Atheism the Belief

[adrea 10]

 

I don't understand what an active disbelief is, when compared to just you're normal, 100% disbelief.

I don't believe that Odin is real, I don't believe that Thor is real, I don't believe than an Abrahamic god is real. If I don't believe in them, I can't then 'have' one of them to disbelieve more strongly. They're all equally mythical.

 

I baby will lack belief in God because it has no concept of God.

 

I have an idea of what Odin, Thor, and the Abrahamic God are because the people that do believe in them have described them, this allows me to think about these Gods and then decide that they do not exist.

[unbeliever 10]

An atheist isn't somebody who denies the existence of gods. An atheist is someone who has no belief in gods (many atheists accept that, however extremely unlikely, there may be a possibility that one or more gods exist, they simply have no belief in them).

 

People who do deny the existence of gods will also lack belief in gods so are atheist by default.

 

I think you may be reading negativity into the word deny that I didn't intend. I think I may have struck the wrong tone.

 

As for the rest of your post, aren't you describing an Agnostic?

[RootsBooster 24]

I baby will lack belief in God because it has no concept of God.

 

I have an idea of what Odin, Thor, and the Abrahamic God are because the people that do believe in them have described them, this allows me to think about these Gods and then decide that they do not exist.

 

There is no rule requiring your absence of belief to be a product of thought or decision making.

For atheism, all that's required is that you are without belief in gods, whether you arrived at this through thought or just simply have never held any such beliefs.

 

Yes, a baby is an atheist.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 10:09 ----------

 

I think you may be reading negativity into the word deny that I didn't intend. I think I may have struck the wrong tone.

I didn't read any negativity in it, it's just that absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

 

 

As for the rest of your post, aren't you describing an Agnostic?

No, I'm describing an atheist. All atheists and theists are also agnostic or gnostic.

 

Shown here... http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Atheist%252520v%252520Theist.png?imgmax=800

 

 

 

Through misuse, the word 'agnostic' has come to mean (for many people) a position where you're unsure about what you believe, like some kind of middle ground. This is not the true meaning.

I don't think it's actually possible to be unsure about what you believe, as a belief is a conviction, something you have been convinced of or accept to be true. If you were unsure then you wouldn't be convinced.

Edited July 20, 2015 by RootsBooster

[Waldo 96]

However, atheists that claim their atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods,

 

Not without conceptualising the notion of 'god' being something. I don't think people can say they don't believe in 'x', without attaching some meaning to 'x'.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 10:34 ----------

 

I have an active disbelief in the Gods described by other people, specifically the Abrahamic God, but I don't know anyone who with a dis-belief in their own concept of god.

 

Okay.

 

You disbelief in your version, your internal mental concept, of what you think other people mean, when they say god.

 

You have no direct knowledge of other people's concept of god; you only have your own interpretation (which is in your own mind) of their concept of god.

 

You don't disbelieve their concept of an Abrahamic God. You disbelieve in your own concept of an Abrahamic God.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

You might as well be saying that hats seem as futile as theism, because neither adequately answers the question, what is meant by 'god'?

 

No, because 'hats' has no linguistic connection to 'god', whereas 'atheist' does...

 

Can you define 'atheist' without using the word 'god'?

 

Can you define 'hat' without using the word 'god'?

 

Without a concept of 'god', atheism has no meaning, and could not exist itself as a notion.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Waldo
typos

[RootsBooster 24]

No, because 'hats' has no linguistic connection to 'god', whereas 'atheist' does...

 

Can you define 'atheist' without using the word 'god'?

 

Can you define 'hat' without using the word 'god'?

 

Without a concept of 'god', atheism has no meaning, and could not exist itself as a notion.

 

And 'atheist' does not attempt to define any gods, just like 'hat' doesn't.

 

It is not atheism's job to define gods or god, it just a noun used for the absence of belief in gods, whatever the presented definition of those gods or god is.

[Waldo 96]

And 'atheist' does not attempt to define any gods, just like 'hat' doesn't.

 

It is not atheism's job to define gods or god, it just a noun used for the absence of belief in gods, whatever the presented definition of those gods or god is.

 

Yes, 'atheist' requires a definition of 'god'; 'hat' does not.

 

Which brings us back to my original point...

 

I believe it is (both in the minds of theists, and atheists alike), a somewhat nebulous, non-fleshed out, vague concept...

 

The concept of god is unclear and meaningless. Not like the concept of say 'tree', which refers to something that is tangible and clear.

