Atheism

[Eudaimonist]

That is what I mean. I think when an atheist starts to accept the existence of ghost, six-sense, spirit type of thing, then he is not an atheist any more.

Did you read my post? Believing in ghosts isn't the same thing as believing in gods. There's no need for someone to regard ghosts as gods.

So, if an atheist believed in ghost and expected that science would discover some concrete evidences of ghost "in the future", then why wouldn't the atheist also believe in God?

Why should the atheist believe in God? You seem to be suggesting that if someone drops "concrete evidence" as a requirement for belief, they should believe in everything. Now, maybe that someone could believe in just about anything, but that doesn't mean that they will believe in every possible concept. It's more likely that they will gravitate to some worldview and stick with the theme of that system. For some people, this could be ghosts but no God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stiggywiggy]

Nope, you just need to realise there is more than one kind of atheist besides strong atheism, which is the kind containing a definite assertion that no Gods exist.

Fine. You wish to go on record as saying that one can be an atheist and still not claim that there is no god. Can one also be a Christian, and claim that Christ never existed?

Out of curiosity, are you actually reading posts before you respond to them?

Correct, as should be overwhelmiongly obvious by my addressing that which was previously typed by others. It's hard to comment on others' comments without reading them. (What a strange question)

 

[stiggywiggy]

Since you invoked the word "definition", I believe you are in need of a visit from my friend, the dictionary.

atheist: noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

Huh? So they don't claim that which they believe?

So perhaps you need to broaden your understanding of atheism.

I don't think so. Someone (was it you?) said that all atheists don't claim there is no god.

I was correcting that person. Now again, if you'd like to postulate that atheists don't claim that which they believe, that would be another issue, reflecting on the character of atheists, but I'm not interested in that.

 

[Cabal]

Fine. You wish to go on record as saying that one can be an atheist and still not claim that there is no god. Can one also be a Christian, and claim that Christ never existed?

What does the definition of Christianity have to do with the definition of atheism?

Correct, as should be overwhelmiongly obvious by my addressing that which was previously typed by others. It's hard to comment on others' comments without reading them. (What a strange question)

It's just that you made references to weak atheists being "walking oxymorons" without addressing them directly to the person you were in discussion with, who is a weak atheist.

It was either assume you weren't reading closely enough or assume you were being passive-aggressive, but sadly I was incorrect

 

[Cabal]

I was correcting that person. Now again, if you'd like to postulate that atheists don't claim that which they believe, that would be another issue, reflecting on the character of atheists, but I'm not interested in that.

What is the problem with having an opinion but not claiming it as fact? Just because some Christians think it is a character defect does not mean it is. Surely this reflects more on the character of some Christians who think they get to define what it is to be part of a group they do not identify with....

 

[hollyda]

Huh? So they don't claim that which they believe?

I really cannot stress this enough.

Atheism is about disbelief, not belief. You will meet atheists who say "there is no god" but "there is no god" is NOT the same as "I don't believe there is a god." One is an assertion, the other is not. One has the burden of proof, the other does not. And yet, the only thing required of someone who says they are an atheist is not believing in god.

Some atheists (weak atheists) DON'T claim "there is no god." They say, "I don't believe there is." This comes down to the difference between the words gnostic and theistic, and how they apply to religious terms.

gnos·tic   
[nos-tik]
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

the·ism   
[thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

A theistic person would assert: "I do believe in a god(s)." An agnostic theist would assert: "I don't know whether a god(s) exist, but I believe it to be true." A strong theist would assert: "There is a god(s)." The latter is a belief statement.

Whereas, with atheism, you have the atheists who state only: "I do not believe there is a god(s)." This is all one needs to do/think to be an atheist. Broadening that term, an agnostic atheist would assert: "I don't know whether a god(s) exist, but I do not believe it to be true." A strong atheist would assert: "There is no god(s)." The latter is a belief statement.

The difference is in understanding the way words, terms, and definitions apply to various labels, and refraining from broad generalizations. There can be biblical literalists, for example, and those who view the bible more as a collection of allegorical morality plays. I would no sooner say "all Christians are fundamentalists" than one should say "all atheists say there is no god." It's simply not true.

