable to expect people to want to be certain. For some people the giant glowing miracle worker is good enough for them. For other people they're still not convinced.
The real test of doubt is whether the object of doubt is still functional despite the doubt. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in gravity, you're going to fall when you lean too far off that cliff.
Now, if there really was a giant, glowing miracle worker from the sky performing miracles (spontaneous transmutation etc), then the most objective atheists and canonist theists alike would still only be able to confidently say "Well, the golden creature is indeed performing miracles. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the god of X faith, even if it claims to be."
That can seem extreme to some people, but it's a perfectly defensible position.
Now, the objective atheists and canonist theists may be categorically wrong in their (lack of) belief, but whether they're right or not is independent of reality.
Arguably, whether the position these people hold is correct or not is only important if there is consequence for it in reality.
To that end, if the golden glowing miracle worker began making demands of the population to go to church every Sunday or face fantastic yet tangible punishment, then if those atheists and theists who did not believe the being to be a divine authority decided not to obey, then they'll simply be punished. They'll still be made to walk with their heads on backwards for a week or whatever. Meanwhile those who did go to church became increasingly blessed with, say, good looks.
Well, that sort of thing would lend credence to the claims of the glowing miracle worker. Obvious directly related evidence for existence, in addition to obvious consequences for objection or trust.
In such a scenario, you can consider foolish those who don't believe in the glowing being.
Still, those people are entitled to their own personal opinion. The opinion does not have to be valid, and they can face detriments in the real world for holding it, but they're capable of having the opinion. Maybe some of them just can't get over that the golden being happens to have a pair of horns on its head. You can at least understand their opinion.
Now, appreciate that atheists in our world have considerably less to go on than a glowing golden giant who works miracles. There just simply isn't enough to go on. You also have theists who hold a personal headcanon of beliefs that keeps them from considering many denominations valid. The thing is there just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence, or obvious directly related consequence for objection or trust in most if not all religions.
Add to that a wealth of details that make the religion harder to swallow or even disagreeable and it's easy to see why someone can lack belief.
For the earnest nonbeliever, they can't bring themselves to believe even if they would like to, because the evidence just doesn't add up for them.
You might like to believe you can fly, for instance. People who believe they can fly can find happiness and meaning in it, but that doesn't mean they can fly.
Your average conventional modern day true believer may go about life thinking God has their back, will reward them in life and grant them eternity in paradise upon death.
Your average conventional modern day atheist just can't manage to convince themselves of all that.
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.
Which is the same thing as believing that the thing does not exist.
The only way it would not be is if one had neither a belief that the thing exists nor a belief that the thing does not exist. However, this is not atheism.
It isn't. A person could have no opinion about the subject either way, or be unaware of the subject. If I ask someone who has never heard of the nation of Micronesia whether he/she holds a belief in the existence of the nation of Micronesia, that person would be an example of neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of Micronesia. That person would hold no belief one way or the other, because that person never conceived of such a nation.
Fair, but one can disbelieve in gods but believe in spirits or Buddhas.
Which is not atheism.
I agree that person holds no belief about Micronesia. Which means they do not believe it. Not that they do believe it doesn't exist, but that they don't believe that it does. As I attempted to stress in my previous post (and you didn't quote), the thing being negated matters.
I would say that someone believing in supernatural entities which are not gods would not be someone who holds theistic beliefs, though, which is what you said. I certainly agree that someone can believe in supernatural things but not believe in gods, but it requires belief in at least one god in order to be described as holding theistic beliefs.
Not atheism as generally defined in the modern day (which is by and large with respect to all god claims), no. But it is an atheistic belief with respect to one god claim.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Or disbelief.
Or disbelieve it.
Correct. However, this is not the case with an atheist. An atheist is not someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in God.
Which is ridiculous. One can worship spirits and form a religion around them. One can worship Buddhas and form a religion around them. If this is atheism, then we broke the dictionary.
No, it's just not atheism. That's like saying purple is "red" with respect to blue. No, it's purple, which is different from red. Words have meanings.
If it's not a god, it's not theistic. That's what theos means. Something can be supernatural without being theistic.
And yes, there are atheists in the world that believe in supernatural things such as spirits. They are atheists by virtue of the fact that they do not believe in a god. That's not breaking the dictionary, that's using words correctly.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Ok, so if someone were to not believe in gods, but worship Saturn, who is a TITAN, then that person would be an atheist? A titan isn't the same thing as a god, after all.
Or are you starting to recognize the absurdity?
Um... in Greek mythology (and the stolen/re-branded Roman mythology), Titan is a classification of god. The Titans are the second order deities in Greek mythology, after the Primordials (Uranus, Gaia, etc.). The commonly worshiped Olympians (Zeus and his ilk) were the third order deities.
