(September 8, 2012 at 10:22 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 10:20 am)IATIA Wrote: I have yet to fully convince myself that we even 'exist'

You can think can't you?

Surely that is existence right there?

Yes, but not necessarily the existence of the "I".

There are many critics of Descartes who have pointed out that even his cogito ergo sum wasn't necessarily true.

I voted Atheist (other), because I have a different view of Atheism (although I'm not sure it's anything new or unique, and I apologize in advance for the wall of text).


There has been a lot of discussion in various threads lately regarding the definition(s) of atheism. Atheists and theists generally acknowledge that atheism is either a “lack of belief in god” or a “denial of the existence of god”. I think that these definitions of atheism leap-frog over what atheism actually is, on a fundamental level. To me, atheism is simply a rejection of the claim made by theists, not a disbelief or denial of any entity that they claim exists. To illustrate, if someone claims “I have an english-speaking purple gorilla at my house”, I would reject the claim being made by the claimant. It’s not that I would disbelieve or deny the existence of english-speaking purple gorillas, because that is going too far. I do not believe the claimant or the claim that is being made. I view the claim with extreme skepticism, and reject the claim itself. My response to the claimant would be “I do not believe YOU.”

“You do not believe the claim because you do not think there are such things as English speaking purple gorillas.”

No, I do not believe the claim because the claimant has not provided any valid evidence or proof that English-speaking purple gorillas exist, and so what I believe is that the claimant is full of shit.

It is the same with claims made by theists. When they say “my God: __insert name__ is the one true god, etc., etc.…”, I do not deny the existence of or have a disbelief of their God, I reject the claim that is being made, not the entity. I disbelieve the claimant, not the entity that is being proposed.

The same is true for any claim that is made. I do not have to form a belief (or a dis-belief) about every fanciful creature or entity that can be imagined. And, since I do not have to form a belief about every single one of them, I do not have to form a belief about any single one of them, gods included. I do not have a belief or a disbelief about gods, I don’t accept the claims being made about their existence.

Of course, by extension, I am rejecting the notion of a God, but only by extension, and not directly. As with any claim I would consider, if the claimant presents credible and valid evidence or proof that the entity exists, I would have reason to accept the claim, believe what the claimant is saying, and thereby “believe in” the entity being claimed. And, no, sorry, “non-empirical” evidence does not count.

I see atheism not as a rejection or disbelief in any particular God or gods, but a rejection of theist’s claims that a god exists. Otherwise, atheists would need to form a belief position (which of course would be dis-belief) of every god ever claimed to exist.

(September 8, 2012 at 8:41 am)greneknight Wrote: I am totally confused and I can't seem to fit into any category. I am a Christian, and quite devout too seeing that much of my life revolves round the church and I serve at the altar too. But I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't accept the existence of ghosts either and I am totally without superstition. I will happily give and happily given bits of my hair and bits of finger nail to a friend who knew a voodoo practitioner but I'm not the least bothered about the supernatural because I'm so sure it's all bunkum. Just as I don't accept ghosts and fairies, I don't believe in a supernatural God either and along with that, I dismiss all the heavenly hosts and God's retinue of supernatural attendants. I'm ok with seeing God as a cultural metaphor just as angels must be metaphorical - I think even diehard fundies don't believe angels exist.

It appears my dismissal of anything supernatural is even more complete that that of some atheists and yet I'm a devout Christian. It's neater if you divide people according to church affiliations. Things become clearer then.

Do you have some sort of aversion to the term 'atheist'? Do you feel that if you call yourself an atheist, people will attach all sorts of negative baggage to you?

It doesn't really matter if you call yourself an atheist or not, by definition, you are an atheist.

As others have said, you may like the culture and the ritual of Christianity, but make no mistake, you are an atheist.

'Agnostic atheist' dosn't sit right with me . For me personally , i think of the idea of a god ridiculous so it dosn't need to be prooved false , but the fact i can't dosn't make me agnostic about it. By saying you are agnostic/atheist you are implying you are skeptical about a lack of god?
You can't proove or be sure of anything to 100% , but that wouldn't make us agnostic about everything .... so im like agnostic/English ....agnostic/socialist
agnostic/coldplay fan......agnostic/agnostic .... i think you have to draw the line somewhere.

(September 8, 2012 at 11:15 am)Haydn Wrote: 'Agnostic atheist' dosn't sit right with me . For me personally , i think of the idea of a god ridiculous so it dosn't need to be prooved false , but the fact i can't dosn't make me agnostic about it. By saying you are agnostic/atheist you are implying you are skeptical about a lack of god?
You can't proove or be sure of anything to 100% , but that wouldn't make us agnostic about everything .... so im like agnostic/English ....agnostic/socialist
agnostic/coldplay fan......agnostic/agnostic .... i think you have to draw the line somewhere.

I believe you are not defining the term 'agnostic' correctly in the context of the existence/nonexistence of a god.

Agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.

So, by saying one is an agnostic atheist is nothing more than admitting that the existence of gods is unknown and unknowable. And that one also disbelieves in the existence of gods.

Atheism does not require a rejection of the supernatural, but does require the lack of belief in a god or gods. Many incorrectly assume atheism denies the supernatural in its entirety (probably because some Atheists incorrectly use the term themselves).

A Buddhist in my view could be an atheist simply because they do not believe in a god. There could also be Buddhists who have their own religious beliefs separate from Buddhism since Buddhism does not make the claim that you must only follow its teachings if I understood the Dalai Lama correctly.

Now I make a distinction between atheists and Atheists. Many times I will just refer to actual atheists as unbelievers. The Atheists I see as the ones who (not all of them though) reject beyond the definition of atheism. The real reason I use the term Atheism (generally limited to those who come from societies that are dominated by Anglicized ideals) is because these unbelievers demonstrate a lack of reasoning and academic background that reminds me of the Christian Fundamentalists I assume live in the middle of nowhere like Iowa.

(September 8, 2012 at 11:53 am)Polaris Wrote: The real reason I use the term Atheism (generally limited to those who come from societies that are dominated by Anglicized ideals) is because these unbelievers demonstrate a lack of reasoning and academic background that reminds me of the Christian Fundamentalists I assume live in the middle of nowhere like Iowa.

Uhm... the difference between atheism and Atheism is that one is a proper noun. Unless there is an organisation who has the name Atheism, don't call people Atheists instead of atheists. It is nonsensical.

(September 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 11:53 am)Polaris Wrote: The real reason I use the term Atheism (generally limited to those who come from societies that are dominated by Anglicized ideals) is because these unbelievers demonstrate a lack of reasoning and academic background that reminds me of the Christian Fundamentalists I assume live in the middle of nowhere like Iowa.

Uhm... the difference between atheism and Atheism is that one is a proper noun. Unless there is an organisation who has the name Atheism, don't call people Atheists instead of atheists. It is nonsensical.

As is their reasoning skills. They give as bad a reputation to unbelievers as Christian Fundamentalists do to most Christians.

Do I really want to enjoy the benefit of a good reputation from someone who is willing to judge me by the group rather than my own actions?

(September 8, 2012 at 12:54 pm)Tempus Wrote: Do I really want to enjoy the benefit of a good reputation from someone who is willing to judge me by the group rather than my own actions?

I might give you credit for that if you did not have the word Nazi in your religious views.