 

[stiggywiggy]

What does the definition of Christianity have to do with the definition of atheism?

Since I've been told here that an atheist cannot be defined as one who claims that there is no god (but believes that which he does not claim??), I asked if a Christian also is unable to be similarly be defined as one who claims Christ exists (even though he believes it).

It's just that you made references to weak atheists being "walking oxymorons" without addressing them directly to the person you were in discussion with, who is a weak atheist.

Wrong guy. I never mentioned "weak atheist." I spoke specificallly of dawkins-style atheists who tout the lack of empirical evidence as evidence that a non-empirical world does not exist.

It was either assume you weren't reading closely enough or assume you were being passive-aggressive, but sadly I was incorrect

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the belief of atheists. Although I'm unclear on what you're trying to say, I suspect you're more interested in what you perceive about my psychological state.

 

[stiggywiggy]

What is the problem with having an opinion but not claiming it as fact? Just because some Christians think it is a character defect does not mean it is. Surely this reflects more on the character of some Christians who think they get to define what it is to be part of a group they do not identify with....

I really don't know how many times I must reiterate that I addressed these remarks SPECIFICALLY to "dawkins-style atheists." I even use that very phrase about five times now in this thread.

Now surely you're not going to now CLAIM that Dawkins does not CLAIM that there is no god.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I really cannot stress this enough.

Atheism is about disbelief, not belief. You will meet atheists who say "there is no god" but "there is no god" is NOT the same as "I don't believe there is a god." One is an assertion, the other is not. One has the burden of proof, the other does not. And yet, the only thing required of someone who says they are an atheist is not believing in god.

Some atheists (weak atheists) DON'T claim "there is no god." They say, "I don't believe there is." This comes down to the difference between the words gnostic and theistic, and how they apply to religious terms.

gnostic
[nos-tik]
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.


pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.


[thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

A theistic person would assert: "I do believe in a god(s)." An agnostic theist would assert: "I don't know whether a god(s) exist, but I believe it to be true." A strong theist would assert: "There is a god(s)." The latter is a belief statement.

Whereas, with atheism, you have the atheists who state only: "I do not believe there is a god(s)." This is all one needs to do/think to be an atheist. Broadening that term, an agnostic atheist would assert: "I don't know whether a god(s) exist, but I do not believe it to be true." A strong atheist would assert: "There is no god(s)." The latter is a belief statement.

The difference is in understanding the way words, terms, and definitions apply to various labels, and refraining from broad generalizations. There can be biblical literalists, for example, and those who view the bible more as a collection of allegorical morality plays. I would no sooner say "all Christians are fundamentalists" than one should say "all atheists say there is no god." It's simply not true.

I didn't really need all that. I kinda already knew it.

Nevertheless, Dawkins is a fool for declaring his certitude that there is no god.

 

[hollyda]

I didn't really need all that. I kinda already knew it.

Nevertheless, Dawkins is a fool for declaring his certitude that there is no god.

I have no opinion on Dawkins. I've never read him, and I don't particularly care to.

Yet I hope you can understand why I thought clarification on the definition of atheism was needed, since you said:

Since you don't claim there is no god, my remarks were not directed toward you, but rather toward ATHEISTS, who by definition claim there is no god. If you've ever met an atheist who does NOT claim there is no God, he is a walking oxymoron.

You indicated above that I could not be an atheist since I never claimed, "There is no god." I was just illustrating making such a claim is not necessary to be an atheist.

 

[someguy14]

As far as dictionary.com is concerned. skeptic is another word for atheist.

Skeptic

 

[stiggywiggy]

You indicated above that I could not be an atheist since I never claimed, "There is no god." I was just illustrating making such a claim is not necessary to be an atheist.

You seem hung up on some supposed huge distinction between believing and claiming. There is nothing which I believe that I will not also claim. Unless I am ashamed to, which admittedly is often the case. But I wouldn't think a deeply held philosophical belief would seem shameful to its adherent.

