monkeyboy wrote:
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.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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 whole.

romansh wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:
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.

So my point is strong and gnostic atheists are also atheists and I think it is OK to include them in a definition of atheism.

Sorry I missed your point.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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 whole.

So you object to strong/gnostic atheism being the sole definition of atheism?

romansh wrote:
In that case you should have no problem here.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: If you'd read my response to that post, you'd know that I don't.
In that response I was merely pointing out that the only thing all those subsets have in common, and is therefore the best definition of atheism in general, is a lack of belief in deities.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: If you'd read my response to that post, you'd know that I don't.
In that response I was merely pointing out that the only thing all those subsets have in common, and is therefore the best definition of atheism in general, is a lack of belief in deities.

and yet in a subsequent post you said

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist.

Perhaps you 'misspoke'

romansh wrote:and meant Atheism needn't be the belief that god does not exist, but then went on to say Scot did not have to reply. To me this indicated something quite different.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I did not.
The definition of atheism is not 'The belief that god does not exist'.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: If you'd read my response to that post, you'd know that I don't.
In that response I was merely pointing out that the only thing all those subsets have in common, and is therefore the best definition of atheism in general, is a lack of belief in deities.

and yet in a subsequent post you said

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Atheism isn't 'the belief that god does not exist.

Perhaps you 'misspoke' and meant Atheism needn't be the belief that god does not exist, but then went on to say Scot did not have to reply. To me this indicated something quite different.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

The_Metatron wrote:
You thought the statement "a lack of belief in deities", and "the belief that god does not exist" are remotely similar.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I did not.
The definition of atheism is not 'The belief that god does not exist'.

OK but it is a definition of one of the subsets of the atheism. Are we agreed here?I don't quite understand why you think Scot need not answer the question because it is not the definition?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Because some atheists having a positive belief (system) doesn't mean atheism itself is a belief or belief system.

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.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Because some atheists having a positive belief (system) doesn't mean atheism itself is a belief or belief system.

I never claimed it was a system or a belief. I simply asked what do you call someone who believes god does not exist?

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

romansh wrote:
Here is the exact phrasing:

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.

Now I can't help thinking the word system here is ambiguous and does not help the discussion. Personally despite being agnostically minded I can't help but have certain beliefs and whether these fall into a system is moot. So why can't Scot answer the question?

romansh wrote:
I do get the reason for wanting to define atheism using a lowest common denominator.

romansh wrote: But as Metatron pointed out a lack of belief and believing not are different and consequently the definition of atheism is worthy of some nuance. At least in my opinion.

tuco wrote:Assigning atheism to a baby is indeed like assigning atheism to a rock.

---
edit: for all practical purposes essentially meaningless.

laklak wrote:How about apathetic atheism? I don't give a fuck if god exists.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

laklak wrote:How about apathetic atheism? I don't give a fuck if god exists.

That is what atheism is about. There are no subsets or anything else. That is exactly the argument theists try make. They want atheism to be a belief system so as to make comparisons as with for instance catholicism and islam.

It is nothing. An atheist just says there is no evidence of a deity existing. You dont say a deity does not exist but until evidence and that is true scientific evidence, the existence of a deity has not been proven.

If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists.