must we call ourselves atheists?

MickFleetwood

Sofaspud wrote: »

Theist = "I believe that a god or gods exist", anything else = atheist.

Gnostic = "I know that a god or gods exist", anything else = agnostic.
("God" can be replaced by "deity", "higher power" or "supreme being" as required)

So you are agnostic, but so is everyone else in the world, because nobody knows for sure and anyone that says they do is lying.

Do you believe in a deity or god? If yes, you're an agnostic theist, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist.
By not having a belief, you disbelieve.

Obviously nobody knows for sure whether there's a deity or not, but not knowing does not make you an agnostic automatically FFS. :pac: It's a school of thought, not a state of knowing.

MickFleetwood

Jernal wrote: »

Mick,

Suppose someone grew up on a planet without religion. Suppose also that this person was never made aware of the concept of a god. How would you describe a person who doesn't believe in god simply because they aren't aware of the god concept? Atheist would be my definition, what would be yours though?

Furthermore, whatever definition you choose would you stay that this person is actually believing their is no god? Is to possible to have belief for or against something when you're not even aware of the concept?

I would explain to them what an omnipotent being is, I'd try my best to show them the concept of faith in a God, etc etc. Which would all likely be a futile exercise.

No, they do not "believe" in it as they have never even comprehended it. If one could successfully explain it to them, and they made their own decision from there as to what they believed in, that is what they would be labeled as, I suppose.

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

Obviously nobody knows for sure whether there's a deity or not, but not knowing does not make you an agnostic automatically FFS. :pac: It's a school of thought, not a state of knowing.

Agnosticism, if we pardon the common parlance dictionary definitions, is a position on a value of knowledge relating to gnosticism. That a certain claim or belief is unknowable. Most theists are in fact agnostic theists and most atheists are agnostic atheists. Many atheists recognise their own definition as being a lack of belief in God. Live and let live. They've no issue with religion as long as it isn't shoved in their face. It'd also be nice if people defined them the way they actually wished to be described. Regardless, as long as you understand the concept and accept that most posters here don't claim to know for certain for that God doesn't exist then it's just semantics really. Words don't matter, the concepts and mutual comprehension do.

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I would explain to them what an omnipotent being is, I'd try my best to show them the concept of faith in a God, etc etc. Which would all likely be a futile exercise.

No, they do not "believe" in it as they have never even comprehended it. If one could successfully explain it to them, and they made their own decision from there as to what they believed in, that is what they would be labeled as, I suppose.

You didn't answer my question. This is a thought experiment, you don't have contact with them. They're completely obvious to concept of a deity. What label would you describe them as?

MickFleetwood

Jernal wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. This is a thought experiment, you don't have contact with them. They're completely obvious to concept of a deity. What label would you describe them as?

There is no catch-all label for them that I know of. Perhaps an agnostic? Somebody who has no position?

Turtwig

MickFleetwood wrote: »

There is no catch-all label for them that I know of. Perhaps an agnostic? Somebody who has no position?

What about 'atheist'? They have no belief in a deity. Agnosticism under your definition, maybe. Under the more accurate definition though they'd have to be aware of the claim to put a value on whether they think it's a knowable one or not. Ignosticism would be more accurate here.

kiffer

Jernal wrote: »

What about 'atheist'? They have no belief in a deity. Agnosticism under your definition, maybe. Under the more accurate definition though they'd have to be aware of the claim to put a value on whether they think it's a knowable one or not. Ignosticism would be more accurate here.

Implicit atheist vs explicit atheist.

If I write an original and unbelievable claim on a sheet of paper hidden from you, place it in a envelope and hand it to you, you don't believe the claim simply because you don't know what it is.
Then you open the envelope and it says "Robotic Elvis runs both the Mafia and the Boyscouts"... now you don't believe the claim because it clearly ridiculous... but both are still states of nonbelief, or as the dictionary defines it disbelief.

