| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wbarwell" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2006 04:23:07 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I note since last time I posted we have had three atheism
definition spats break out.
I am posting the latest and greatest again for more
commentary, flammage, ideas, complaints and corrections.
It seems something like this is badly needed and we need
to get this thing properly frosted and a cherry put on top.
Your turn...
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French athée, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
6. There are basically two kinds of atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim. For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus god is disproven.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists. Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because theist assertions are quite
vulnerable and thus disprovable.
10. But one can be an atheist in the psychological sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
13. Many atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
psychologically. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), DISBELIEF IN GOD(S)
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong. One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 06:43:14 PM |
|
|
Who gave you the authority to define words? Consult your dictionary.
The American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ist ( ³"th¶-¹st) n. 1. One that disbelieves or denies the existence of
God or gods.
End of subject.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11u51fqnd5kibd6@corp.supernews.com...
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I note since last time I posted we have had three atheism
definition spats break out.
I am posting the latest and greatest again for more
commentary, flammage, ideas, complaints and corrections.
It seems something like this is badly needed and we need
to get this thing properly frosted and a cherry put on top.
Your turn...
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French athée, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
6. There are basically two kinds of atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim. For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus god is disproven.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists. Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because theist assertions are quite
vulnerable and thus disprovable.
10. But one can be an atheist in the psychological sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
13. Many atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
psychologically. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), DISBELIEF IN GOD(S)
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong. One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 06:57:23 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Who gave you the authority to define words?
It's his God given right!
8-)
Consult your dictionary.
The American Heritage Dictionary
a=B7the=B7ist ( =B3"th=B6-=B9st) n. 1. One that disbelieves or denies the=
existence of
God or gods.
I dont deny the existence of Ramsses the second.
Here is some evidence of his existence:
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/ramesses_the_great.htm
According to the above that makes me not an atheist.
End of subject.
In your dreams.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 07:26:18 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Who gave you the authority to define words? Consult your dictionary.
Me myself, I and J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Wanna make something of it pink boy?
Part of the problem is sometimes people look at
several dictionaries to pick one matching their polemics.
Thsi FAQ was menat in part, to put and end to that.
Its a definition only for the purposes of alt.atheism,
to end such games.
Those who are reasonable we can debate. The
usenet dictionary kook game players get hit over
the head with the FAQ.
The American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ist ( ³"th¶-¹st) n. 1. One that disbelieves or denies the
existence of God or gods.
End of subject.
OK, next time the kooks wander into AA and play the game,
you come hit 'em for us, OK?
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11u51fqnd5kibd6@corp.supernews.com...
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I note since last time I posted we have had three atheism
definition spats break out.
I am posting the latest and greatest again for more
commentary, flammage, ideas, complaints and corrections.
It seems something like this is badly needed and we need
to get this thing properly frosted and a cherry put on top.
Your turn...
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French athée, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
6. There are basically two kinds of atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim. For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus god is disproven.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists. Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because theist assertions are quite
vulnerable and thus disprovable.
10. But one can be an atheist in the psychological sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
13. Many atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
psychologically. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), DISBELIEF IN GOD(S)
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong. One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
03 Feb 2006 01:14:24 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Bill wrote:
Who gave you the authority to define words? Consult your dictionary.
Me myself, I and J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Wanna make something of it pink boy?
Part of the problem is sometimes people look at
several dictionaries to pick one matching their polemics.
This fact is worth mentioning in the aa FAQ answer to "What is an
atheist?"
Something to the effect that:
Atheism is at its essence the conscious absence of belief in the
existence of any deity; that is, the atheist is one who has thought
about the subject and is aware of his or her absence of belief in
deity. (In like manner, the theist is one who has thought about the
subject and is aware of his or her belief in deity.) In some arguments
against atheism, claims are made that atheism is more or other than
this, and in fact, some atheists do share beliefs and characteristics
in addition to this conscious absence of belief. These arguments, when
directed against atheism or atheists as a whole, are fallacious,
typically suffering from straw man, hasty generalization, or related
fallacies of argumentation.
Examples could be given of beliefs and characteristics commonly shared
by some atheists. In fact, this way of structuring the answer to the
FAQ could allow for all the variations to be covered.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 05:40:05 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I note since last time I posted we have had three atheism
definition spats break out.
I am posting the latest and greatest again for more
commentary, flammage, ideas, complaints and corrections.
It seems something like this is badly needed and we need
to get this thing properly frosted and a cherry put on top.
Your turn...
