I suppose that my perception of atheism is simply that it entails believing nothing of God, gods or any other spirituality bollocks. That isn't to say it's a flat denial either, as a rational person, it is also our position to appeal to rationality and truth in every case, not simply the one of god/s. Therefore, I perceive my atheism as simply refusing to believe the unbelievable.

I chose #2, because that's the definition of an atheist.

That said,
I'm a gnostic atheist when it comes to gods of litterature, I'm pretty darn sure that those are man-made.
I'm a agnostic atheist when it comes to the concept of "who/what started the universe". I don't know, but I think it's highly unlikely that a deity did it.
I'm a skeptic regarding all things 'spiritual', I don't believe in spirits, divination, fairy tale creatures or bogeymen.
I'm a secular humanist, I think it's for the best of society to take care of one another.
I'm a scientist and a scholar, particularly in the fields of pharmaceuticals, biology and chemistry.

(September 9, 2012 at 11:55 am)whateverist Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 1:11 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't like merely asserting definitions, or seeing people that like to merely assert their own definitions.

It is regrettable but completely common within the normal evolution of English usage. "Atheist" is the go-to word for lots of people with a variety of stances toward religious believe. It isn't even the only word whose usage is causing the problem.

What counts as a "belief"? Are we only talking about considered beliefs or are implicit beliefs also part of the discussion?

Whether and to what degree knowledge plays into it also varies. Some scarcely think about it epistemologically. For those of us who do, atheism as the presence or absence of belief in gods is really the only way we can discuss it at all.

At the heart of the problem is the murky definition of gods themselves. "Ignosticism" has been coined for those who are agnostic and would just as soon pass on the discussion of 'gods'.

Throw into the mix such descriptors as "divine" and "supernatural", and you have even more ways for us to diverge in what we mean by what we say.

So I disagree. When it comes to discussing atheism, the only hope is to pinpoint what you mean on a number of fronts .. and that won't be easy.

The danger I see here is the possibility that the theist can be more rational, and their beliefs to be more rationally defensible than the atheist.

If we water down atheism to not require any thought or rationale, how will this atheist stack up against formidable theists who are philosophically and scientifically knowledgeable?

Won't atheism end up being the irrational position?

(September 9, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: how will this atheist stack up against formidable theists who are philosophically and scientifically knowledgeable?

That is a problem for that atheist alone. If he isn't well read or scientifically knowledgeable then he probably won't argue about such things.

You seem to think one has to be smart to be an atheist, that just isn't true.

And a theist can have all the philosophy and science behind them, they still won't be able to show evidence for the existence of their god.

I am to some extent emotionally disposed to be in the atheist camp, my position is not just formed through a logical progression.
However there are atheists that are driven by a systematic logic. The falsehood is to state both have the same view, just because we both agree what we are looking at. We are actually seeing it from different directions.

(September 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm)frankiej Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: how will this atheist stack up against formidable theists who are philosophically and scientifically knowledgeable?

That is a problem for that atheist alone. If he isn't well read or scientifically knowledgeable then he probably won't argue about such things.

You seem to think one has to be smart to be an atheist, that just isn't true.

And a theist can have all the philosophy and science behind them, they still won't be able to show evidence for the existence of their god.

The problem is not so much evidence for the existence of their God. Keep in mind that's not the only criteria. It's also (a) warrant for theistic belief, ie "is theism rational", (b) rational superiority of theism "is it better to be a theist than an atheist", and © warrant for atheism "is atheism rational".

At the end of the day, the question is whether theism, rationally ought to be rejected. And if we have the two-bit intellects representing the face of atheism, we can make no meaningful "ought" statements like that.

(September 9, 2012 at 6:16 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The problem is not so much evidence for the existence of their God. Keep in mind that's not the only criteria.

It would seem to me that evidence, albeit untrue, anecdotal, in their head or even, god forbid, real. is the prime requisite for theism. I mean who in their right mind would worship a non existent deity?

I chose the first option, because my lack of belief in gods is only part of my rejection of all things 'supernatural'. I no more believe in ghosts or spirits than I do Zeus or Yahweh, because both appear to not be real to me for the same reason.

(September 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 6:16 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The problem is not so much evidence for the existence of their God. Keep in mind that's not the only criteria.

It would seem to me that evidence, albeit untrue, anecdotal, in their head or even, god forbid, real. is the prime requisite for theism. I mean who in their right mind would worship a non existent deity?

It seems that way, but it's a false paradigm.

In fact, it's factually incorrect that every belief we consider rational to hold is based on evidence for it.

The oft-cited philosophical problem of the brain in a vat: We have no way of disproving it. We have no "evidence" in support of our belief that the world around us is real. But we consider it a rational belief to hold. Here's a nifty illustration:


Or consider Bertrand Russell's scenario where the world came into existence only five minutes ago, with everything falling in place, as well as your memories. We cannot prove this to be false. We have no incontrovertible reason to deny this.

But we consider it a rational belief nevertheless. Or the belief that the very next time you sit down on your chair, it will not break. We don't know that for sure.

I mean you can keep going and think of a lot of beliefs we hold without real evidence. Heck we don't even consider it long enough to put it into a paradigm of evidence-measurement.

This is, I think a major shift, when we realize that it's possible to be rational in believing something in the absence of direct evidence

I voted for other because it depends on the people. The word is being fought over now.

Certain people want to mean without belief in a god and other want it to mean belief there is no god.

It's disputed.

Some people whom are without belief in God rather be called agnostics then atheists. I know your going to say agnostic means without claim to knowledge but it's also was used in the sense to not claim belief in something either way, to not know that way, to be without a position of belief in that.

Personally, I think Atheist should be accepted by everyone at the end to be without belief in a god. The reason why is that so many people identify themselves with that name and don't believe God does not exist.

At the same time, it complicates things, into soft atheism, and strong atheism. Why not have one word for each?

Perhaps a new word needs to placed for one of the positions while the other remains "atheism"?