Opinion on this Creed

[KevinM1]

Could it be that the philosophers are wrong with their definitions?

All I know is that I actually loathe philosophy.  Had several classes in college, and found them terribly boring.  They always seemed to devolve into masturbatory discussions about words, finding distinctions without meaning.  An over analysis of things that don't actually matter, in most cases.

To that end, I could really give a shit with what some philosophers say atheism is.  I know what I do and don't believe, and if that doesn't fit the term, all that means is that I need to find a new word for it.  It says nothing about the veracity of my belief system.

If you actually have a means of demonstrating that all of the philosophical literature is wrong and the atheistic internet community is in fact correct with their revisionist’s definition I will entertain the idea…until then however all I have to go by what is the accepted definition of the term.

You're the one who keeps bringing up philosophers.  The burden is on you to demonstrate that they actually know what they're talking about.  "Because they're philosophers" won't cut it, by the way.  Last I checked, there was no bar to entry to becoming a philosopher.

Of course, if the running definition by the community that has adopted the label means one thing, and public perception of that label means another, it makes little sense to side with public perception over the people who actually claim the label as their own.

Moreover, SW's snide "Why didn't you reference any philosophical works?  Could it be that they disagree with you?" is simply an appeal to authority.  These guys say you're wrong, so you're wrong.  Really?  That's the best you can do?  By what authority are these philosophers correct?  Their own through consensus?

Color me unimpressed.

You do realize that appealing to authority is only fallacious if the authority is fallable and not properly qualified in the topic right?  If you want to argue that the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy are not properly qualified authorities on the topic of philosophical terms then good luck.  It is definitely a more appropriate authority than anyone else has appealed to on here (i.e. “because I say so!”, and About.com).

Really?  Prove it.  What makes these people any more capable of defining atheism than us?  Why should their definition be the accepted one?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You can define atheism however you want, and dictionaries differ.

---

The agreed definition in the atheist community is lacking a belief in God, or disbelief in God. We think of them as the same. If you want to use different words for those two things, then fine. But we only need to agree on one set of definitions. I personally like default atheist (has no concept of a god) and cognitive atheist (has heard claims about Gods and doesn't believe them)

"Do you have an active belief in God?"

Yes- Theist
Any other answer- Atheist

It does not necessarily mean you believe there is no God, that is a seperate statement. Is the difference between a weak and a strong atheist. Please see my website for more details (link in signature).

As for the creed, I have not much of an opinion on it. Trying to lump atheists together is a common mistake. There is no atheist belief system.

---

The French Catholics created the word "atheist" as a curse word to describe the French Protestants who were fighting a series of religious wars to gain freedom of religion in France.  Today it means something entirely different since today's real atheists don't believe in deities whereas the French Protestants actually did believe in the same deity that their Catholic enemies did.  

One thing is for sure: no deity of any kind has ever done anything godly on this planet since the first superstitious twit came up with the idea of a deity.

[robvalue]

Weren't the Christians originally called atheists or something for refusing to worship Julius Caesar?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Weren't the Christians originally called atheists or something for refusing to worship Julius Caesar?

No, they were not called "atheists" because the word and concept did not exist at that time.

[Statler Waldorf]

Please stop telling me what I believe. It's unbecoming. Also the word "agnosticism" has to do with knowledge, not belief, which you would *know* if you were such a great student of philosophy.

 
If you do not believe what atheists believe then don’t call yourself an atheist; that seems pretty simple.  All I can go by is what the definition of atheism is. 
 
Agnosticism is still a belief system (i.e. the belief that it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not).    
 

Also, what's up with the large font? Feeling angry? Want to yell?

 
Nope.
 
   

    Atheism in not a philosophy.  It is a state of mind, a state lacking a belief in god. And there is nothing particularly authoritative about a philosophical dictionary with the exception of description of various philosophies.  But even then the adherents of those philosophies would not better. .

 
Atheism is not a philosophy according to whom?  You?  I’ll stick to the actual experts on such matters. 
 
 

    Good.  Can I call you an atheist?

 
In reference to all gods other than YHWH absolutely!  I positively affirm their non-existence.
 

  Currently among self described atheists you are wrong.  Atheists do not have a belief in a god or gods.  That's it.

 
Well the self-described atheist who edits the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says you’re wrong.  Now what? 
 
       

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

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

 
 
Wikipedia is a user-generated website.  Secondly, if you check the three sources it references after defining atheism as “an absence of belief” you’ll see that none of them actually define it that way.     
 

        Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

 
    http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

 
So I can start up my own website and redefine terms however I wish?  You need to stick to the actual authoritative literature on such matters. 
 
 

    The usage has changed get over it.

 
People use words incorrectly all the time so that’s irrelevant; we do not define words by how people use them rather we are supposed to use words based on how they are defined. 
 