So no, I would not call someone who believes in a Titan but not any Olympians an atheist, because Titans are gods.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Alright, walked into that one.
However, the notion that spirit worship, Buddha worship, and worship of something that isn't semantically a god making someone still an atheist is complete absurdity.
Under one of the, if not the, most common definitions of atheism used by self-described atheists is about a lack of belief in gods not a complete disbelief in them. Which means you can be agnostic atheist i.e. don't believe but don't claim to know. For examples of self-described atheists who use this definition, see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and various youtube creators who talk about such subjects.
If you don't want to call this atheism, then a lot of atheists are now just agnostics.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No it isn't. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists. Literally all there is to atheism is not believing in a god. Atheist doesn't mean rational, it doesn't mean secular, it doesn't mean naturalist, it doesn't mean materialist. It means no god. That's it. It's very, very simple.
An atheist can believe in ghosts, faeries, dragons, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, Roswell Greys, etc. and still be an atheist. An atheist can believe every single crackpot conspiracy theory under the sun and still be an atheist. An atheist can disbelieve the existence of gods for good reasons, for bad reasons, or even because they've never been exposed to the concept of deities. They're still an atheist if they don't hold the positive belief that one or more gods exist.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Of course they're making claims about reality. If I say that I don't believe the statement 'god exists' it means I don't believe god exists. (or, alternatively, I'm saying that I don't believe it can be known if god exists (or not) which makes me an agnostic). If the athiest is lying about their athiesm then their just lying and it's irrelevant to what actual athiests believe.
Athiesm isn't a religion, and it's not a belief *structure* in that - unlike, say, buddhism - there's not a defined set of beliefs to be an athiest.
It can be a philosophy, but doesn't have to be, but it *is* a belief. Are we getting confused about the difference between 'belief' as in faith and 'belief' as in 'thing that is believed?' Because to my mind, the statements 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'the statement 'I believe their is a god' is false' are pretty damn equivalent.
As I said earlier, the reason any given atheist doesn't believe in a god may be due to some other belief, but atheism itself is not a belief.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Which is, again, ridiculous. By this logic, Buddhism is an atheist religion. It is most certainly not. When you're worshiping and venerating a divine being, it is a divine being regardless of whether or not it is semantically a "deity."
Except that is a completely wrong-headed definition of the word "atheism."
As I've said before, one can lack belief in gods by disbelieving in gods, or by neither believing nor disbelieving in gods. The latter cannot possibly be said to be atheist. As Blinking Spirit said, a rock can neither believe nor disbelieve in gods. It truly holds no beliefs either way. However, a rock is not atheist. It holds no beliefs on religion whatsoever. And that's the point. We can conceive of something that holds no religious beliefs whatsoever and yet is not atheist. We just did that. THEREFORE, "holds no religious beliefs whatsoever" =/= atheism.
There's also the example of an infant child. An infant child cannot be said to either believe or disbelieve in God, because such a child doesn't conceptualize the idea of deities. This child cannot be said to be atheist, nor can he be said to be not-atheist. He cannot be said to be theistic, nor can he be said to be not-theistic.
There's also someone who just has never heard of the concept of deities and has never actually thought about it one way or the other. Not atheist. Not theist.
If you choose to define "atheist" in such a way as to make babies and rocks into atheists, you are encompassing a class of objects so large that it's not useful. Because so many things meet the criteria, calling something "atheist" conveys a very low amount of information.
Laying faulty epistemic groundwork ruins useful conversations before they even begin. You don't need to look very far to find examples of the ensuing collapse of discourse that can result.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
That's actually the point. "Atheist" shouldn't convey much information. All being an atheist says about me is that I don't hold one very very specific belief. Period. It says nothing about my values, my beliefs, my attitude, my sense of morality, NOTHING else.
No, we are not all born atheist. We are born neither atheist nor theist. We must learn either stance.
... And I mean, one of my pet peeves is when people try to pull in people into their religious stance who are not of that religious stance, and you're taking it to a whole new level. "Rocks are atheist?" Seriously?
I don't know about this. The concept of a god or gods must be introduced to you before you can form a stance on the matter. And I think that Atheism is certainly a stance, the belief that gods do not exist, the belief that man is the source of morality in the universe, and a lot of Atheists have no problem watching people use religion as a moral crutch or a substitute for drugs as long as it improves their lives.
What I'm trying to say is that I disagree with your definition. "Atheist" is not a subset of "does not believe in god"; "does not believe in god" is the DEFINITION of atheist. Those who neither believe nor disbelieve are atheists.
I think this is an "agree to disagree" situation.