• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheist Self Identification

Frank Apisa said:
The "broader definition" is based on an error in etymology of the word...and is used as you are using it here...as self-serving diversion..
Click to expand...

There are many definitions of atheism, some are defined as "belief that God doesn't exist".
Some do not.
Do not debate that, its accepted as fact. Again, no need to ever post it in this debate, if you do have to, simply link a single definition, no discussion needed.
------------
As a result, the term atheist without clarification is ambiguous (since definitions are all over the place...well, old definitions or religious based ones anyway).

(wiki and google definitions both include "rejection of belief in the existence of deities", they are up-to-date on this)

In the modern era, with the internet, information competes at relatively absurdly high rate. To refine that definition, self identifying atheists, rather than accept a label form the religious, have analyzed "what is reasonable" for the term atheist. Definitions are revised all the time based on usage, accuracy, etc. In science, in philosophy, in popular culture, etc. This too is a fact, its not debatable, it simply is.

The broader definition is actually based on making atheism:
accurate (unambiguous)
consistent

Worthy goals don't you agree? You seem to want to fight it...what are your goals, why would you not want to improve the consistency and accuracy of a term like that?


1. Accuracy: (example: having no belief in the existence of deities)
All reasonable examples of atheists correctly fall under this definition.
All non atheists correctly are excluded from this definition.

2. Logical consistency:
If a theist has religious beliefs, a non-theist, logically, has no such religious beliefs. "a"
It is consistent, when compared to "without God", which is ambiguous at best, and accepts God first, then claims "without", its a religious term from the religious perspective.

Atheism, as it turns out, is not from the religious perspective....

You can disagree with that of course. But reasoned debaters (as we've told you time and time again), would like to see justification for that disagreement. Specific reasons that justify your opposition.

If you simply pull a Frank and claim "I disagree!" <- that's unfortunate, it's also not debate, it's forfeiture.
 
TheGoverness said:
Your statements make no sense.
Click to expand...

My statements are correct.

The definition of atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. That's it.
Click to expand...

Well...there are a lot of dictionaries that disagree with that. Here are a few I found without much trouble:


MacMillan Dictionary

the belief or theory that God does not exist

atheism American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

American Heritage Dictionary

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=atheism

Merriam Webster Dictionary

1. a : a disbelief in the existence of deityb : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster

Cambridge Dictionary

someone who believes that God does not exist

atheist Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


Atheism is NOT at belief system.
Click to expand...

In many cases...IT IS.
 
Mach said:
There are many definitions of atheism, some are defined as "belief that God doesn't exist".
Some do not.
Do not debate that, its accepted as fact. Again, no need to ever post it in this debate, if you do have to, simply link a single definition, no discussion needed.
------------
As a result, the term atheist without clarification is ambiguous (since definitions are all over the place...well, old definitions or religious based ones anyway).

(wiki and google definitions both include "rejection of belief in the existence of deities", they are up-to-date on this)

In the modern era, with the internet, information competes at relatively absurdly high rate. To refine that definition, self identifying atheists, rather than accept a label form the religious, have analyzed "what is reasonable" for the term atheist. Definitions are revised all the time based on usage, accuracy, etc. In science, in philosophy, in popular culture, etc. This too is a fact, its not debatable, it simply is.

The broader definition is actually based on making atheism:
accurate (unambiguous)
consistent

Worthy goals don't you agree? You seem to want to fight it...what are your goals, why would you not want to improve the consistency and accuracy of a term like that?


1. Accuracy: (example: having no belief in the existence of deities)
All reasonable examples of atheists correctly fall under this definition.
All non atheists correctly are excluded from this definition.

2. Logical consistency:
If a theist has religious beliefs, a non-theist, logically, has no such religious beliefs. "a"
It is consistent, when compared to "without God", which is ambiguous at best, and accepts God first, then claims "without", its a religious term from the religious perspective.

Atheism, as it turns out, is not from the religious perspective....

You can disagree with that of course. But reasoned debaters (as we've told you time and time again), would like to see justification for that disagreement. Specific reasons that justify your opposition.

If you simply pull a Frank and claim "I disagree!" <- that's unfortunate, it's also not debate, it's forfeiture.
Click to expand...

What are you saying, Mach?

I am defending what I wrote!

I wrote that SOME atheists have an active belief that there are no gods; SOME have an active belief that it is not even possible for gods to exist; SOME simply assert there are no gods.