The word bachelor is not an argument for bachelorhood just a term describing men who are not married.

 
What if men who are married insist they are bachelors and they insist that the usage has changed and since they are self-described bachelors they can define it however they want?  I imagine you’d do exactly what I have been doing, point to the actual references to demonstrate that the word has never changed.    
 
       

   Hardly.  It merely clarifies.  Gnostic atheist believe there is no god.  Agnostic atheists lack a belief in god.  You apparently believe there is a god.  Regardless of which opponent or both you choose you still have the burden of proving there is a god, should you want to debate the issue.

 
Why would I have the burden of proof?
 

 So? Let them be offended.  I find your insistence that I must either be sure god exists or he doesn't offense.  Oh wait. . . didn't you say it was a either or proposition?  You did.  So if you can only believe there is a god or believe there isn't who would agnostics be?  You've already defined them out of existence.

 
I did no such thing.  An agnostic is usually defined as someone who believes we cannot know whether any god exists or not.  They generally do not like to be referred to as atheists because atheists affirm the non-existence of gods.  I have heard some people use the term agnostic to describe someone who simply does not know whether any gods exist, but this seems to be another misuse of the word rather than an actual philosophical term.    
 

    If there is not lack of belief or uncertainty then who are these agnostic people you are defending?  You can't have it both ways either people like me who know about god but lack belief exist or we don't. 

 
See above. 
 
       

    Lay persons?  There is a philosophical laity?  Giggles.  This philosophical body of authorities is non-existent.  There are philosophers and people who read and or study philosophy.  There is no body of philosophical authority.

 
This is just flat out wrong.  There are philosophical encyclopedias (which ironically enough the Wikipedia article you cited used) and peer-reviewed journals of philosophy.  This is as silly as saying there is no such thing as the scientific community.      
    
 

    Actually no.  The burden of showing the existence of anything is always on the person claim that thing.

 
Well that’s not actually how it works, but I’ll play along.  I guess then I am an anti-naturalist.  Now the burden of proof is on you since I am merely rejecting naturalism.  Get to it!
 
        

    Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

 
We’re actually discussing the proper definition of a term here.  I see your ability to follow the topic of discussion has not improved any. 

 
This isn't accurate. Millions of people claim to have experienced god; however, without demonstration the claim remains dubious. As I stated, god is invoked as a cause for any number of things; however, god is always mysteriously absent to other observers. Without corroboration, the claim cannot be verified. I have experienced any number of intense emotions that elicit real physical responses: nausea (burning bosom to Mormons), flushed skin, muscle tension, crying, headaches, etc. States of mind and attending physical responses are not the presence of god.

 
You seem to be moving the goalposts.  You simply stated that, “At no time has anyone ever perceived any god.”  This claim runs completely contrary to the testimony of millions of people; so I have to ask how you could possibly know they are all wrong since you claim to know this somehow. 
 
  

Don't be obtuse. The point is that personal testimony based on an experience that can only be known to a particular person is insufficient information for the basis of a truth claim to be generally accepted. People like Paul may convince others to believe his tale; however, no matter the number of believers, his experience should not be accepted as truth because nobody else can experience it. Citing an example of a particular person that is deprived of a particular sense misses the point. Besides, a blind person can perceive the warmth of light so it isn't impossible for a blind person to experience light. 

 
A blind person could just say that heat is not the same thing as light and until you prove otherwise you have not met the burden of proof.  The Bible does say that the unbeliever is dead in sin, having scales over his eyes and a heart of stone.  Perhaps you are merely the blind person in this case?  You might have simply misspoken, but you did say that any person has to be able to perceive the entity in question.  This also makes the assumption that all minds perceive reality in the same way, and this is simply an unfounded assumption.  Far more people have claimed to have perceived the existence of god than have claimed to have perceived a neutrino, and yet I am sure you have no problem believing in the existence of the latter intriguingly enough.  Maybe this will work better, how about you propose a method for proving the existence of god, fair?
 
 

My conclusion is more reasonable. All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce this god of yours so I can experience it and I'll admit I'm wrong.

 
What!!?  You just claimed that every person who has experienced god throughout history is being deceived and then you turn around and ask to personally experience god?  How on Earth is this reasonable?  That’s the very definition of special pleading.  
 
     

 
            Of course there is.  My lack of belief stems from my disbelief in every god presented to me so far.  However, I reserve the right to change my mind if exposed to new evidence.

…so you believe no god exists?
 
   

Really, if you're going to play word games, you might want to understand the words you're using.  Disbelief doesn't somehow negate a lack of belief.  It often informs it.  Moreover, you haven't explained why anyone should give a crap about a/an encyclopedia(s) written and/or edited by philosophers.  Just because they state the definition is something doesn't make it so.  I'm not convinced of their authority on the issue.

