This is a bit off topic here to the very interesting conversation taking place but it refers to my original objective of trying to define atheism.

So most people here say that atheism is the disbelief in a God.
In many eastern religions they don't worship Gods. Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism.

Are these people atheists?

(January 24, 2019 at 10:15 am)Agnostico Wrote: In many eastern religions they don't worship Gods. Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism.

Are these people atheists?

Yes, though it would be more accurate to sub belief in for worship. Mostly because there are people who do believe in gods, but don't worship them. You know, like most christians.

(January 24, 2019 at 10:13 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 8:03 am)Acrobat Wrote: If most people here merely lack a belief one way or the other when it’s come to the question of God, they’d fall under the category of agnostic.

Agnostic atheists, yeah.  They do, they keep telling folks that, but there's a type of person that's just so fucking dense they'll never hear it, lol.

Quote:If they believe God doesn’t exist, they’d fall under the category of atheist.

Yep, also atheists..though they could -also- be agnostic atheists. The only people who -aren't- agnostic atheists are the ones who -know- that god does not exist. Gnostic atheism.

No there’s two definitions being employeed here, the traditional distinctions based on belief vs lack of belief, and one in the newer conception where the distinction between knowing and not knowing is emphasized.

The traditional definitions lack a distinction between knowing and not knowing, the newer definition lacks a distinction between believing and not believing.

Depending on which distinction you find most useful, one definition is more useful than the other.

(January 24, 2019 at 10:42 am)Acrobat Wrote: No there’s two definitions being employeed here, the traditional distinctions based on belief vs lack of belief, and one in the newer conception where the distinction between knowing and not knowing is emphasized.

Here where?  I think that the one definition is just fine.  A person who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist.  A person who does is not.  

Quote:The traditional definitions lack a distinction between knowing and not knowing, the newer definition lacks a distinction between believing and not believing.

.......?  You mean agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism?  

Quote:Depending on which distinction you find most useful, one definition is more useful than the other.

They refer to separate things.  One refers to the status of a persons belief, the other the status of their knowledge...neither refers to what you're looking for a distinction for, k, I getcha.    

There's a third set of terms you might find helpful, strong and weak.  A strong agnostic atheist doesn't believe in gods...they don't know for sure whether gods exist but they -strongly- believe to the contrary.  Alot of atheists are this type of atheist by reference to at least -one- god, though they may defer on the subject of some more general god notion.

Don't even get me started on blonde nine fingered six foot plaid wearing weak gnostic atheists. It's alot of qualifiers, you know? Probably take fewer words to just ask a person.

(January 24, 2019 at 10:30 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:15 am)Agnostico Wrote: In many eastern religions they don't worship Gods. Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism.

Are these people atheists?

Yes, though it would be more accurate to sub belief in for worship.  Mostly because there are people who do believe in gods, but don't worship them.  You know, like most christians.  

You agreed with me Bolgo... R u feeling well? LoL. I didn't say anything about Christians. Ur obsessed with them.

I think this is a fair definition of atheism, a set of ideologies based on the presumtion/belief/premise that some form of creator is not in play.
Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, etc are the main ideological branches of atheism in eastern culture which trace back thousands of years.

In western culture but atheism is new. Its literally a non-identity atm. Its just a group of people who don't believe in a Deity.
Most of which are anti Christians who parrot arguments aimed at theists. The unicorn/fairy thing. Its a terrible analogy, even against theists.

Aside from that people have different views, definitions, theories and ideas on every other topic.
Western atheism is just a response to theism. Eastern atheism is much deeper than that.

Western atheism has much to learn from the Asians. 

In time, over centuries, if the west survives the decline of our economy and civilization, they will be able to learn from these errors and create their own doctrine aimed at rebuilding western civilization where the importance of family will again become priority. Thats my opinion anyway.
So its a "quasi ideology". I like the term "techno religion" used by Harari describing a religion without a God or afterlife.

l stumbled onto this website which is pretty cool and found this defintition of Agnosticism which defines my view of God.
Some people say that Agnosticism doesn't really exist which is incorrect.

http://www.humanreligions.info/agnosticism.html

"Agnosticism is the belief that (1) God, if it exist, is by nature unknowable ("strong agnosticism"), or, (2) that the that the induvidual being asked cannot conclude if God exists or not for lack of good evidence one way or another. Some agnostics sit in an assumed position; agnostic theists assume that God exists (a matter of faith) but also know that they don't have good evidence for this position, and, agnostic atheists  assume that God does not exist but cannot prove their position. Pure agnostics do not accept either assumption."