That is unassailable. WE see evidence of that right here in this forum.

Why should I accept, as some want me to, that it is merely the lack of a belief in a god?

That concept is predicted entirely on a single mistake (or misdirection) about the etymological derivation of the word.

I also am saying that it is my experience that MOST atheists I have met outside the Internet (and there are plenty of them) claim the most strident of strong atheism.

I SUSPECT...MOST atheists...even the ones claiming weak atheism...have a "belief" that there are no gods. I SUSPECT the one who claim they call themselves "atheists" only because the dictionary requires that they do so (they lack belief in a deity)...are faking it.

You may suspect I am wrong.

Fine.
 
Frank Apisa said:
My statements are correct.



Well...there are a lot of dictionaries that disagree with that. Here are a few I found without much trouble:


MacMillan Dictionary

the belief or theory that God does not exist

atheism American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

American Heritage Dictionary

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=atheism

Merriam Webster Dictionary

1.a : a disbelief in the existence of deityb : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster

Cambridge Dictionary

someone who believes that God does not exist

atheist Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary




In many cases...IT IS.
Click to expand...

The Definition:

a·the·isml
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; a disbelief in the existence of deity*

And can you provide some examples on how atheism is 'often' a belief system?
 
I might add that I explain my agnosticism in no uncertain way:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.


I think the atheists here should do that same thing. I'd love to know how many atheists are NOT influenced by a "belief" that there are no gods...in selecting the designation "atheist."
 
TheGoverness said:
The Definition:

a·the·isml
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; a disbelief in the existence of deity*

And can you provide some examples on how atheism is 'often' a belief system?
Click to expand...

I gave you several examples of dictionaries showing that you were incorrect in saying that a lack of belief in gods is all that it is.

Stop with the nonsense.
 
Atheism isn’t a belief system in exactly the same way theism isn’t a belief system. They can both form a basis for various different belief systems the atheism and theism aren’t systems in and of themselves.

You can make apple pie but that doesn’t mean apples are a kind of pie.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I might add that I explain my agnosticism in no uncertain way:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.


I think the atheists here should do that same thing. I'd love to know how many atheists are NOT influenced by a "belief" that there are no gods...in selecting the designation "atheist."
Click to expand...

You understand that most atheists are actually atheist-agnositcs, right? I can't 100% disprove the existence of a god, but I see no credible evidence for one so I do not believe in one.
 
TheGoverness said:
You understand that most atheists are actually atheist-agnositcs, right? I can't 100% disprove the existence of a god, but I see no credible evidence for one so I do not believe in one.
Click to expand...

That comment you made earlier...and have now retracted tell it like it is.

YOU DO think atheists believe there are no gods.

There is no need for 100% for it to be a belief. There are many theists who acknowledge that they cannot prove the existence of a god...but that they "believe" there is one.

There is, as you say, no credible evidence for gods...so you do not believe gods exist.

Fine.

There is no credible evidence for life of any sort on any other body in this solar system...BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME.

So the default should be agnostic...I do not know if there is any such life.

The "atheist" part really is saying "I believe there are no gods"...AND YOU KNOW THAT.

The atheist part is BELIEF...not the absence of belief that is being sold on the Internet.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I might add that I explain my agnosticism in no uncertain way:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.


I think the atheists here should do that same thing. I'd love to know how many atheists are NOT influenced by a "belief" that there are no gods...in selecting the designation "atheist."
Click to expand...

What you're describing is atheism, not agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the philosophical position that knowledge of something is unattainable. That could be deities, or free will, or a million other philosophical concepts. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a deity. You could be an agnostic Christian (in fact, most Christians are essentially agnostic, claiming that their god is unknowable by humans).

Atheism is usually a lack of belief in gods due to a lack of evidence. In minority cases, it may be a belief there are no gods, but that is NOT what most atheists are.

Laypeople often use both "agnostic" and "atheist" incorrectly. But if we're trying to have a real philosophical discussion, agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge, and atheism is a position on the knowledge we currently have. They are totally different propositions, not part of the same sliding scale.
 
I am an atheist because I don't believe in gods, for the same reason that I don't believe in unicorns, there is no objective evidence to support it. So long as there is no objective evidence, I will not believe. It's that simple.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What you're describing is atheism, not agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the philosophical position that knowledge of something is unattainable. That could be deities, or free will, or a million other philosophical concepts. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a deity. You could be an agnostic Christian (in fact, most Christians are essentially agnostic, claiming that their god is unknowable by humans).