Heh. Good luck. I remember reading that a Jew is defined as a person
who has, as a major concern, what it means to be a Jew.
But I have some comments.
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French athée, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
At the risk of starting another spat, I suggest the following: Since
this is in the *psychological* sense it matters what psychological
state is referred to.
First, I would like to suggest that the word "psychological" could be
replaced by "attitudinal" because this latter word, meaning "state of
mind" emphasizes the fact that the definition of this kind of atheist
concerns only his state of mind with respect to the raw question of
the existence of deity, while the epistemic atheist also concerns
himself with relevant knowledge claims and their justification.
"Psychological" seems to be too much about motives and inner workings
of the mind.
So it can be said that a person is attitudinally an atheist because he
consciously lacks belief in any god. This can be true even though he
has not developed a position concerning the epistemics of the issue.
Second, I suggest the following rewording:
1. The universally applicable characteristic of attitudinal atheism
is a conscious lack of belief in the existence god or gods. One who
is conscious of lacking belief in the existence of god or gods is an
attitudinal atheist.
(Recognizing that it is a *conscious* mental state specifies the
psychological or attitudinal character of the belief and avoids
calling babies atheists.)
Or do the definers of atheism want to make atheism sound stupid by
insisting on including babies?
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
The above two should be collapsed together and the judgementalism
removed. "Some attitudinal atheists offer reasons for their lack of
belief. Atheists do not necessarily agree on one common set of
reasons."
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
Some attitudinal atheists offer no ...
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
end that with "...conscious lack of belief is the sole defining
characteristic of an attitudinal atheist."
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
It seems to me worth noting at the start that in contrast to the
attitudinal atheist, the epistemic atheist *also* has developed
positions regarding the epistemic issues -- claims of knowledge (and
their justification) about the existence or nonexistence of God.
I am adding my few comments with **...** in the text.
6. There are basically two kinds of **epistemic** atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim. For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus **a** god **that is described by these assertions** is disproven.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists. **Both may believe that there has been no meaningful definition of
the word "god".** Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because **of their emphasis on the vulnerability of theist assertions.**
10. But one can be an atheist in the **attitudinal** sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist ** that is, without
having a position on knowledge claims and their justification.
But all epistemic atheists are attitudinally, atheists,**
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
13. Many **attitudinal and weak** atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
I suggest deleting this last sentence stating what fideism is, because
it is disputable and not needed..
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
**attitudinally**. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), **ATTITUDINAL ATHEISM -- CONSCIOUS** DISBELIEF IN ANY GOD(S) --
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong. One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 06:43:54 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I am posting the latest and greatest again for more
commentary, flammage, ideas, complaints and corrections.
It seems something like this is badly needed and we need
to get this thing properly frosted and a cherry put on top.
Heh. Good luck. I remember reading that a Jew is defined as a person
who has, as a major concern, what it means to be a Jew.
We have a lot in common with Jews then!
8-)
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
At the risk of starting another spat, I suggest the following: Since
this is in the *psychological* sense it matters what psychological
state is referred to.
First, I would like to suggest that the word "psychological" could be
replaced by "attitudinal" because this latter word, meaning "state of
mind" emphasizes the fact that the definition of this kind of atheist
concerns only his state of mind with respect to the raw question of
the existence of deity, while the epistemic atheist also concerns
himself with relevant knowledge claims and their justification.
Excellent point - supported.
"Psychological" seems to be too much about motives and inner workings
of the mind.
Yes - and fits in well with my advocacy for a sense of
psychological/ethical atheism.
So it can be said that a person is attitudinally an atheist because he
consciously lacks belief in any god. This can be true even though he
has not developed a position concerning the epistemics of the issue.
Second, I suggest the following rewording:
1. The universally applicable characteristic of attitudinal atheism
is a conscious lack of belief in the existence god or gods. One who
is conscious of lacking belief in the existence of god or gods is an
attitudinal atheist.
(Recognizing that it is a *conscious* mental state specifies the
psychological or attitudinal character of the belief and avoids
calling babies atheists.)
Another excellent point.
Or do the definers of atheism want to make atheism sound stupid by
insisting on including babies?
Not me - and I vote!
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
The above two should be collapsed together and the judgementalism
removed. "Some attitudinal atheists offer reasons for their lack of
belief. Atheists do not necessarily agree on one common set of
reasons."
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
Some attitudinal atheists offer no ...
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
end that with "...conscious lack of belief is the sole defining
characteristic of an attitudinal atheist."
