What is Atheism?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Atheism is a little bird tweeting in a meadow. You're welcome.

Boru

[AceBoogie]

Maybe you just like thinking the god question is as important for us as it is for you.  Sorry, no dice.

Yes... I detect a lack of critical thinking... and critical reading as this has nothing to do with what I said.

So what is atheism to you RR?

[RoadRunner79]

Yes... I detect a lack of critical thinking... and critical reading as this has nothing to do with what I said.

So what is atheism to you RR?

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

[AceBoogie]

So what is atheism to you RR?

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

Okay... so what is atheism to you? How do you define it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

So what is atheism to you RR?

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

[FatAndFaithless]

D'aw, Chad, you sweet talker.

[Mister Agenda]

So what is atheism to you RR?

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

I like your comment because you aren't trying to dictate to us what an atheist is over our objections, and that's something many Christians have trouble doing. But...

Someone who always says 'canoe' when 'boat' would be more accurate isn't wrong about a canoe being a boat; but I'm going to disagree with their usage of the term, and they're likely going to disagree with mine. Perhaps I missed the post where the agnostic atheists claimed the gnostic atheists aren't real atheists? Because if they just don't agree on the topic of how probable it is that God doesn't exist, that's what having different positions is. We're allowed to have different opinions on that while all of us remain atheists.

Given that theists can believe in Yahweh, Vishnu, Grandmother Spider, Shango, Universal Energy, Ancestor Spirits, and on and on and on; you'd think they wouldn't lecture us on how ridiculous we are about our differences, especially regarding accepting the legitimacy of other kinds of atheists.

---

Hindus? If they believe in at least one god, then they are still theists. As far as I know (and I could be wrong) Hindu belief always involves god beliefs, so they would all be theists. If there is a separate sect of Hinduism I'm unaware of that does not assert a god, then they would be atheistic.

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

[Neo-Scholastic]

D'aw, Chad, you sweet talker.

Point taken, I'm in a pissy mood this morning.

[AceBoogie]

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

It's not up to atheists to provide an alternative explanation because most of us don't claim to have an explanation for everything.

The ball is still in your court. It is still up to the theists to convince us of this god nonsense. It's okay to admit you don't know, which i think is exactly what most atheists do.

You people have been shouting and screaming about fairies at the bottom of the garden for the past god knows how many years... Then telling us that we have the burden of proving you wrong. Goddam, you're like little petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot DISPROVE god's existence!"

[Mister Agenda]

Yes.

It's called "understanding the null hypothesis".

That depends on what the null hypothesis actually is? The idea behind a 'null hypothesis' is that proving one explanation requires disproving the current explanation.

This is like one of those commercials where the person who actually understands something is saying 'That's not how any of this works1'.

If homeopathy was believed in for centuries and almost everyone but a few irrationally skeptical scientists believed in it unquestioningly, to prove it really works, the null hypothesis to overcome would still be 'homeopathically treated water is indistinguishable from the same water if not homeopathically treated in its medical effects'.

---

Anyways, let's see how that applies to an alternative proposition. I think it would very disingenuous for nearly any atheist to say he or she disagrees with the claim "The world is all that exists" which is functionally equivalent to lack of belief in God.

'The world is all that exists' is the null hypothesis. If you want to show that something besides the world exists, that's the proposition that you need to overcome. It could well be true that the world isn't all that exists, but that's what needs to be demonstrated; it's nonsensical to hold the opposite as the null, because that's the opposite of what the null hypothesis is, and is for.

---

Frankly, I preferred when the term "atheist" was more specific, and had more meaning.

Not sure how your preference is relevant, but that was literally centuries ago. And I think there may be a disconnect between 'word with multiple senses' having less meaning than 'word with just one'.

Faith has multiple senses. I'd be perfectly happy to pare it down to just one going forward, if you think it would make it more meaningful.