The true meaning of Atheism

estebancambias

After a lot of reading, as I eventually realised I was poorly equipped when entering a debate, I found out that Atheists do not neccesarly not believe in God, they are just skeptical of a God's existence, and, or have no will to adore him(for purpose of the thread) should he exist.

Would I be reading this right? Is this a view shared among people on here?

Dirk Gently

are you not describing agnostic as opposed to atheist.

estebancambias

Ah sorry..yes.

Scofflaw

or have no will to adore him(for purpose of the thread) should he exist

Prefer the term 'alatrist' (non-worshipper).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

"Atheism" means "without theism". That is to say without a belief in deities of any form. This is how I understand the term atheist.

It is also for this reason that no community or atheistic doctrine exists in the same way that it would for most theistic belief systems, because to be an atheist means only " to be without theism". So strictly speaking, it's the only thing which atheists must agree on.

So, imo, you are still reading it wrong. There should be no other baggage to the word atheist than its strict definition. Although frequently this isn't the case...

Dave!

No, you are reading it wrong.

stereoroid

Well, I think it's because the dictionary definition of "atheist" is old, and too coarse. The OED definition assumes active denial of the existence of God, which is only one viewpoint. Let me illustrate by drawing up a table of who believes what, in my understanding that is:

Propositions:

1. I believe in a higher power, somewhere.
2. I believe in a personal God who watches over me.
3. I do not see any valid evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.
5. I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Prop.:		1	2	3	4	5
[I]Theist[/I]		Y	Y	N	N	N
[I]Pantheist[/I]	Y	N	?	N	?
[I]Agnostic[/I]	?	?	Y	N	Y
[I]Hard Atheist[/I]	N	N	Y	Y	N
[I]Weak Atheist*[/I]	N	N	Y	N	N

*I've seen the term "agnostic atheist" used too. The difference stems from how sure you are about proposition 4: in my opinion, it would be a logical fallacy to make such a sweeping statement about the whole universe; but that does not leave the door open for any of the religious claims made today, since they all fail under Proposition 3 above: the complete lack of independent, verifiable evidence. The door might not be locked, but it's still closed.

Scofflaw

stereoroid wrote: »

Well, I think it's because the dictionary definition of "atheist" is old, and too coarse. The OED definition assumes active denial of the existence of God, which is only one viewpoint. Let me illustrate by drawing up a table of who believes what, in my understanding that is:

Propositions:

1. I believe in a higher power, somewhere.
2. I believe in a personal God who watches over me.
3. I do not see any valid evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
4. I firmly believe that there are no gods here or anywhere else.
5. I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Prop.:		1	2	3	4	5
[I]Theist[/I]		Y	Y	N	N	N
[I]Pantheist[/I]	Y	N	?	N	?
[I]Agnostic[/I]	?	?	Y	N	Y
[I]Hard Atheist[/I]	N	N	Y	Y	N
[I]Weak Atheist*[/I]	N	N	Y	N	N

*I've seen the term "agnostic atheist" used too. The difference stems from how sure you are about proposition 4: in my opinion, it would be a logical fallacy to make such a sweeping statement about the whole universe; but that does not leave the door open for any of the religious claims made today, since they all fail under Proposition 3 above: the complete lack of independent, verifiable evidence. The door might not be locked, but it's still closed.

Good layout. If one were more of a splitter, one might separate 'hard' agnostics from 'soft' agnostics:

Hard Agnostic: I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Soft Agnostic: I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, has not been answered either way.

I'd also include the 'alatrist' - who believes that whether gods exist or not, they are not worth worshipping.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

estebancambias wrote: »

After a lot of reading, as I eventually realised I was poorly equipped when entering a debate, I found out that Atheists do not neccesarly not believe in God, they are just skeptical of a God's existence, and, or have no will to adore him(for purpose of the thread) should he exist.

Would I be reading this right? Is this a view shared among people on here?

yeah sorta closer to agnostic but your still wrong in thinking about it from the point of view that atheists are people are in world with a God that unfortunately don't believe rather then athiest being people in a world where there is no God but some people believe in a God.

stereoroid

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good layout. If one were more of a splitter, one might separate 'hard' agnostics from 'soft' agnostics:

Hard Agnostic: I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, can never be answered either way.

Soft Agnostic: I believe that the question, of the existence of a god or gods, has not been answered either way.

I'd file the second proposition under "weak atheism", which includes "the question can be answered", implying that it hasn't been answered. If you think the question has been answered, then I'd file you under theist ("Yes") or "hard atheist" ("No").

I was going by the original definition of Agnosticism, from Thomas Huxley:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis' — had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote: »

Prefer the term 'alatrist' (non-worshipper).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Where did this word come from? Also are you going to add it to wikipedia

JC 2K3

estebancambias wrote: »

I eventually realised I was poorly equipped when entering a debate

Understatement of the century....