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
It seems to me worth noting at the start that in contrast to the
attitudinal atheist, the epistemic atheist *also* has developed
positions regarding the epistemic issues -- claims of knowledge (and
their justification) about the existence or nonexistence of God.
Yes - being an epistemic or ethical atheist (plug!) is alwasy in
*addition* or extension of an attitudinal athiest.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 10:50:46 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
<...>
Yes - and fits in well with my advocacy for a sense of
psychological/ethical atheism.
<...>
Wow, you have put it together on this. I strongly second the notion of
ethical atheism, which I will hazard to say, with amendments welcome,
is atheism that is founded primarily on an rejection, or at least, the
dismissal, as a historical failure, on ethical grounds, of theism.
IOW, looking at history, theism fails, ethically. Even in delivering
on its own higher ethical goals. Of course, it serves its baser ones.
This would be separate from atheism based on rational/evidential
concerns regarding deity, (the epistemic atheist) although one could
hold to both of these -- ethical and epistemic atheism.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 11:13:36 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
<...>
Yes - and fits in well with my advocacy for a sense of
psychological/ethical atheism.
<...>
Wow, you have put it together on this. I strongly second the notion of
ethical atheism, which I will hazard to say, with amendments welcome,
is atheism that is founded primarily on an rejection, or at least, the
dismissal, as a historical failure, on ethical grounds, of theism.
IOW, looking at history, theism fails, ethically. Even in delivering
on its own higher ethical goals. Of course, it serves its baser ones.
This would be separate from atheism based on rational/evidential
concerns regarding deity, (the epistemic atheist) although one could
hold to both of these -- ethical and epistemic atheism.
Thank's Jim.
I am somewhat tempted to write and post:
"Mark and Jim's Excellent but Totally Unofficial Alt Atheism Definition
of Atheism FAQ."
8-)
Shall I have a go?
(For a very reasonable donation it could be called Jim and Marks
Excellent FAQ...)
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
03 Feb 2006 11:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
<...>
Yes - and fits in well with my advocacy for a sense of
psychological/ethical atheism.
<...>
Wow, you have put it together on this. I strongly second the notion of
ethical atheism, which I will hazard to say, with amendments welcome,
is atheism that is founded primarily on an rejection, or at least, the
dismissal, as a historical failure, on ethical grounds, of theism.
IOW, looking at history, theism fails, ethically. Even in delivering
on its own higher ethical goals. Of course, it serves its baser ones.
This would be separate from atheism based on rational/evidential
concerns regarding deity, (the epistemic atheist) although one could
hold to both of these -- ethical and epistemic atheism.
Thank's Jim.
I am somewhat tempted to write and post:
"Mark and Jim's Excellent but Totally Unofficial Alt Atheism Definition
of Atheism FAQ."
8-)
Shall I have a go?
(For a very reasonable donation it could be called Jim and Marks
Excellent FAQ...)
8-)
Mark.
That's tempting. I am not sure of the "value added" of having a
definition in the FAQ, no matter what its name. It might be better,
IMO, to have a "discussion" of the issues that have to be addressed in
defining the term. This discussion could begin with a simple statement
that the sole defining criterion of atheism and of being an atheist is
to consciously lack belief in the existence of any deity.
I wrote another couple of paragraphs here but am deleting them and
cutting to the point they were leading to.
The point is, that definition doesn't quite cut it for me, but adding
more words does not help either. This is because I think the
definition, and any definition, fails to capture the fact that to
grasp what atheism is, one has to grasp what it *feels like* to be an
atheist.
I'm not sure that what it feels like can be put in words. If we ask
self-identified atheists on alt.atheism what it feels like to be an
atheist, I wonder what we'd get? One obvious reaction is, "compared to
what?" Well, compared to what it feels like to be a theist, I suppose.
But given that there are an infinite number of gods of varying
characteristics to be theistic about, who knows what the core thing is
that it feels like to be a theist? Even limiting it to Christian
theists, who could say what it feels like to be, or not to be, a
theist?
Well, I can't help but ramble. THis probably means that I should
relinquish any naming rights on the definition of atheism. God for it,
Mark.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
04 Feb 2006 04:02:31 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
<snip a bit>
I am somewhat tempted to write and post:
"Mark and Jim's Excellent but Totally Unofficial Alt Atheism Definition
of Atheism FAQ."
8-)
Shall I have a go?
Mark.