The burden of proof falls on the person being asked from my agnostic position. To say that theists can't produce the evidence therefore its not true is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The confusion arises when ur in ur thought space, postulating on theories. In here u don't have many options. Two of those opions is to assume a God or not.
On completiton of this thought process one forms his belief/disbelief/theory/thought/idea/ whatever u wish to call it.

Knowledge however is way beyond that. I cannot accept either assumption. Im pure agnostic. Lied to by both theists and atheists in my life I trust neither now.
When I postulate I find small bits of evidence for both, though admittedly the God theory ranks low on my list.
And thats my position on God.

(January 23, 2019 at 9:51 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc.. is very recently developed concept.

But lets ask a question. If atheists who know God doesn't exist and atheists who don't know if God doesn't exist, can be separated by the gnostic agnostic distinction.

What separates atheists who believe God  doesn't exist, and those who don't believe God exists? What term should people use when referring to those who believe God doesn't exist, from those who lack a belief one way or the other?

Previously this distinction was made between agnos"" ticism, and atheism. If the new conception was to provide further clarity it failed to do so.

Yeah, such a recent concept, that agnostic atheism.

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."
--Robert Flint, Croall Lecture of 1887-1888, published in 1903 as 'Agnosticism'

Got it from looking up 'agnostic atheism' on Wikipedia. So much research it took to find the facts of the matter! And FYI, Ingersoll was saying basically the same thing in 1885. So VERY recent....

(January 24, 2019 at 12:31 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:30 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yes, though it would be more accurate to sub belief in for worship.  Mostly because there are people who do believe in gods, but don't worship them.  You know, like most christians.  

You agreed with me Bolgo... R u feeling well? LoL. I didn't say anything about Christians. Ur obsessed with them.

I agreed with a fact.  People who don't believe in gods are atheists.  There are religions without gods, filled with people who don't believe in gods.  

Quote:I think this is a fair definition of atheism, a set of ideologies based on the presumtion/belief/premise that some form of creator is not in play.
Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, etc are the main ideological branches of atheism in eastern culture which trace back thousands of years.

That's because you're a nutter.  Atheism is simple.  It's not a set of ideologies, or an ideology itself.  Do you believe in gods?  No?  Bingo, atheist.

Quote:In western culture but atheism is new. Its literally a non-identity atm. Its just a group of people who don't believe in a Deity.
Most of which are anti Christians who parrot arguments aimed at theists. The unicorn/fairy thing. Its a terrible analogy, even against theists.

No, it's not...atheism isn't new anywhere.  

Quote:Aside from that people have different views, definitions, theories and ideas on every other topic.
Western atheism is just a response to theism. Eastern atheism is much deeper than that.

Well, yeah...hence the theism in a-theism.  

Quote:Western atheism has much to learn from the Asians. 

Okay?  IDK what you mean here but it;s actually fairly common for atheists to be familiar with things like buddhism.  

Quote:In time, over centuries, if the west survives the decline of our economy and civilization, they will be able to learn from these errors and create their own doctrine aimed at rebuilding western civilization where the importance of family will again become priority. Thats my opinion anyway.
So its a "quasi ideology". I like the term "techno religion" used by Harari describing a religion without a God or afterlife.

Family seems to be a serious priority for us now?  

Quote:l stumbled onto this website which is pretty cool and found this defintition of Agnosticism which defines my view of God.
Some people say that Agnosticism doesn't really exist which is incorrect.

http://www.humanreligions.info/agnosticism.html

"Agnosticism is the belief that (1) God, if it exist, is by nature unknowable ("strong agnosticism"), or, (2) that the that the induvidual being asked cannot conclude if God exists or not for lack of good evidence one way or another. Some agnostics sit in an assumed position; agnostic theists assume that God exists (a matter of faith) but also know that they don't have good evidence for this position, and, agnostic atheists  assume that God does not exist but cannot prove their position. Pure agnostics do not accept either assumption."

The burden of proof falls on the person being asked from my agnostic position. To say that theists can't produce the evidence therefore its not true is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You know that's not what that term means, right?  
(appeal to ignorance)

Quote:The confusion arises when ur in ur thought space, postulating on theories. In here u don't have many options. Two of those opions is to assume a God or not.
On completiton of this thought process one forms his belief/disbelief/theory/thought/idea/ whatever u wish to call it.