 
Well then please present me with a better authority on the issue. 
 
   

To use your marriage/bachelor analogy correctly, perhaps the definition of marriage is incomplete if most/all bachelors actually claim they're married....  Of course, your analogy fails anyway because, as I said before, disbelief and a lack of belief are not diametrically opposed terms. 

 
The pigeon turd on my front porch lacks a belief in god, however it would be silly to say that it disbelieves in the existence of anything. 
 
   

But, please, continue to flail at definitions as though you actually have a point.  It's amusing.

 
Continue to argue against the actual authoritative literature on the matter even when it’s written by atheists, it’s amusing.
 
   

 
I suppose you'll need to look up "evacuated-middle fallacy" while you're there, that should be under the "logic" heading. The reason being is that atheism can be either of those things, and rather than hammer a complex human being into one of your overly simplistic pigeonholes, you'd do better to listen to them as they describe their attitude towards your pet deity.

 
Asserting that atheism can mean either of those things demonstrates nothing.  I have already provided several sources that demonstrate that that position is false.    
 

And -- I chose the phrase "lack of faith" very carefully. There are differing connotative shades that separate "belief" and "faith" in their meanings and usage. I think we've found a little more homework you'll need to do before you can make useful contributions to this discussion.

 
Again, assertions will get you nowhere with me sir.  Please provide the actual sources to support your claims. 
 
   

That makes this overly simplistic definition even more suspect, insofar as that atheist my well be importing his own personal view of atheism into the dictionary's very limited definition.  Maybe a penguin edited it?

 
He has a PhD in philosophy so guess who’s word I am going to take over yours?  Come on….guess……
 
 
 
 

 
Really?  Prove it.  What makes these people any more capable of defining atheism than us?  Why should their definition be the accepted one?

 
Umm…because it’s their job and you’re just a poster on an internet forum.  Need I really say more?
 
 

Weren't the Christians originally called atheists or something for refusing to worship Julius Caesar?  

 
They were called atheists because they denied the existence of the Roman gods and the deity of Caesar.  They did not simply lack a belief in said things. 

[robvalue]

Weren't the Christians originally called atheists or something for refusing to worship Julius Caesar?

No, they were not called "atheists" because the word and concept did not exist at that time.

I found this reference, it's recorded on Wikipedia too. I see it's been noted above also.

Christians were routinely punished by the Romans who saw their religion as impious and backward. Beginning with Jesus, Christians were rounded up and executed for their religion over the course of three centuries. The Romans characterized them as “impious atheists” because they did not believe in many gods.

http://theworld.omgfacts.com/lists/10128...ns-ab630-1

[Longhorn]

Ok, then I'm an unbeliever, not an atheist. Happy now? -_-

[Mudhammam]

If you do not believe what atheists believe then don’t call yourself an atheist; that seems pretty simple.  All I can go by is what the definition of atheism is. 
 
Agnosticism is still a belief system (i.e. the belief that it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not).    

Since when does atheism entail a set of beliefs, excluding the possibility that one may formulate their atheism as the positive belief that the natural world as studied by the legitimate sciences (which excludes such dubious practices as alchemy, and sorry, theology) encompasses all that can be meaningfully or likely said to exist (though more appropriately termed metaphysical naturalism)? 

If someone says, "I don't know if any gods exist," or "I don't see sufficient evidence for any gods," or "God is not meaningfully defined," they're not describing a belief. They're stating the lack thereof. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Do you also claim that anyone who, in a hypothetical but parallel situation, doubts the existence of fire-breathing dragons or horses with wings and has to distinguish themselves as a-dragonists and a-pegasi due to the popularity of dragon and pegasus cults amongst the public, that if they disagree with other a-dragonists or a-pegasi about other propositions unrelated to these in particular, then they should stop identifying themselves as such because "they don't believe what a-dragonists and a-pegasi believe"? Obviously, no, they do not. They are correct to refer to themselves by this term, regardless of their other beliefs about the world.

Atheism is not a philosophy according to whom?  You?  I’ll stick to the actual experts on such matters. 

The "experts." Lol. Who are the experts? What are they experts at? Atheism? (That would be an odd claim). Theology? (An even stranger one). Did they write the rules of the English language and the usage of its terms?

Well the self-described atheist who edits the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says you’re wrong.  Now what? 

Now I refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and discover that you're full of shit. The author there says no such thing, but rather "Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God," and "As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes." Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary agrees and states atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." It's funny that when those whom you presumably consider to be the "experts" speak of "disbelief," you only come back to report that, according to them, atheism is a "belief." Dishonest or misinformed? Since, I don't believe in a god, I'll let you be the judge.