Hotblack Desiato

Jernal wrote: »

Many atheists recognise their own definition as being a lack of belief in God. Live and let live. They've no issue with religion as long as it isn't shoved in their face.

I believe in live and let live (most theists don't appear to) but there's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a far better place without religion - any and all religion.

magicbastarder

i don't believe in atheists. does that make me an aatheist?
if i don't believe such a position is possible, does that make me an aaatheist?
this could get recursive.

DarkDusk

I don't take part in religion, have no interest in it and it doesn't bother me anytime during my life.

I rather not use up my energy deciding what label I have, I do not believe in fables written in a book, simple as.

Sofaspud

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't believe in atheists. does that make me an aatheist?
if i don't believe such a position is possible, does that make me an aaatheist?
this could get recursive.

Nope, the "a" prefix just means "not the following thing" so "aatheist" would mean not an atheist, i.e. a theist.

Hotblack Desiato

DarkDusk wrote: »

I don't take part in religion, have no interest in it and it doesn't bother me anytime during my life.

Grand. I wish I was the same (the last bit, I mean.)
May I ask, are you a parent of school-going children in Ireland?

ibstar

I am an atheist.
This means in order for me to believe something, there must be:
-Hypothesis
-Test/observe
-prove the theory of the hypothesis
-retest and confirm without any reasonable doubt

eg. I have two children which I claim to be of my own assent and my partners.
-Test/observe- They look like me and my partner, behavioral similarities.
-prove - DNA test
- retest- retest DNA in different environment, season, time and age of all people involved.

In the case of god/deity/super natural being we have:

-Hypothesis that god exists.
-test/observe- we must testify if claims from the bible/quran are true
-prove- then we must try and prove if those claims are true ie. find a profit of modern age and have them revive a dead person, predict future with high amount of QUALITY information and cure someone of incurable disease(at this particular age ie. AIDS). Have them point us to talking objects and animals. List is endless.
-retest- repeat the experiment with different profits, at a different time in a different environment.

joseph brand

ibstar wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

After watching this I come to realize that maybe we Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't refer to ourselves by the branding that religious organizations name us. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, people that don't ski, don't refer to themselves as non-skiers etc.

Any thoughts from the boradsies?

Of course it would be better if we didn't feel it necessary to call ourselves atheists, but since Ireland, and the rest of the world is full of theists, 'what are you gonna do?'.

I have a friend who was never believed in religion and doesn't bother getting involved in religious debates. He has a problem with being labelled an atheist, like a 'non stamp collector'. I can see where he's coming from but, stamp collecting will never affect civilisation like an organisation which preaches; the virtue of ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia whilst raping thousands of children. Not to mention fighting our legal system tooth and nail.

Personally I want to show from the rooftops "I'M AN ATHEIST, BABY EATING, LEFT WING, LIBERAL, HAPPY GO LUCKY SCAMP!"

Now all I need is a few Flying Spaghetti Monster car panel stickers and a megaphone and I'll do my rounds.

ShooterSF

Firstly it is important when reading a forum to keep in mind the definition of labels used in the forum or the chances of miscommunication increase. But more interestingly is the idea of a pure "agnostic" fence sitter. I know when I had my doubts about the religion I was brought up in I had to try my best to examine it's likelihood given the whole hell threat. And had I still been on the fence I fear such a threat might have been enough to see me continue to follow it but I don't know if it is possible to start questioning your belief but stop before you have resolved your doubt at least for me.

bobwilliams

biko wrote: »

There's no reason really to use the term but it's in common use and I don't think it has a particular good or bad connotation.

i like the fact that atheists don't try to shove their beliefs down peoples throats like a lot of religious people do.
I think it would be a nice change to have atheists going around doing door to door calls.

ibstar

bobwilliams wrote: »

i like the fact that atheists don't try to shove their beliefs down peoples throats like a lot of religious people do.
I think it would be a nice change to have atheists going around doing door to door calls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW-bt_1LzY