Zillah

karen3212 wrote: »

Where did this word come from?

He made it up. Though there was something of a slot to fill.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote: »

He made it up. Though there was something of a slot to fill.

Indeed I did. It's from the same root as mono-latrist, which is someone who worships only one god, while admitting the reality of the rest. Seemed a useful shorthand for the position that there may be gods, but no god worth worshipping.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

That's pretty great, I might have read about it on another thread, now that I think about it.

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Prefer the term 'alatrist' (non-worshipper).

cordially,
Scofflaw

What is the difference between alatrist and deist?

Rev Hellfire

I think its summed up here.

http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg19125612.500

However, Williams was intrigued to find a link to a yet-to-be-written page on "alatrism". At the time Williams wrote, "alatrism" was a Googlewhackblatt, producing that single web page when you search for it. Mentions have multiplied since then - but of course we pay attention only to one.

We think we can help with that missing definition. "Alatrism" would be formed from the word "alatry", the practice of not bothering to worship any deities, regardless of how many there may be (recall "idolatry" and the prefix "a-" for "no" or "not"). This brings us to Feedback's Statistical Proof of Alatry.

It goes like this. The only thing we know about deities with any certainty is that the number of them is a whole number, the idea of a fractional deity being frankly absurd. So the number of deities in our universe is an integer, in the range from minus infinity to plus infinity. (We leave the theologians to interpret a negative number of deities: this is number theory, and its conclusion should save them the trouble.)

For it is commonly accepted that we should expect our universe to be typical of possible universes. So the expected number of deities is in the middle of the range of possibilities. That is, zero. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

What is the difference between alatrist and deist?

There are certainly similarities, but the deist is a theist, whereas the alatrist is an atheist/agnostic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

whereas the alatrist is an atheist/agnostic.

Really? Wouldn't it include someone who believes but doesn't worship?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? Wouldn't it include someone who believes but doesn't worship?

Yes, I imagine you could say that. It's reasonably unlikely in practice for someone to really believe in gods and decide not to worship them, but it would cover them too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are certainly similarities, but the deist is a theist, whereas the alatrist is an atheist/agnostic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Don't think so.
From
http://dictionary.reference.com

Deist:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Theist:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

Don't think so.
From
http://dictionary.reference.com

Deist:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Theist:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

Also a belief that there is an afterlife, in which God will punish the wicked, and that God wants men to be moral, etc - and that this is right and proper. The alatrist would reject all that, based on the idea that what such a god might or might not want is of no concern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also a belief that there is an afterlife, in which God will punish the wicked, and that God wants men to be moral, etc - and that this is right and proper. The alatrist would reject all that, based on the idea that what such a god might or might not want is of no concern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In which case the word Deist suffices.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

In which case the word Deist suffices.

Er, no. The Deist accepts these things:

A belief that there is an afterlife, in which God will punish the wicked, and that God wants men to be moral, etc - and that this is right and proper.

The alatrist rejects them, normally because the alatrist would be an atheist or agnostic.

The fundamental thrust of Deism is only that we cannot know God, and that He has not actually provided any revelations. God is unquestioned in the deist picture, not in the alatrist one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

I now of at least four of us that call ourselves alatrist now. Come on Oxford, get the committee together.

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no. The Deist accepts these things:
A belief that there is an afterlife, in which God will punish the wicked, and that God wants men to be moral, etc - and that this is right and proper.

The Oxford Dictionary revised second edition makes no mention to an afterlife for deism or deist.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

The Oxford Dictionary revised second edition makes no mention to an afterlife for deism or deist.

Indeed? Longer, more discursive sources rather tend to, but it's not very relevant either way. You are, I submit, rather missing the point here - you cannot include under the definition 'deist' someone who is either agnostic or atheist...

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed? Longer, more discursive sources rather tend to, but it's not very relevant either way. You are, I submit, rather missing the point here - you cannot include under the definition 'deist' someone who is either agnostic or atheist...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am not sure you can with "alatrist" either - for which there are no discursive sources.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

I am not sure you can with "alatrist" either - for which there are no discursive sources.

If you would prefer I didn't make words up, please say so. If you feel you have a source that would be more authoritative, please wheel them in. If you'd like to help define the term, work away. Otherwise, you might as well accept that I am the discursive source in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you would prefer I didn't make words up, please say so. If you feel you have a source that would be more authoritative, please wheel them in. Otherwise, you might as well accept that I am the discursive source in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

:-) By all means make your words up.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

:-) By all means make your words up.

Thanks. With that imprimatur I can go forth with my word held high.

cordially,
Scofflaw