That's tempting. I am not sure of the "value added" of having a
definition in the FAQ, no matter what its name. It might be better,
IMO, to have a "discussion" of the issues that have to be addressed in
defining the term. This discussion could begin with a simple statement
that the sole defining criterion of atheism and of being an atheist is
to consciously lack belief in the existence of any deity.
I wrote another couple of paragraphs here but am deleting them and
cutting to the point they were leading to.
The point is, that definition doesn't quite cut it for me, but adding
more words does not help either.
I know exactly what you mean.
Every simple definition I examine I can always find *significant*
exceptions.
For example although the brief one mentioned fits many situations it
gets complicated when considering beings which actually exist that have
been considered gods.
People get very impatient with me on this and think I am being -
frivolous or nit picking.
Yet historically the worship of real beings - emperors, the sun , the
moon, sacred animals sacred mountains has been a significant feature of
human spirituality - it only seems extraneous and "weird" because we
are used to the immaterial "pure spirit" gods that have been in vogue
in our western culture.
This is because I think the
definition, and any definition, fails to capture the fact that to
grasp what atheism is, one has to grasp what it *feels like* to be an
atheist.
Yes - which is why I emphasize the psychological and emotional and
ethical aspects of belief and rejection of belief over the purely
epistemological/phenomalogical aspects.
I'm not sure that what it feels like can be put in words. If we ask
self-identified atheists on alt.atheism what it feels like to be an
atheist, I wonder what we'd get? One obvious reaction is, "compared to
what?" Well, compared to what it feels like to be a theist, I suppose.
But given that there are an infinite number of gods of varying
characteristics to be theistic about, who knows what the core thing is
that it feels like to be a theist? Even limiting it to Christian
theists, who could say what it feels like to be, or not to be, a
theist?
Well, I can't help but ramble. THis probably means that I should
relinquish any naming rights on the definition of atheism. God for it,
Mark.
--- Jim07D6
I might still do it - but I also have reservations as to its
usefullness.
I think William Barwell is looking for an argument stopper - which is
not what I am interested in...
I'll think about it.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 06:24:36 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I think that overall this is a good effort - and I encourage you not to
give up!
8-)
Just a few more tweeks would help - but I agree with your initial
intention of keeping it as short as possible - adding endless caveats
and exemptions will render it useless.
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
I am not sure how "official" it can be.
(We dont have a formal leadership or parliament or whatever...)
I am trying to think of a better title :
Perhaps Conventional/assumed/presummed/default/commonly accepted?
- This is a minor thing but I can imagine that both some "locals" and
plenty of invading trolls will have a field day with it.
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French ath=E9e, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French ath=E9isme, from ath=E9e, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
Perhaps it might help to reduce the sense of tautology to use "godless"
or "non believer" in these introductory passages.
For example:
" By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, genuine non-believers
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists."
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
The thrust of this is correct but I think "wrong" here is perhaps not
the best word.
How about:
" Anything else beyond that is unnecessary."
or
"Anything else beyond that is not universally applicable to all
atheists."
No matter what any given dictionary says.
For my taste this is argumentative/combatative - perhaps best left out.
Short and simple is best.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
6. There are basically two kinds of atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Change to
"The Weak atheist does not claim..."
Weak atheism isnt a being that makes claims etc.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
Ditto in the above.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim.
"The Strong Atheist makes specific claims against various conceptions
of gods "
Lower case god is "a being worshiped as having devine powers"
Whereas you are thinking of God.
For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus god is disproven.
I would prefer:
"Thus God (or some other deity in question) is disproven to the
atheists satisfaction"?
I am a bit uncomfortable with your *advocating* the correctness of your
form of atheism - rather than just presenting the meaning. A bit of a
judgement call I know - just tread a little carefully if you are going
for general acceptence.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists.
I would actually strenghten this to "There is always overlap between
..=2E."
There will be thousands of gods the strong atheist has not even
considered in order to reject.
Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because theist assertions are quite
vulnerable and thus disprovable.
10. But one can be an atheist in the psychological sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
Replace second sentence with:
"The word is derived from "without knowledge" - A - gnosis
By knowledge Huxley meant imperical objective knowlegde - knowledge
justified by evidence and reason - rather than the mystical "gnosis"
of the early christian mystics which was seen as a gift of the holy
spirit."
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
Or prevent one from being an atheist.
8-)
13. Many atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
psychologically. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), DISBELIEF IN GOD(S)
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
Again I think we should change "official" to accepted or assumed or
commonly agreed.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong.
Is misleading and sometimes wrong?
Or change to:
"To say ALL atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that ALL atheists deny god is wrong.
