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.
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.
"If there are gaps they are in our knowledge, not in things themselves." Chapman Cohen
"Shit-apples don't fall far from the shit-tree, Randy." Mr. Lahey
"Shit-apples don't fall far from the shit-tree, Randy." Mr. Lahey