 

[hollyda]

You seem hung up on some supposed huge distinction between believing and claiming. There is nothing which I believe that I will not also claim. Unless I am ashamed to, which admittedly is often the case. But I wouldn't think a deeply held philosophical belief would seem shameful to its adherent.

I am only hung up on using words correctly, and not mislabeling people due to preconceived notions about what I believe one word or term means versus what it actually means.

And as I and others have said, atheism isn't a belief system. It's the antithesis of a belief system. There is no need to claim anything.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I am only hung up on using words correctly, and not mislabeling people due to preconceived notions about what I believe one word or term means versus what it actually means.

And as I and others have said, atheism isn't a belief system. It's the antithesis of a belief system. There is no need to claim anything.

Hmmm. Different subject, I guess. If an atheist does not claim the belief of that which he believes, perhaps he is merely shy about speaking up.

 

[RobinRobyn]

I have never met anyone who claims to have experienced the reality of Zeus.

A lot of people in Greece would have disagreed with you. And these people too: the Neo-Pagan Journal

And yet we have both met hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ.

And many have seen Elvis since his "death" in 1977. Here is their site, and there's even a map of sightings!

Should both testimonies be given equal weight, i.e. ZERO, when contemplating the POSSIBILITY that there might be a realm that transcends the empirical?

Yes, both should be given equal weight.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You seem hung up on some supposed huge distinction between believing and claiming. There is nothing which I believe that I will not also claim. Unless I am ashamed to, which admittedly is often the case. But I wouldn't think a deeply held philosophical belief would seem shameful to its adherent.

I just came up with what I think is a good way to get a concept across. Consider this conversation.

Theist: "My god exists"
Atheist: "I'm not calling you a liar, but I wont take your word for it."
Theist: "Are you saying my god does not exist?"
Atheist: "No, im saying I dont believe your claim without evidence."
Theist: "Oh right, glad we sorted that out."
Atheist: "Yeah that would have been awkward."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now surely you're not going to now CLAIM that Dawkins does not CLAIM that there is no god.

Honestly, I'd like to see a Dawkins quote to that effect, with context. It is possible that Dawkins is a strong atheist, but I was under the impression that he wasn't.

This is what my research has turned up:

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De factotheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher, he suggested he might be '6.9'[3].


It appears that Dawkins himself isn't a "Dawkins style atheist".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Did you read my post? Believing in ghosts isn't the same thing as believing in gods. There's no need for someone to regard ghosts as gods.



Why should the atheist believe in God? You seem to be suggesting that if someone drops "concrete evidence" as a requirement for belief, they should believe in everything. Now, maybe that someone could believe in just about anything, but that doesn't mean that they will believe in every possible concept. It's more likely that they will gravitate to some worldview and stick with the theme of that system. For some people, this could be ghosts but no God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You do not need to emphasize the "god". I don't.
In my dictionary, an atheist means one who does not believe in anything which can not be supported by physical evidence. It includes ghost.
So, if an atheist believed the existence of ghost, then he is not an atheist.

(I guess you know that ghost and god are in the same category for some major religions).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In my dictionary, an atheist means one who does not believe in anything which can not be supported by physical evidence. It includes ghost.

Your dictionary? Which one would that be?

 

[juvenissun]

That's a good question...and likewise the reason I stopped believing in the authenticity of ghost stories when I became an atheist. I'm not closed to the possibility, and would love to be proven wrong, but I don't believe in ghosts.

That's not to say someone can't have a paranormal experience. In fact, the experience can seem very "para" and real to the person involved, but having listened to more than one Joe Nickel discussion, I remain unconvinced there isn't a very normal explanation for those things that seem extra-para.

For those skeptics/non-believers who do believe in ghosts, you'd have to ask them directly to explain their motives. I'd be interested in the answer.

I would suggest you to expand the category to includes: sixth sense; magic; or even UFO.

I think, as an atheist, you do (should) not believe in any of them. To you, if any of them are "possible", then ghost is also "possible". Needless to say God.