 

This is why, for my money; without first being crystal clear on what is mean't by 'god'; entertaining the concept of 'theist' or 'atheist' is meaningless.

 

You're free of course, to see things differently, as I'm sure you do.

[unbeliever 10]

Yes, 'atheist' requires a definition of 'god'; 'hat' does not.

 

Which brings us back to my original point...

 

 

 

The concept of god is unclear and meaningless. Not like the concept of say 'tree', which refers to something that is tangible and clear.

 

This is why, for my money; without first being crystal clear on what is mean't by 'god'; entertaining the concept of 'theist' or 'atheist' is meaningless.

 

You're free of course, to see things differently, as I'm sure you do.

 

An atheist disbelieves the idea that a supernatural being is responsible for cosmogenesis. The particular definition of the supernatural being is not necessary. Any supernatural being you define is disbelieved because it is a supernatural being.

[adrea 10]

Okay.

 

You disbelief in your version, your internal mental concept, of what you think other people mean, when they say god.

 

You have no direct knowledge of other people's concept of god; you only have your own interpretation (which is in your own mind) of their concept of god.

 

You don't disbelieve their concept of an Abrahamic God. You disbelieve in your own concept of an Abrahamic God.

 

They are not my concepts of God, I don't have a version of God, God is a meaningless term without a description of God. The word God is clearly defined in our language and by most religions, and based on those definitions and descriptions of God I can say that I do not believe that it exists. You have to remember that God is just a word which is attached to a description, just like car is just a word which is attached to a description and based on the definition of car I can clearly state that they exist, I can't say the same about God because the description doesn't match anything that I know to be possible.

[Waldo 96]

An atheist disbelieves the idea that a supernatural being is responsible for cosmogenesis. The particular definition of the supernatural being is not necessary. Any supernatural being you define is disbelieved because it is a supernatural being.

 

This doesn't match what RootsBooster claims...

 

He says 'athiest' means without belief in god.

 

You say 'disbelief', which is very different to 'lack of belief'.

 

You are also presenting a very specific definition of 'god' (a 'supernatural being'). I do not believe all conceptions of 'god' would fit such a definition.

[unbeliever 10]

This doesn't match what RootsBooster claims...

 

He says 'athiest' means without belief in god.

 

You say 'disbelief', which is very different to 'lack of belief'.

 

You are also presenting a very specific definition of 'god' (a 'supernatural being'). I do not believe all conceptions of 'god' would fit such a definition.

 

Please offer an example of a god which would not fit my definition: "a supernatural being responsible for cosmogenesis".

[Tommo68 10]

Which part of elvolution dont you think is scientifically proven?

 

The belief in the transformative changes of the planet are or can be shown geologically and with a currently largely accepted degree of accuracy the transformations over time of the universe, although the theories re its origins still raise doubt and are subject to debate.

 

As far as I am aware there is evidence that many species have transformed or changed/adapted over the years.

 

I am not aware that there is any evidence that even one species has 'evolved' into or from another.

 

That some species gradual changes had sudden leaps in so called progress do not as yet have their causes explained with proof.

 

Much of the interesting and sometimes believable conjecture as to how some sudden changes or arrival of new species is dismissed out of hand by some of those with no imagination as conspiracy theories.

 

Scientists continually appear to protect the status quo when it comes to new thinking, afraid of ridicule for being proved wrong either in their old beliefs or for daring to conceive or accept new ones.

 

Creationism is a one set of beliefs and one branch of creationism claims the one deity or imaginary friend, dependent on your own beliefs,is responsible for all life forms and the universe itself though does not explain the coming into existence of itself.

 

Other theories regarding creationism that is not attributed to a deity are interesting but are too readily dismissed, by the non-thinkers and the nervous. Some of those theories also question what we mean or accept to be the meaning of what is a deity. Which is too much for for some small minds to look at objectively.

.

.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Tommo68

[RootsBooster 24]

This doesn't match what RootsBooster claims...

 

He says 'athiest' means without belief in god.

 

You say 'disbelief', which is very different to 'lack of belief'.

 

You are also presenting a very specific definition of 'god' (a 'supernatural being'). I do not believe all conceptions of 'god' would fit such a definition.

 

It's not that much different, actually...

 

Disbelief:

 

1.Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real

 

2.Lack of faith

 

Whichever one of those definitions you choose to use, neither mean you have to conclusively deny the existence of any gods.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 12:08 ----------

 

Please offer an example of a god which would not fit my definition: "a supernatural being responsible for cosmogenesis".

 

There's plenty of gods who aren't credited with creation of the universe.