Define atheism

[azim]

Hello everyone.

To the atheists and possibly agnostics on the board - how would you define atheism and which option from the poll is most accurate?

 

[therebbe]

You have to be careful about the words you are using in your poll.

The first choice is Atheists 'lack' of belief in the existence of G-d. When you lacking something that means you have:

• Deficiency
• Absence

of something. So therefore your first choice in the poll is that you believe Atheists believe in the 'absence' or 'deficiency' of G-d.

The second choice states that they 'deny' G-d's existence. This means that they:

• To declare untrue; contradict.
• To refuse to believe; reject.
• To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

So to deny G-d's existence is to declare G-d to be untrue, or refuse to believe that G-d exists. Or refusal to recognize G-d exists.

So could you please state what the choices actually mean?

1. Does the first choice state that Atheists believe in the 'absence' or 'deficiency' of G-d?
   
2. Does the second choice state that Atheists 'declare untrue', 'refuse to believe' or 'refuse to recognize' the existence of G-d?

The choices you give are vague so you might want to clear that up.

 

[azim]

You have to be careful about the words you are using in your poll.

The first choice is Atheists 'lack' of belief in the existence of G-d. When you lacking something that means you have:

• Deficiency
• Absence

of something. So therefore your first choice in the poll is that you believe Atheists believe in the 'absence' or 'deficiency' of G-d.

The second choice states that they 'deny' G-d's existence. This means that they:

• To declare untrue; contradict.
• To refuse to believe; reject.
• To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

So to deny G-d's existence is to declare G-d to be untrue, or refuse to believe that G-d exists. Or refusal to recognize G-d exists.

So could you please state what the choices actually mean?

1. Does the first choice state that Atheists believe in the 'absence' or 'deficiency' of G-d?
2. Does the second choice state that Atheists 'declare untrue', 'refuse to believe' or 'refuse to recognize' the existence of G-d?

The choices you give are vague so you might want to clear that up.

1. I'm not talking about the absence of deficiency of God. Lack of belief in God = You simply don't believe there is enough evidence to believe in God.

2. The three options you gave mean more or less the exact same thing, why should I pick one? To deny the existence of God means that you believe that there is enough evidence to say no God exists.

I think the options were clear. Your post is a bit convulated and pointless, I suggest you read something other than the dictionary to pass your time .

 

[therebbe]

1. I'm not talking about the absence of deficiency of God. Lack of belief in God = You simply don't believe there is enough evidence to believe in God.

2. The three options you gave mean more or less the exact same thing, why should I pick one? To deny the existence of God means that you believe that there is enough evidence to say no God exists.

I think the options were clear. Your post is a bit convulated and pointless, I suggest you read something other than the dictionary to pass your time .

Not really actually. It was not pointless at all.

Your choices are very vague. What is the difference between lack of belief in G-d and denying the existence of G-d?

The options you gave us mean basically the same thing. Lacking of belief in G-d and denying G-d's existence are basically the same thing. Is there a huge difference that I do not see somewhere? It sounds all the same to me. My previous post was me basically asking if you meant something else by one of the words that I did not realize you were trying to say.

So tell me what the difference of lacking the belief of G-d and denying the belief of G-d? It all leads to the same outcome does it not?

 

[azim]

Not really actually. It was not pointless at all.

Your choices are very vague. What is the difference between lack of belief in G-d and denying the existence of G-d?

The options you gave us mean basically the same thing. Lacking of belief in G-d and denying G-d's existence are basically the same thing. Is there a huge difference that I do not see somewhere? It sounds all the same to me. My previous post was me basically asking if you meant something else by one of the words that I did not realize you were trying to say.

So tell me what the difference of lacking the belief of G-d and denying the belief of G-d? It all leads to the same outcome does it not?

I personally wouldn't make a division between the two, since like you said, it leads to the same outcome.

However, several atheists have said to me that they believe atheism is the outright denial of the existence of a diety.

So they would say "I believe there is evidence to support the non-existence of God, therefore I deny the existence of a God."

Anything less is agnostism according to the ones I have spoken to.

The 'lack of belief' group may say that "I do not believe there is enough evidence to proove the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in God".

Subtle difference I agree, but some atheists are very defensive about the difference. I just wanted to gauge what the common perception of atheists on this board is.

I do apologise however if I was being arrogrant and that the options are vague.

 

[therebbe]

So they would say "I believe there is evidence to support the non-existence of God, therefore I deny the existence of a God."

Alright. I understand what your asking now.

Your asking if Atheists truly believe there is no G-d, or if they just believe there is not enough evidence to support the threory of therebeing a 'G-d'.

I understand now.

 

[Trumble]

So tell me what the difference of lacking the belief of G-d and denying the belief of G-d? It all leads to the same outcome does it not?

Not really. In philosophical terms there is significant difference between the two; how large depending on whether you believe truth is relative (or subjective) or absolute (or objective), or some combination of the two.

For example, someone who believes truth is relative would quite happily accept that "you" believe in God, and therefore that for "you" the existence of God is true. That is in no way incompatible with "me" not believing in God, and therefore for "me" the existence of God is false.

Someone who believes truth is absolute has a different perspective. If they believe God does not exist, for them the existence of God is false, but they also must believe that the existence of God is false for everybody else as well, or in other words they deny God's existence.

All of which is subject to the (dubious) assumption that believing something must imply it is true, at least for the believer... but that makes it all a bit complicated!

In answer to the original question, which is a very good one I think, you could find atheists who fit one, the other or indeed both. I would say that most well-known atheist philosophers, though, would fall very much into the "deny" camp.

Your asking if Atheists truly believe there is no G-d, or if they just believe there is not enough evidence to support the threory of therebeing a 'G-d'.

I would have thought the latter would be a description of an agnostic, not an atheist?

 

[therebbe]

I would have thought the latter would be a description of an agnostic, not an atheist?

Not sure. I was always under the impression that an Agnostic could either be unsure of the existance of G-d, or could believe in the existance of G-d but just not affiliate with any religion.

 

[Trumble]

Not sure. I was always under the impression that an Agnostic could either be unsure of the existance of G-d, or could believe in the existance of G-d but just not affiliate with any religion.

An agnostic believes either that evidence is the inconclusive either way, or that it just isn't possible to ever know. Someone who believes in the existence of God is not an agnostic, whether they are affiliated to a particular religion or not.

 

[therebbe]

Someone who believes in the existence of God is not an agnostic, whether they are affiliated to a particular religion or not.

I know some people who refer to themselves as "Agnostics" who do believe in G-d, but do not believe in any form of religion. Maybe we should ask an Agnostic here to actually define what they believe.

 

[wilberhum]

Not sure. I was always under the impression that an Agnostic could either be unsure of the existance of G-d, or could believe in the existance of G-d but just not affiliate with any religion.

Be sure! What you said is true. An Agnostic knows that god is not provable. They may or may not believe in the existence of god. Notice two different words, know and believe. They are not the same thing.
At least that is my form of being a Agnostic Theist.

 

[wilberhum]

Maybe we should ask an Agnostic here to actually define what they believe.

Well I just did. But I will elaborate a little as an Agnostic Theist. God is not provable. That’s a fact. Many say the can but there is always a fallacy in there logic.
(Let’s please not start the “Oh yes I can arguments here) (If you want that, start another thread)
Since there is no proof and I find major faults in every religion, I subscribe to no religious doctrine.