Atheism -"no nod," "religion has no validity," either or neither?

[dreamsofpotato]

Got into a small debate with someone over atheism, thought i'd come here for some advice:

I said i'm an atheist. He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god and nothing created the universe. I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity, no credibility in any sort of cosmological debate, that relition is made-up and the gods of those religions are made-up. As for cosmology, I said, most atheists leave that question to science.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this argument. Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism? Was I wrong in my definition? Does such a claim warrant a correction? Or were we both splitting hairs?

[emilynghiem]

Got into a small debate with someone over atheism, thought i'd come here for some advice:

I said i'm an atheist. He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god and nothing created the universe. I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity, no credibility in any sort of cosmological debate, that relition is made-up and the gods of those religions are made-up. As for cosmology, I said, most atheists leave that question to science.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this argument. Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism? Was I wrong in my definition? Does such a claim warrant a correction? Or were we both splitting hairs?

Dear dreamsofpotato
atheism has as many different approaches as any other label.
Constitutionalists don't agree on what is or is not Constitutional, left and right.
Christians don't agree on what is or not Christian about homosexuality, hell, salvation, etc.

if you need clarification look up the Dawkins scale
and find a way to explain your beliefs that YOU are comfortable with
you may or may not match what other people call atheist, agnostic, etc.

there are as many people who will attest I am Christian
as those who say no way can I be that and am going to hell.
nobody's ways are going to be completely consistent
so you need to find what works for you where you can describe as best you can.

may I suggest that if you are simply not into a personified God and Jesus
to call this nontheist which is neutral. Nontheist can include Buddhists who
believe in God or not, or call God by other impersonal names such as Wisdom, Life,
Nature, Universe or universal laws/truth, etc.

You can call yourself secular gentile which also includes any range of belief or not.

I find those are common terms, that are more neutral objective and inclusive.

And then if people change their minds or question any other thing about the meanings of God Jesus or religions, that still makes us secular gentile in how we think in objective scientific terms.

I am more "nontheistic" in my views of God and open to any and all representations of God that includes secular terms and science of energy and how thoughts are energy and relate to matter and actions in terms of energy. that is still how life works so to me it is still the same as part of God's laws about the world we live in.

[SteelCurtain]

On the whole, you are right. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief of lack, as it were.

Basically, that all of the god claims that have been posited have been short of the evidence required for my belief. It says nothing of my morality or ethics, it says nothing about anything other than that claim.

I am an agnostic atheist, all that it would take for me to believe in a god would be some credible evidence that has no other explanation.

[wiploc]

... He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god

According to the old nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Atheists believe gods do not exist.
Agnostics (everybody else) don't believe either way.

According to the new nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

Most people use the old nomenclature, but the new nomenclature is gaining rapidly. Most self-identified atheists use the new nomenclature.

If you believe there are no gods, you can own the title "atheist" under either system.

But, either way, you don't have to stand still for him telling you that you meant something by the word that you didn't actually mean. You can say, "No, all "atheist" means is that I don't believe gods exist."

and nothing created the universe.

Atheism doesn't mean this. It's not part of either of the commonly used definitions, or of any other definition I've heard of. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That's all it means.

I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity,

Atheism doesn't make that claim. I've heard that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They aren't non-religious. Buddhism is also an atheist religion (at least according to some sources).

So the only test of whether you are an atheist is whether you believe gods exist.

... Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism?

No, that's a favorite theist move, creating straw-man definitions of atheism so they can tear them down.

Was I wrong in my definition?

Yes.

Does such a claim warrant a correction?

Yes.

Or were we both splitting hairs?

Trade him places in your head. Suppose he said he is a Christian. And suppose you responded, "That means you worship Mary, and believe baptism doesn't count unless it's by immersion, and you think life was brought to Earth by an alien named 'Kolob.'"

Wouldn't he have the right to correct you? Would his correction be just splitting hairs?

Given that misrepresenting what we mean by "atheist" is a favorite theist move, you're pretty much obliged to correct him.

But, if you'd rather avoid an extended discussion of nomenclature, you can parry rather than block. Correct him briefly, but then redirect the conversation so it's about something you want to talk about. Maybe, "No, that's not what atheism is. But let's not talk about terminology; let's talk about whether it makes sense to worship someone who can't defeat iron chariots."

[emilynghiem]

... He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god

According to the old nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Atheists believe gods do not exist.
Agnostics (everybody else) don't believe either way.

According to the new nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

Most people use the old nomenclature, but the new nomenclature is gaining rapidly. Most self-identified atheists use the new nomenclature.

If you believe there are no gods, you can own the title "atheist" under either system.

But, either way, you don't have to stand still for him telling you that you meant something by the word that you didn't actually mean. You can say, "No, all "atheist" means is that I don't believe gods exist."

and nothing created the universe.

Atheism doesn't mean this. It's not part of either of the commonly used definitions, or of any other definition I've heard of. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That's all it means.

I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity,

Atheism doesn't make that claim. I've heard that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They aren't non-religious. Buddhism is also an atheist religion (at least according to some sources).

So the only test of whether you are an atheist is whether you believe gods exist.

... Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism?

No, that's a favorite theist move, creating straw-man definitions of atheism so they can tear them down.

Was I wrong in my definition?

Yes.

Does such a claim warrant a correction?

Yes.

Or were we both splitting hairs?

Trade him places in your head. Suppose he said he is a Christian. And suppose you responded, "That means you worship Mary, and believe baptism doesn't count unless it's by immersion, and you think life was brought to Earth by an alien named 'Kolob.'"

Wouldn't he have the right to correct you? Would his correction be just splitting hairs?

Given that misrepresenting what we mean by "atheist" is a favorite theist move, you're pretty much obliged to correct him.

But, if you'd rather avoid an extended discussion of nomenclature, you can parry rather than block. Correct him briefly, but then redirect the conversation so it's about something you want to talk about. Maybe, "No, that's not what atheism is. But let's not talk about terminology; let's talk about whether it makes sense to worship someone who can't defeat iron chariots."

I would say that Buddhism is NONTHEISTIC.

it is supposed to be open either way and not closed or pushing any doctrine.

if you believe the universal laws in Buddhism are the same as believing in God
then it is not against God.

If you believe in seeking Wisdom and spiritual peace and understanding of truth
as the Kingdom of God, that isn't against God.

To be fair to Buddhism it just doesn't teach a PERSONIFIED God.
so that isn't the same as not teaching God, or you are already
assuming a definition of God based on other beliefs, which is biased.

Being NEUTRAL is neither for or against any other belief including God.