 
Wikipedia is a user-generated website.  Secondly, if you check the three sources it references after defining atheism as “an absence of belief” you’ll see that none of them actually define it that way.

Or rather, none of them define it as a belief, as you would desperately have it, probably thinking that it shifts the burden of proof onto us while in turn lightening yours, which understandably must be impossibly difficult to bear in discussions where I'm sure you'd love to maintain even the slightest appearance of competence.

So I can start up my own website and redefine terms however I wish?  You need to stick to the actual authoritative literature on such matters.

  "The authoritative literature." What could you, a Christian, be referring to? Genesis? Exodus? Revelation?
 

You seem to be moving the goalposts.  You simply stated that, “At no time has anyone ever perceived any god.”  This claim runs completely contrary to the testimony of millions of people; so I have to ask how you could possibly know they are all wrong since you claim to know this somehow.

 
Millions of people have also claimed to have seen UFOs. Do you believe that the burden lies on skeptics, after analyzing the most "credible" reports and determining the evidence to be suspect, insufficient, and better explained by natural phenomena --- such as the abundant presence of human aircraft, moving celestial objects, the commonality of perception to be faulty and deceptive, our psychology and memory known to make incorrect inferences or distort past events, people's knack for being dishonest when they stand to benefit, etc. --- that after all of these far more probable and parsimonious explanations have been considered, which are based on observation and experiment, the skeptic must still add further evidence that UFOs have not and do not regularly visit earth? Why would she be obliged to do so? You do realize that the "testimony" you cite is actually less probable than UFOs, since we at least know life exists on one planet, has developed technologies for (limited) space exploration, and has discovered a Universe in which exists, by some estimations, a trillion trillion planets? Whereas with god, you must simply appeal to some person who experienced something of which we have nothing to gauge it by, but said it was "god" (always construed to fit the context of their cultural background, of course), and then ask others to glibly accept it, as you have done. But why "god"? Maybe they actually experienced your fellow dupes' extraterrestrials who are using advanced technologies to project themselves into the minds of the pious and devoted? That's at least equally as unsubstantiated.
 

A blind person could just say that heat is not the same thing as light and until you prove otherwise you have not met the burden of proof.  The Bible does say that the unbeliever is dead in sin, having scales over his eyes and a heart of stone.  Perhaps you are merely the blind person in this case?  You might have simply misspoken, but you did say that any person has to be able to perceive the entity in question.  This also makes the assumption that all minds perceive reality in the same way, and this is simply an unfounded assumption.  Far more people have claimed to have perceived the existence of god than have claimed to have perceived a neutrino, and yet I am sure you have no problem believing in the existence of the latter intriguingly enough.  Maybe this will work better, how about you propose a method for proving the existence of god, fair?

Contrarily, maybe its as the Hindus related Krishna in the Bhagavad gita, some 200-500 years prior to Christ: "He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me … I am from everlasting the seed of eternal life … in its delusion the world knows me not … all beings have their rest in me … I am the way … he who loves me shall not perish … only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me …malignant men hate me … they come not to me, but they go down the path of hell."

Maybe you're a victim of the delusion and cannot see the truth of Hinduism because you do not love Krishna?

It's not any more intriguing that the common layperson accepts the claims of scientists when there is widespread consensus and data published through journals and research-papers, without personally verifying the object of their study, anymore than it is for you to go to the doctor's when you're sick (unless you simply pray for healing like James 5:14 instructs you to do, and like many Christian do to the detriment of their health, because God promises that "the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick"), or to take your car to a reliable mechanic when it needs repair; the scientific community has earned the reputation of being part of a successful enterprise built on honest and open inquiry... unlike the church, or their codified texts. And when error prevails amongst scientists --- an impossibility with theology since it literally has nothing to study except the claims of other theologians --- it is usually quickly (but sometimes slowly) corrected by other ambitious scientists who want to make a name for themselves... which is why you trust in science everyday, but not in any of the 99.9% of religions (and probably to a large extent, your own) you were not indoctrinated into by other adults.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Yeah, I'm with Alex K. I couldn't get past the first line of this. I hope no one takes that seriously, although, I'm sure there's people out there that actually think all of that about atheists.

The Creed of the Atheist:

1. We don't believe in gods

2. Fuck other creeds, we can think for ourselves

[robvalue]

@people who want to argue over the definition of atheism:

We all know and agree what we mean by atheist: not having an active belief that one or more God exists. As far as I know, this is the definition used primarily throughout the atheist community.

If you want to use different words for it, go nuts. But since that requires you being the only ones using a different definition here, it would be a lot simpler if you humour us and use our definition for the purposes of this forum. We won't tell all those philosophers on you.

As long as we agree definitions, what does it matter?