That would be more acceptable to me.
One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
I would actually like to add another "sense" of atheism
After
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
and before
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
I would add
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF ETHICAL REJECTION OF THE WORSHIP OF POWER
Which to me is a biggy - but aprt from myself and (the long absent)
Charles Fiterman it
probably wouldnt get much support.
The gist is that the worship of gods is essentially the prostrating and
debasement of the self before Great Power - and that this is to be
rejected as a matter of principle and ethics.
To me this is the great unspoken aspect of atheism.
Cheers, Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism definition FAQ go around part II |
02 Feb 2006 07:46:52 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Since posting the first shot at this, it has undergone
several modifications.
I think that overall this is a good effort - and I encourage you not to
give up!
8-)
Just a few more tweeks would help - but I agree with your initial
intention of keeping it as short as possible - adding endless caveats
and exemptions will render it useless.
Shortness and a certain sense of completeness
are natural enemies.
*******************************************************
THE OFFICIAL ALT.ATHEISM DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
*******************************************************
I am not sure how "official" it can be.
(We dont have a formal leadership or parliament or whatever...)
I am trying to think of a better title :
Perhaps Conventional/assumed/presummed/default/commonly accepted?
- This is a minor thing but I can imagine that both some "locals" and
plenty of invading trolls will have a field day with it.
There is rarely a totaly agreement on anything on the net,
but by official here I was hoping to a sort of basic,
sensible FAQ reasonable people could agree to for the
purposes of kook whacking and a quick, basic introduction
to the various aspects of the word for those who never knew of these
things. More a clue stick that offical definition for all time.
It can be confusing when a kook or some newbie broaches
the subject and a dozen people jump in with varying
definitions with varying degrees of grumpiness.
And gives kooks an opening as they can note "Them atheists
don't even agree among themselves. So why can't I make the
definition up?"
So official in as an opening statement that gets most
of what is needed in a consistant package so we don't
have to repeat ourselves a lot.
And can hit the kooks over the head if need be.
I sort of wrote it as I kept having to explain
this over and over myself.
William C. Barwell 1-22-06
Due to all too many persons entering into alt.atheism
without a competent understanding of what that word
means I have put together this Official alt.atheism
definition of the world atheist.
Most people use dictionaries, but many dictionaries
are nearly useless when it comes to the definition
of atheist, they either are simple minded or simply
wrong.
Atheist comes from the French athée, without god,
which is derived from Greek.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist,
from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; theos,
god; - The American Heritage Dictionary
For centuries it had no real meaning and was used
more as a epithet than in any technical meaning.
Thus the Romans called Christians atheists, meaning
without true gods.
By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, real atheists
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists.
Perhaps it might help to reduce the sense of tautology to use "godless"
or "non believer" in these introductory passages.
For example:
" By the Enlightenment in the late 1600's, genuine non-believers
had appeared in some number and the word started to take
on more technical and exacting meanings as it became
necessary to seriously discuss real and actual atheists."
I was going to use Atheist as in sense of both
nonbelievers and epistemological Atheism, we did have
the problem in the late 1600's and on of actual Atheist
proselytizers. People actually had to develop
counter arguments.
But I didn't mean this to be a history lesson either.
Part of the problem was, the atheists were rich and often
nobel and they couldn't just kill them.
I shall thin we should leave this as otherwise it gets
somewhat misleading.
The word atheism has two aspects, psychological -
belief and epistemological - knowledge.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
1. The lowest common denominator for atheism is
lack of belief in the existance god or gods. One
who does not believe in the existance of god or gods
is an atheist.
2. Some atheists offer good reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
3. Some atheists offer bad reasons for not believing
in the existance of god or gods.
4. Some atheists offer no reason at all for not
believing in god or gods.
5. If one does not believe in the existance of god
or gods for any or no reason, lack of belief
is the defining characteristic of an atheist.
Anything else beyond that is wrong.
The thrust of this is correct but I think "wrong" here is perhaps not
the best word.
How about:
" Anything else beyond that is unnecessary."
or
"Anything else beyond that is not universally applicable to all
atheists."
Because it is basically wrong.
I wanted that strongly stated.
Its the heart of the FAQ, basic lowest common denomination
meaning of Atheism is one who does not believe.
and you don't need to even expalin why or have a good reason.
Many charge in to AA thinking to be an atheist you have to
deny god, hate god etc. No, I don't have to do anything
except not believe.
That is on the psychological side at the level of mere belief.
Many never realize there is that divide between
belief and epistemology.