Atheism is usually a lack of belief in gods due to a lack of evidence. In minority cases, it may be a belief there are no gods, but that is NOT what most atheists are.
Click to expand...

Baloney.

Neither of us will be able to prove our position...but it is my opinion that the MAJORITY of atheist describe themselves as atheists NOT because the lack a belief in gods, but because they have an active belief that there are no gods.

The mock the idea of gods...the mock theism. They laugh at it.

MOST of them seem to be as "certain" that there are no gods...as theists are "certain" that there is a GOD.


Laypeople often use both "agnostic" and "atheist" incorrectly. But if we're trying to have a real philosophical discussion, agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge, and atheism is a position on the knowledge we currently have. They are totally different propositions, not part of the same sliding scale.
Click to expand...

Okay...which is why I describe my agnosticism the way I do.

Here it is again:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.


My agnosticism not only acknowledges that I do not know...but also gives a reason for not wanting to guess in either direction.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Baloney.

Neither of us will be able to prove our position...but it is my opinion that the MAJORITY of atheist describe themselves as atheists NOT because the lack a belief in gods, but because they have an active belief that there are no gods.

The mock the idea of gods...the mock theism. They laugh at it.

MOST of them seem to be as "certain" that there are no gods...as theists are "certain" that there is a GOD.

Okay...which is why I describe my agnosticism the way I do.

Here it is again:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.


My agnosticism not only acknowledges that I do not know...but also gives a reason for not wanting to guess in either direction.
Click to expand...

...And yet every single atheist on this thread has said they simply lack belief, rather than believing god doesn't exist?

Why do you think you know what atheists believe better than they do?

Some people find it funny when people expect you to believe something with absolutely no evidence. :shrug: That says nothing about whether they think it's impossible for it to exist. It's just weird for someone to tell you an outrageous story and then not give you any evidence it ever happened and say you have to believe in it. Is that not a bit absurd?

If someone told you Hillary Clinton climbed Mouth Everest with a German Shepard strapped to her back, would you require evidence before you believed it? I mean, I suppose she could have. That's physically possible. But would you believe it without evidence? Would you possibly even giggle a bit at someone who expect you to do so?

Actually, doesn't that happen all the time on DP when someone provides an outrageous story from a bad source? Haven't you done that yourself?

Why is it any different with religious claims?

Well, the way you are describing agnosticism is linguistically wrong. You can't change the meaning of words to be whatever you want them to be.

Your position is atheism. Exactly the same as most of the atheists in this thread. Exactly the same as me (though as I said in my first post, I am considering ignostic monism).

You've simply bought into a non-existent strawman put up by the religious, and allowing it to speak for atheists for things they never said.
 
Nilly said:
Atheism is a very broad label that addresses my general belief towards gods. That positive claims about their existence are unsubstantiated.

However, my specific 'flavor' of atheism (strong, weak, defacto etc) depends on the nature of god in question. I have different beliefs about different claims of god.

The following is a great video that honestly influenced a lot of my own conclusions on the topic.

Click to expand...


That was excellent. It says all of the things that I've been saying for years, and which theists refuse to acknowledge.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The religious don't believe that because they've never met an atheist who simply rejects unfounded beliefs. They have, because that's the vast majority of atheists. They believe it because they can't debate against our real position, so they just make one up that's easier for them. By creating a false narrative of what atheists think, it's easier to shoot down. Their strawman is a weaker argument than our real position, which they prefer.

Anyway, I've also been an atheist who lacks belief since forever. I am thinking of re-classifying myself as an ignostic monist though.
Click to expand...

No, theists have met atheists who reject unfounded beliefs, as you said, the overwhelming majority of atheists do just that. They just can't accept that they've met them, or that they exist at all, because that makes their own beliefs rejectable for rational reasons. Therefore they just claim it simply cannot happen because it makes them feel better to think that.

And redefining terms never changes anything. Even calling yourself an ignostic monist doesn't stop you from being an atheist, since ignostic is just a subset thereof anyhow. Plus, nobody is going to have a clue what you're talking about and you'll just have to explain, which defeats the purpose of using labels to begin with.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
...And yet every single atheist on this thread has said they simply lack belief, rather than believing god doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Really?

Perhaps you ought to read page 1 again.

Why do you think you know what atheists believe better than they do?
Click to expand...

