Atheism: what is it?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

These labels come by way of outsiders seeking to define the group. It is an outsider's way of understanding what the insiders profess.

THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was getting at.

It's roughly the equivalent of me arguing with Mike over Mormon terminology. It would be absurd.

I'm fully aware of the original meaning and etymology of the words agnostic and atheistic. There is a semantic difference, yes. But I'm talking about the way the words are evolving (as all words do) and being used by the atheist/agnostic insiders today.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was getting at.

It's roughly the equivalent of me arguing with Mike over Mormon terminology. It would be absurd.

I'm fully aware of the original meaning and etymology of the words agnostic and atheistic. There is a semantic difference, yes. But I'm talking about the way the words are evolving (as all words do) and being used by the atheist/agnostic insiders today.

But as a former member of the group, as a member still being affiliated with those within the group, I'm comfortable that I have a better understanding than those who have always believed. And my belief waxes and wanes, so I understand the segment of the group known to me. And unlike religious faith, there really is no coalescing center, no center of definition. In some ways, atheism is akin to Islam, as there is no central authority for it. It's sorta like a disease that people contract and carry with them for a lifetime.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was getting at.

It's roughly the equivalent of me arguing with Mike over Mormon terminology. It would be absurd.

I'm fully aware of the original meaning and etymology of the words agnostic and atheistic. There is a semantic difference, yes. But I'm talking about the way the words are evolving (as all words do) and being used by the atheist/agnostic insiders today.

I don't deny someone the chance to define themselves on their own terms. Obviously as a Mormon I claim that right myself. I do agree, too, that there seems to be a fine line between the terms atheist and agnostic.

All the same, folks who claim to be one or the other don't get the right to redefine the words simply because their approach to belief has changed. One who insists on the historic definition of one or the other doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to define them.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't deny someone the chance to define themselves on their own terms. Obviously as a Mormon I claim that right myself. I do agree, too, that there seems to be a fine line between the terms atheist and agnostic.

All the same, folks who claim to be one or the other don't get the right to redefine the words simply because their approach to belief has changed. One who insists on the historic definition of one or the other doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to define them.

Would a Mormon claim to be a Christian if he didn't believe in Christ?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

If they're being used interchangeably, they're being used incorrectly. Those who you describe in the last paragraph are textbook agnostics. Should they assert that there IS no God, they are, by definition, atheists.

I don't particularly feel the need to argue this one; the words speak for themselves.

They are being used interchangeably, by self-proclaimed atheists such as Hitchins and Dawkins. Most of these folks are at the far right end of the bell curve, and as Barbara well stated, they are very capable of self-defining. I'm sorry to break this to you AA, but nobody cares a whit how you define atheists. You're just spouting your opinion, from, I might add, a fairly parochial perspective.

On the other hand, some of us here are defining them as they define themselves in their books and articles and other writings. You might do them the courtesy of letting them tell you what they believe, or, don't believe. I understand where you're coming from. You want to believe that they approach the world as you do, grasping a rod of blind faith. That way you can say, "you're no different than I am except that the content of your faith is different." This is just like tooblue saying the Bible or the Book of Mormon is just like any history book because all history is fanciful. Religious people understandably like to tell themselves atheists too are departing from reason as much as religious people. But atheism is not religion by another name. Empiricism and reason is their only master.

If you want to see an illustration of what we're talking about, read atheists' vociferous objections to teaching intelligent design in science class. They don't deny the possibility of intelligent design in the abstract, they simply deny most emphatically that the evidence suggests in any way existence of intelligent design and that therefore this is an appropriate subject to be called science. And approaching this problem as they have been trained to as scientists, they are absolutely right.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They are being used interchangeably, by self-proclaimed atheists such as Hitchins and Dawkins. Most of these folks are at the far right end of the bell curve, and as Barbara well stated, they are very capable of self-defining. I'm sorry to break this to you AA, but nobody cares a whit how you define atheists. You're just spouting your opinion, from, I might add, a fairly parochial perspective.

No, I am giving you the definition of the word. If it is being used differently, it is being used differently from what it's original meaning is. Why should I feel any differently? I'm a classicist. I think this debate ought to be in Latin.

And I very much doubt that you're "sorry to break it to me."

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

On the other hand, some of us here are defining them as they define themselves in their books and articles and other writings. You might do them the courtesy of letting them tell you what they believe, or, don't believe. I understand where you're coming from. You want to believe that they approach the world as you do, grasping a rod of blind faith. That way you can say, "you're no different than I am except that the content of your faith is different." This is just like tooblue saying the Bible or the Book of Mormon is just like any history book because all history is fanciful. Atheism is not religion by another name. Empiricism and reason is their only master.

I have no objection to people believing that there is no God. That is Atheism. Belief that there is no God is as fundamental to Atheism as belief that there is a God is to Theism. Nor do I have any objection to those who simply say that they have no evidence to suggest the existence of God.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you want to see an illustration of what we're talking about, read atheists' vociferous objections to teaching intelligent design in science class.

You give too much credit to others here. They object to it because it's bad science.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They don't deny the possibility of intelligent design in the abstract, they simply deny most emphatically that the evidence suggests in any way existence of intelligent design and that therefore this is an appropriate subject to be called science. And approaching this problem as they have been trained to as scientists, they are absolutely right.

And that would be agnosticism.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

You give too much credit to others here. They object to it because it's bad science.

Same reason, funny enough, that I object to it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Have you heard the saying, "you can't prove a negative"? I believe he is basing his argument on that.

Precisely, though I phrased it poorly (particularly as an attorney!).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Right but that it is not "proveable" doen't mena there is by definition no evidence, does it?

It is an interesting question.

Is there actually evidence that there is no God? I would argue there isn't.

The fact that nobody has a picture of God is not necessarily evidence that there isn't a God. It could be evidence that you can't take a picture of God, or that camera's don't work in God's presence, or that God isn't visible, or that nobody could see God and live (thereby making the ability of a person to take a picture impossible), or any number of other possibilities.

Of course, it would depend on what your definition of "evidence" is. In the legal sense, the absence of a picture of God is evidence of nothing. Only the presence of a picture of God would be evidence (that God DOES exist). In the generally understood sense (referring to a dictionary), I don't think there is evidence either.

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.


There is nothing that I am aware of that would tend to disprove the existence of God (or prove God's non-existence).

I accept BG's statement that it isn't really practical to tell someone else what they believe, and I am not trying to tell SU what he believes or doesn't believe. I am saying that what SU is describing is not the standard understanding of "atheism."