Knowledge however is way beyond that. I cannot accept either assumption. Im pure agnostic. Lied to by both theists and atheists in my life I trust neither now.
When I postulate I find small bits of evidence for both, though admittedly the God theory ranks low on my list.
And thats my position on God.

Sucks, I guess?  What did the mean atheists lie to you about?

(no need to ask about the other guys, I assume their mouths were moving, lol)

(January 23, 2019 at 11:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Abour 20% of people who identify as atheist, also believe in God.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...a42b25118a

So 20% of people who identify as atheist either filled out the poll incorrectly or don't know the definition of atheist. That's not uncommon, to hear some preachers tell it, an atheist is someone who drinks, fornicates, and doesn't go to church. If you believe that preacher and stop going to church and start fornicating and drinking, you may think that you're an atheist even if you still believe in God. It turns out, evangelical preachers are not a good source for accurate information on atheism. We get some people coming here claiming to be -ex-atheists' who don't seem to have a clue about what atheism is and likely never were actually atheists. Being 'mad at God' doesn't make you an atheist, either (though you might be a maltheist).

---

(January 23, 2019 at 11:07 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 23, 2019 at 10:55 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Of you believe in a god you're a theist.

If you don't, you're an atheist.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

That's your version.  We also have the atheists who have evolved and believe in God.  Of course, mystics as well, and other various atheist denominations, versions, or whatever else they may be called.  I'm guessing you have the minority edition, where you just don't believe "God" or "gods" exist.  That tends to be fashionable today

There's only one version of atheism: not believing in gods or God. There are many versions of atheists, like any other demographic. An atheist can believe anything except that any gods exist, just like a theist can believe anything as long as they also believe that at least one god or God exists. 'Just don't believe 'god exists' seems to be a majority in my experience, though I'm not aware of any definitive scientific polls. I do know hundreds of atheists in RL though, and 'I know God doesn't exist' is in a definite minority among them. What's 'fashionable today' has nothing to do with it, atheists have always come in a variety, because a single opinion on a single topic isn't much use in pigeonholing people.

(January 24, 2019 at 12:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(January 23, 2019 at 11:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Abour 20% of people who identify as atheist, also believe in God.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...a42b25118a

So 20% of people who identify as atheist either filled out the poll incorrectly or don't know the definition of atheist. That's not uncommon, to hear some preachers tell it, an atheist is someone who drinks, fornicates, and doesn't go to church. If you believe that preacher and stop going to church and start fornicating and drinking, you may think that you're an atheist even if you still believe in God. It turns out, evangelical preachers are not a good source for accurate information on atheism. We get some people coming here claiming to be -ex-atheists' who don't seem to have a clue about what atheism is and likely never were actually atheists. Being 'mad at God' doesn't make you an atheist, either (though you might be a maltheist).

Or people take atheism to mean whatever they feel it means, sort of like gender identity. If he believes in God, but feels more like an atheist, he is an atheist.

Who am I to deny how they feel?

It’s like “it’s raining, but I don’t believe it’s raining”

But we should also keep in mind that Christians were often labeled atheists for rejecting the Gods of the majority.

So perhaps they’re using it in this sense.

The meaning of atheisms has changed throughout history, and multiple meanings of it are still in use today. Some people see their defintions as holy scripture, inerrant, and needs to be accepted by everyone.

(January 24, 2019 at 2:30 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Guy, I don't know which version you adhere to.  15 years ago it was a lot different.  Now there are all many versions.  Anyway, you told me I couldn't show one, and I did.  What more do you want?  Mission accomplished.

Guy, 15 years ago, anyone who didn't believe in any God or gods was still an atheist.

---

(January 24, 2019 at 10:15 am)Agnostico Wrote: This is a bit off topic here to the very interesting conversation taking place but it refers to my original objective of trying to define atheism.

So most people here say that atheism is the disbelief in a God.
In many eastern religions they don't worship Gods. Buddhasim, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism.

Are these people atheists?

Some of them are. Individual members of the religion can be theists or atheists. It might be a fair generalization to say that neither theism nor atheism is a requirement to be a member in good standing of those religions.

For a Western equivalent, I'd add Unitarian Universalism.

---

(January 24, 2019 at 10:42 am)Acrobat Wrote: No there’s two definitions being employeed here, the traditional distinctions based on belief vs lack of belief, and one in the newer conception where the distinction between knowing and not knowing is emphasized.

The traditional definitions lack a distinction between knowing and not knowing, the newer definition lacks a distinction between believing and not believing.

Depending on which distinction you find most useful, one definition is more useful than the other.

'New' as in at least 134 years old. Catch up, dude.