I don't. I think I know better what atheists are willing to acknowledge.



Some people find it funny when people expect you to believe something with absolutely no evidence. :shrug: That says nothing about whether they think it's impossible for it to exist. It's just weird for someone to tell you an outrageous story and then not give you any evidence it ever happened and say you have to believe in it. Is that not a bit absurd?
Click to expand...

I do not believe gods exist. I also do not believe no gods exist. I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I am not willing to include or exclude anything.

If someone told you Hillary Clinton climbed Mouth Everest with a German Shepard strapped to her back, would you require evidence before you believed it? I mean, I suppose she could have. That's physically possible. But would you believe it without evidence? Would you possibly even giggle a bit at someone who expect you to do so?
Click to expand...

C'mon!

Actually, doesn't that happen all the time on DP when someone provides an outrageous story from a bad source? Haven't you done that yourself?

Why is it any different with religious claims?
Click to expand...

Nope. Nor do I do that kind of thing.

Well, the way you are describing agnosticism is linguistically wrong. You can't change the meaning of words to be whatever you want them to be.
Click to expand...

It most assuredly is not wrong...and in any case, it explains my take on the issue as completely as I can present it.

Your position is atheism. Exactly the same as most of the atheists in this thread. Exactly the same as me (though as I said in my first post, I am considering ignostic monism).
Click to expand...

I am not an atheist.

You've simply bought into a non-existent strawman put up by the religious, and allowing it to speak for atheists for things they never said.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I brought no straw men into this conversation.
 
Cephus said:
No, theists have met atheists who reject unfounded beliefs, as you said, the overwhelming majority of atheists do just that. They just can't accept that they've met them, or that they exist at all, because that makes their own beliefs rejectable for rational reasons. Therefore they just claim it simply cannot happen because it makes them feel better to think that.

And redefining terms never changes anything. Even calling yourself an ignostic monist doesn't stop you from being an atheist, since ignostic is just a subset thereof anyhow. Plus, nobody is going to have a clue what you're talking about and you'll just have to explain, which defeats the purpose of using labels to begin with.
Click to expand...

As your your first point: That's what I said.

As to your second, it potentially does actually. Depends what "god" is. God could be the big bang, depending on who's defining it. God could even be a product of human thought which is real because it causes unpredictable actions in people, like in anomalous monism or existential omnism/pantheism. Therefore all gods ever worshipped by anyone are or were real. This is similar to how race is real socially because it causes action, while simultaneously being non-existent biologically.

While I would continue to be atheist regarding all human-proposed gods as described, there are many other possibilities that aren't described, don't require supernatural origins, or which rest on things that are already proven. This is why asking "does god exist" is a nonsense question. We haven't defined god.

I don't care whether anyone here has a clue what I'm talking about. What I care about is that real philosophy (as opposed to the simplistic nonsense that goes on at DP) interests me and I like pursuing it for its own sake and for my own curiosity. People with the same interest as me will understand it. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
Really?

Perhaps you ought to read page 1 again.

I don't. I think I know better what atheists are willing to acknowledge.

I do not believe gods exist. I also do not believe no gods exist. I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I am not willing to include or exclude anything.

C'mon!

Nope. Nor do I do that kind of thing.

It most assuredly is not wrong...and in any case, it explains my take on the issue as completely as I can present it.

I am not an atheist.

Nonsense. I brought no straw men into this conversation.
Click to expand...

Saying "nuh-uh" over and over again is not a refutation.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is, as you say, no credible evidence for gods...so you do not believe gods exist.

Fine.

There is no credible evidence for life of any sort on any other body in this solar system...BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME.

So the default should be agnostic...I do not know if there is any such life.
Click to expand...

Atheism IS the lack of a belief in a god.
And you're whole "There might be some" argument is the exact reason why I said most atheists are agnostic-atheists. We lack a belief in god because of no credible evidence, but we cannot 100% prove that there isn't a God, or that one doesn't exist.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Saying "nuh-uh" over and over again is not a refutation.
Click to expand...

Neither is saying "Saying "nuh-uh" over and over again is not a refutation."

But this is the kind of thing that goes on in an Internet forum.

Anyway...let's take your first point. You wrote:

And yet every single atheist on this thread has said they simply lack belief, rather than believing god doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

That is incorrect...and I am suggesting you read the comments on page 1 of the thread to see why I say that.

But if you want to think that the discussion that goes on in DP is nothing but "simplistic nonsense"...fine with me. I do wonder why you would participate, though.

