Definition of "atheism"

[Mudhammam]

Could any form of theism ever be stated as a lack of belief? For example, if your idea of God was an abstract being who exists necessarily and only moves at will in the sense of complete freedom, and as opposed to being necessitated by antecedents, could you ever frame your position as something such as a lack of belief in material causation for the Universe, or as a lack of belief in eternal physical bodies, (taking the universe to be a body), or infinite motion, or something of that sort? Or does theism necessarily, even in the vaguest sense, entail certain doctrines that atheism does not?

Theism, noun

1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).


So...yes?  I guess?  I dunno, your post was a bit convoluted...

Hmm. I mean, is atheism contrary to theism in the sense that on a number of points, say, if you don't go right you must go left, and if you don't go up you must down, etc., so that the lack of belief claim is to some degree interchangeable?

Does "I lack belief in X" imply that "I believe this about Y," say X is God (including certain properties) and Y is universe (including certain properties) to an atheist, and vice versa, X is universe and Y is God to a theist?

[watchamadoodle]

IMO there is a small difference between never-theist atheists and ex-theist atheists:
The ex-theist atheists usually must be gnostic atheist with respect to their native theism.

It's like viruses:
A person exposed to a virus must develop an anti-virus to be free of infection
A person never exposed to a virus doesn't need an anti-virus and can be simply indifferent to the hypothetical virus

So ex-Christians must be gnostic disbelievers in Christianity but they might only be agnostic disbelievers in Zorastrianism, Jainism, Islam, etc.

[Pyrrho]

Could any form of theism ever be stated as a lack of belief? ...

Every form of theism involves a belief in the existence of at least one god.  That is the minimum requirement to be a theist of some kind.  There is no additional doctrinal requirement to be a theist.  Of course, to be a particular type of theist, like, say, a Southern Baptist Christian, then there are more requirements than just belief in the existence of at least one god.  But all people who believe in the existence of at least one god are theists.

For more on these topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism


Edited to add:

Weak atheism, which is going along with definition 2 in my original post (post # 1) but not going along with definition 1, is contrasted with strong atheism, which is going along with both 1 and 2.  Definition 1 "contains" or entails 2.  That is, if one has the belief that there are no gods, then one lacks a belief in a god (if, that is, one is consistent and does not believe incoherent contradictory things).  The reverse, of course, isn't the case; lacking a belief in a god does not entail the belief that there are no gods.

Definition 2 is essentially meaning, "not theism."  Definition 1 goes beyond that, and affirms that theists are wrong.

A weak atheist is not a theist, but does not claim that theists are wrong to be theists (though they could believe they are wrong to be certain specific types of theists, such as Southern Baptist Christian or whatever).  A strong atheist claims that theists are wrong, no matter what type of theism we are talking about.

[Mudhammam]

Could any form of theism ever be stated as a lack of belief? ...

Every form of theism involves a belief in the existence of at least one god.  That is the minimum requirement to be a theist of some kind.  There is no additional doctrinal requirement to be a theist.  Of course, to be a particular type of theist, like, say, a Southern Baptist Christian, then there are more requirements than just belief in the existence of at least one god.  But all people who believe in the existence of at least one god are theists.

For more on these topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Would you say that God by definition includes "intellect" or "mind," or could someone say, "I believe in a first movent that 'causes motion that is eternal and does cause it during an infinite time,' and that is 'indivisible and without parts and without magnitude,'" and still disavow belief in God?

[robvalue]

I don't think God includes anything by definition. I think it's one of the most poorly defined concepts out there, and I don't see how you could tell anyone that what they say is a god isn't a god to them. In fact, the only "gods" to have been demonstrated as actually anything other than imagination are exactly the least mysterious ones such as the sun.

[Pyrrho]

Every form of theism involves a belief in the existence of at least one god.  That is the minimum requirement to be a theist of some kind.  There is no additional doctrinal requirement to be a theist.  Of course, to be a particular type of theist, like, say, a Southern Baptist Christian, then there are more requirements than just belief in the existence of at least one god.  But all people who believe in the existence of at least one god are theists.

For more on these topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Would you say that God by definition includes "intellect" or "mind," or could someone say, "I believe in a first movent that 'causes motion that is eternal and does cause it during an infinite time,' and that is 'indivisible and without parts and without magnitude,'" and still disavow belief in God?

Capitalizing "God" (other than at the beginning of a sentence, of course) makes it different from not capitalizing it; it makes it a "supreme being" type of god.  See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t

But I am inclined to think that all gods have some sort of intellect or mind implicit in them.  Otherwise, what would be the difference between pantheism and atheism?

See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism?s=t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

So I think if you believe in a first cause that does not involve intellect or mind, then you are not believing in a god (at least not as the first cause).  The Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with atheism, though it does not entail atheism.  Many theists believe in the Big Bang theory.

[watchamadoodle]

I don't think God includes anything by definition. I think it's one of the most poorly defined concepts out there, and I don't see how you could tell anyone that what they say is a god isn't a god to them. In fact, the only "gods" to have been demonstrated as actually anything other than imagination are exactly the least mysterious ones such as the sun.

Don't lose hope; I'm working on a good definition of God. Here's what I have so far:
- God is omni-ignorant
- God is omni-impotent
- God is omni-indifferent

[Mudhammam]

I don't think God includes anything by definition. I think it's one of the most poorly defined concepts out there, and I don't see how you could tell anyone that what they say is a god isn't a god to them. In fact, the only "gods" to have been demonstrated as actually anything other than imagination are exactly the least mysterious ones such as the sun.

True, but wouldn't you say that if someone were to claim that by God they simply meant some entity, like a giant star, or a very hot, dense, and small singularity, or a timeless abstract principle, or whatever, wouldn't you say that that definition doesn't belong in the God category?

[robvalue]

Well, I don't know. I really don't think there is an agreed definition. What dictionaries say seem more like serving suggestions. I don't believe there is a consensus as to common usage. It would make more sense if there was!

Where would you say the authority in this comes from? And who has the authority to say what it is? Seeing as even the definitions that do get put forward tell you virtually nothing about the claim...

Some people just say "the universe is God" and they don't seem to mean it is anything other than just the universe, not intelligent or magic. Do I think that's pointless? Yes. Do I feel I can tell them it's not something they can call God? Not really. Same with nature.

So.. All I can say is God seems to be a placeholder for something you personally find impressive, for some reason. You could have a god which has no intelligence or awareness but just goes around automatically repairing any problems in the universe with its almost limitless power or something.

When I ask for a definition of someone's God, I usually get a list of things he is not rather than what he is!

[Pyrrho]

I don't think God includes anything by definition. I think it's one of the most poorly defined concepts out there, and I don't see how you could tell anyone that what they say is a god isn't a god to them. In fact, the only "gods" to have been demonstrated as actually anything other than imagination are exactly the least mysterious ones such as the sun.

You remind me of "igtheism," which is a term not in most dictionaries (which means it is not in common use), but can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Keep in mind, if "god" does not mean anything, then it would not mean anything to say, "I don't believe in god," nor would it mean anything to say "I believe in god."

This also makes me think of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of...e_Gardener

http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm

Sometimes, one starts with something meaningful, and bits of meaning keep being stripped away, until there is nothing left.