Scot Dutchy wrote:
This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system.

So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

romansh wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system.

So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system.

So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

OK what is believing god does not exist?

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system.

So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

OK what is believing god does not exist?

Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

zulumoose wrote: Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

While I might not disagree, I would use slightly more formal language as I did here post 217

Scot D and Thomas somehow seem to object.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system.

So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

OK what is believing god does not exist?

Strong, possibly, gnostic atheism.

romansh wrote:

zulumoose wrote: Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

While I might not disagree, I would use slightly more formal language as I did here post 217

Scot D and Thomas somehow seem to object.

I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

romansh wrote:Here's my take on the subject: an atheist is a collective noun for at least one of the following:

weak atheist ... someone who does not have a belief in a god.
agnostic atheist ... someone who does not know whether god exists or not.
strong atheist ... someone who believes god does not exist.
gnostic atheist ... someone who knows god does not exist.

This is the way I use the word atheist and its derivatives.

The following would be closer to the mark

Atheist someone who either seeks rational rather than magical explanations for the existence of the universe or is happy to accept nature as it is, without inquiry.
Anti-theist someone that believes that it is wrong to assert that God(s) exist.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

zulumoose wrote: Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

While I might not disagree, I would use slightly more formal language as I did here post 217

Scot D and Thomas somehow seem to object.

I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

That's OK ... but what would you call someone who denies the existence of god?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:
So somebody who believes god does not exist, does not have a belief system?

Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

OK what is believing god does not exist?

Strong, possibly, gnostic atheism.

Sorry missed your previous post ... yes that is what I said ... so definitions of atheism should include (but not be limited to) hard, strong and gnostic?

If you're interested in what the atheist believes, you should probably use a qualifier. Otherwise, they just find the available evidence for any gods to be unconvincing. Since so many people seem to attack this position as if it were asserting that no gods exist, it seems like a necessary distinction to make, especially since folks seem to intentionally make that mistake in order to foist their burden of proof onto others.

SafeAsMilk wrote:If you're interested in what the atheist believes, you should probably use a qualifier. Otherwise, they just find the available evidence for any gods to be unconvincing. Since so many people seem to attack this position as if it were asserting that no gods exist, it seems like a necessary distinction to make, especially since folks seem to intentionally make that mistake in order to foist their burden of proof onto others.

Don't disagree SaM
My question remains when we use the word "atheism", we obviously include the soft, weak and agnostic qualifiers. But are we excluding the strong, hard, gnostic qualifiers?

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

zulumoose wrote: Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

While I might not disagree, I would use slightly more formal language as I did here post 217

Scot D and Thomas somehow seem to object.

I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

That's OK ... but what would you call someone who denies the existence of god?

Your question is phrased poorly as it implies that someone knows that a god exists but wants to deny it.
I already answered your question re: someone who believes god(s) don't exist: A hard/positive (possibly gnostic) atheist.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist', so your question does not adress SD point.

OK what is believing god does not exist?

Strong, possibly, gnostic atheism.

Sorry missed your previous post ... yes that is what I said ... so definitions of atheism should include (but not be limited to) hard, strong and gnostic?

Yes. It's really simple.
The one thing all atheists have in common is the absence of a belief in deities.
Among those there are those who positively believe gods don't/can't exist, some who think we can never know, some who find it a silly belief, etc.,etc.

But the one thing they all have in common and what makes them atheists, is the lack of belief in gods.

romansh wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:If you're interested in what the atheist believes, you should probably use a qualifier. Otherwise, they just find the available evidence for any gods to be unconvincing. Since so many people seem to attack this position as if it were asserting that no gods exist, it seems like a necessary distinction to make, especially since folks seem to intentionally make that mistake in order to foist their burden of proof onto others.

Don't disagree SaM
My question remains when we use the word "atheism", we obviously include the soft, weak and agnostic qualifiers. But are we excluding the strong, hard, gnostic qualifiers?

No.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:If you're interested in what the atheist believes, you should probably use a qualifier. Otherwise, they just find the available evidence for any gods to be unconvincing. Since so many people seem to attack this position as if it were asserting that no gods exist, it seems like a necessary distinction to make, especially since folks seem to intentionally make that mistake in order to foist their burden of proof onto others.

Don't disagree SaM
My question remains when we use the word "atheism", we obviously include the soft, weak and agnostic qualifiers. But are we excluding the strong, hard, gnostic qualifiers?

No.

So from a clarity point of view why not include positive and negative atheism?

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:If you're interested in what the atheist believes, you should probably use a qualifier. Otherwise, they just find the available evidence for any gods to be unconvincing. Since so many people seem to attack this position as if it were asserting that no gods exist, it seems like a necessary distinction to make, especially since folks seem to intentionally make that mistake in order to foist their burden of proof onto others.

Don't disagree SaM
My question remains when we use the word "atheism", we obviously include the soft, weak and agnostic qualifiers. But are we excluding the strong, hard, gnostic qualifiers?

No.

So from a clarity point of view why not include positive and negative atheism?

Where did I say I didn't? In fact I said the exact opposite: they are subsets of atheism.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:
Don't disagree SaM
My question remains when we use the word "atheism", we obviously include the soft, weak and agnostic qualifiers. But are we excluding the strong, hard, gnostic qualifiers?

No.

So from a clarity point of view why not include positive and negative atheism?

Where did I say I didn't? In fact I said the exact opposite: they are subsets of atheism.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

zulumoose wrote: Believing god does not exist is a hardcore subset of atheism, just like base jumpers are a hardcore subset of adrenalin junkies, or vegans are a hardcore subset of vegetarianism.

While I might not disagree, I would use slightly more formal language as I did here post 217

Scot D and Thomas somehow seem to object.

I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

That's OK ... but what would you call someone who denies the existence of god?

What, they deny the possibility of god existing in their mind whatever evidence is presented to them? That's strong atheism. They still lack belief in god existing.

Would they deny the existence of bigfoot or fairies at the bottom of the garden or would they just consider the tales to be bunkum and unbelievable? It seems an odd position to take and one which theists would prefer people to have since it alllows for their position that the evidence is irrefutable yet some would deny it.

I simply don't believe in god(s). Any of them. The positive belief I hold regarding them is that they are man made constructs, dating back to times when people ignorant of current understanding and knowledge about the world was absent. A creator and someone who controlled phenomenon such as extreme weather, earthquakes, floods etc substituted for knowledge we have available today. Worship and rituals were thought to have influence over these gods and whatever seemed successful in bringing about favourable conditions stuck. If then, something went badly, people were sought to blame, hence the invention of evil/devil's/witches/and others to demonise and blame. Alternatively, scapegoats could be blamed and/or appointed to be sacrificed to the god as appeasement, restoring the good favour of the believers. It genuinely baffles me that people still believe this sort of stuff. You only have to look at those who blame tsunamis or devastating hurricanes on groups like homosexuals who according to some are sinners against god. We know what causes these phenomenon yet still this bullshit superstition persists in some people's minds.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No.

So from a clarity point of view why not include positive and negative atheism?

Where did I say I didn't? In fact I said the exact opposite: they are subsets of atheism.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: I object to atheism in general being defined as the positive claim or belief god(s) don't exist.

Yes. I am saying I object to atheism = the positive claim/belief (a) god(s) exist.
The latter is a subset of the former, not the the whole.