No matter what any given dictionary says.
For my taste this is argumentative/combatative - perhaps best left out.
Short and simple is best.
It was meant to be a bit argumentative because of various
past dictionary wars. This is for belligerant kooks
who dig out something they want as a definition, even
if they have to go through ten dictionaries to find it.
You kind have to have doe this a lot over ten years on
the net to see why I am a bit belligerant on that exact
point.
"Its the way we do it here, kid, even if you had to go
through 23 dictionaries to get what you wanted as a
definition. So there.
Its a kook stomper.
And these kook dictionary wars are not confined to AA
by any means. I have slapped down a few last year
elsewhere.
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
6. There are basically two kinds of atheism, strong
atheism, and weak atheism, also knows as positive
atheism and negative atheism.
7. Weak atheism does not claim god does not exist.
Change to
"The Weak atheist does not claim..."
Weak atheism isnt a being that makes claims etc.
Weak atheism notes that the burden of proof of god
rests on theist shoulders and that that burden
has not been met. Weak atheism simply denies
there is adequate evidence or reason to believe
in the existance of god.
Ditto in the above.
8. Strong atheism does claim god does not exist, and
offers evidence against that claim.
"The Strong Atheist makes specific claims against various conceptions
of gods "
Lower case god is "a being worshiped as having devine powers"
Whereas you are thinking of God.
For example
strong atheism notes no evidence exists for god,
only assertions. These assertions create impossible
contradictions and cannot possible be true.
Thus god is disproven.
I would prefer:
"Thus God (or some other deity in question) is disproven to the
atheists satisfaction"?
I am a bit uncomfortable with your *advocating* the correctness of your
form of atheism - rather than just presenting the meaning. A bit of a
judgement call I know - just tread a little carefully if you are going
for general acceptence.
9. There can be overlap between strong atheists and weak
atheists.
I would actually strenghten this to "There is always overlap between
..."
There will be thousands of gods the strong atheist has not even
considered in order to reject.
Some weak atheists may note that there
are easily disproven theist claims. Strong atheists
simply feel more aggressive about attacking the basic
claims of theism at its roots generally than weak
atheists, because theist assertions are quite
vulnerable and thus disprovable.
10. But one can be an atheist in the psychological sense
without being either a weak or strong atheist.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
11. Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Huxley.
It simply means without knowledge: A - gnosis.
Replace second sentence with:
"The word is derived from "without knowledge" - A - gnosis
By knowledge Huxley meant imperical objective knowlegde - knowledge
justified by evidence and reason - rather than the mystical "gnosis"
of the early christian mystics which was seen as a gift of the holy
spirit."
12. A person may agree that absolute knowledge about
the existence of god is not readily attainable.
But that does not make one an atheist.
Or prevent one from being an atheist.
8-)
13. Many atheists are both weak atheists and agnostics,
they admit that absolute knowledge may not exist,
but state that theism has not proven its claims,
it has not demonstrated god exists.
14. Theists may also accept there is no evidence
for god, it may be there is no god, but they
have belief that god is a reasonable idea. This
is known theologically speaking as fideism.
16. Thus agnostics maybe either theists or atheists
psychologically. But not strong theists or
strong atheists.
17. Loosely, agnostic has often traditionally been
used to mean atheist. But that is not really a
correct use of the word agnostic.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALT.ATHEISM, THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR (NO. 5 ABOVE), DISBELIEF IN GOD(S)
FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL IS THE
OFFICIAL OPERATIVE LCD DEFINITION.
Again I think we should change "official" to accepted or assumed or
commonly agreed.
To say atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that atheists deny god is wrong.
Is misleading and sometimes wrong?
Or change to:
"To say ALL atheists "claim god does not exist", or
that ALL atheists deny god is wrong.
That would be more acceptable to me.
One should not
mix up epistemological and psychological atheism,
they are not the same.
(End)
I would actually like to add another "sense" of atheism
After
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ATHEISM - BELIEF.
and before
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGY - KNOWLEDGE OR
EVIDENCE ABOUT GOD OR GODS.
I would add
ATHEISM IN THE SENSE OF ETHICAL REJECTION OF THE WORSHIP OF POWER
Which to me is a biggy - but aprt from myself and (the long absent)
Charles Fiterman it
probably wouldnt get much support.
The gist is that the worship of gods is essentially the prostrating and
debasement of the self before Great Power - and that this is to be
rejected as a matter of principle and ethics.
To me this is the great unspoken aspect of atheism.
Cheers, Mark
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