For me...this is interesting and stimulating...which is why I participate. Lots of name calling and anger...but I can tell you that if the opportunity arose, I would meet anyone in this forum for beer and burger...and have a great time doing it.
 
Congratulations.
I think that there are 2 types of atheists. Religious atheists who are dogmatic and proselytizing and who try so hard to convince others of their righteousness. They believe that there is no god by faith alone. And are so fundamental when confronted. All signs of a religion. And there is your type. Nothing wrong with being an atheist as long as you are not religious about it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Neither is saying "Saying "nuh-uh" over and over again is not a refutation."

But this is the kind of thing that goes on in an Internet forum.

Anyway...let's take your first point. You wrote:
Click to expand...

You didn't give me anything to refute.

So you're going to cop out with "everyone is doing it"?

That is incorrect...and I am suggesting you read the comments on page 1 of the thread to see why I say that.

But if you want to think that the discussion that goes on in DP is nothing but "simplistic nonsense"...fine with me. I do wonder why you would participate, though.

For me...this is interesting and stimulating...which is why I participate. Lots of name calling and anger...but I can tell you that if the opportunity arose, I would meet anyone in this forum for beer and burger...and have a great time doing it.
Click to expand...

Why I participate? Honestly, mostly just to keep my tolerance up for the activist side of my life, where most discussion is also simplistic nonsense.

When I read and study this stuff for fun, I'm doing it for me, and I'm mostly not taking it here because no one will engage me seriously. I have friends for that.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
As to your second, it potentially does actually. Depends what "god" is. God could be the big bang, depending on who's defining it. God could even be a product of human thought which is real because it causes unpredictable actions in people, like in anomalous monism or existential omnism/pantheism. Therefore all gods ever worshipped by anyone are or were real. This is similar to how race is real socially because it causes action, while simultaneously being non-existent biologically.

While I would continue to be atheist regarding all human-proposed gods as described, there are many other possibilities that aren't described, don't require supernatural origins, or which rest on things that are already proven. This is why asking "does god exist" is a nonsense question. We haven't defined god.

I don't care whether anyone here has a clue what I'm talking about. What I care about is that real philosophy (as opposed to the simplistic nonsense that goes on at DP) interests me and I like pursuing it for its own sake and for my own curiosity. People with the same interest as me will understand it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

But are those things gods? The Big Bang isn't a god, it's the Big Bang. We already have a perfectly adequate word to use, we don't need to call it a god. Gods, in every single example I can think of, are supernatural entities. The Big Bang is not. If we just use words willy-nilly, then they lose all meaning and are pointless. And while there isn't a single "god" out there, man has invented more than 3000 of them, they are generally reasonably well defined, they just aren't rationally defined. We know what someone is talking about, at least in the broad strokes, when they talk about a particular god, we just have no reason to take that description seriously because it is meaningless in factual reality. You just can't get there from here without wishful thinking. When someone talks about the Christian God, I know, at least in general, what they're talking about, but what they're talking about doesn't translate into anything meaningful in the real world.

But where this really fails is the use of philosophy because it's the only tool they have in their toolbox. But while philosophy might be fine for ideas and concepts, it is meaningless when it comes to facts. Philosophy is incapable of actually proving anything in the real world. You notice that every religious argument is philosophical because they have no actual evidence for anything they believe. So they're trying to argue concepts and then claim those concepts are real, but they're doing it with the wrong tool for the job. But that's because they have a position that is fundamentally rationally indefensible and they're too emotionally attached to the concept to recognize that simple truth.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You didn't give me anything to refute.
Click to expand...

I gave you as much to refute as you gave me.

So you're going to cop out with "everyone is doing it"?
Click to expand...

I merely pointed out that the nonsense you are engaging in...is rampant on the Internet.

I don't think you do it as effectively as most...but whatever.

Why I participate? Honestly, mostly just to keep my tolerance up for the activist side of my life, where most discussion is also simplistic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Seems you have a tendency to think lots of stuff you are not offering is just "simplistic nonsense."

You ought really to give others a bit more respect.

When I read and study this stuff for fun, I'm doing it for me, and I'm mostly not taking it here because no one will engage me seriously.
Click to expand...

I engage anyone who speaks with me "seriously." Most of the others here seem to be serious also.


I have friends for that.
Click to expand...

Great. Considering your attitude, I am happy you have friends at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom