Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 06-17-2002, 07:25 AM

Helen,

Quote:

atheist -- one who does not believe that the row of letters "God"/"Allah" in English refers to anything that exists.

This is an incomplete definition. According to this faulty definition, one could believe in, oh say the Norse pantheon of gods, not believe in any other god, and still be considered an atheist.

An atheist is one who does not believe that any god of any kind exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

DarkBronzePlant · 06-17-2002, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
...

An atheist is one who does not believe that any god of any kind exists.

The confusion seems to lie in when people assume that atheists "don't believe in God"; that is, they don't believe in a particular, named god. In fact, that's not the case. It is the disbelief in any god -- Zeus, Allah, Ra, Athena, Vishnu, and, yes, even God -- that defines an atheist. Atheists and theists can go about trying to define who "God" allegedly is, but it's of no matter in this topic.

So Goliath pretty much has it succinctly here.

Jobar · 06-17-2002, 08:25 AM

Helen, the famous philosopher and freethought activist Paul Kurtz has coined the word 'igtheism' which precisely fits your definition. An igtheist is, as I understand the terms, a noncognativist.

Atheism is being without belief in a god or gods. So I suppose one could be both, or an atheist who claims to understand the concept (therefore not an igtheist), but I am unsure if one could be a theist and an igtheist at once. Maybe this would be some sort of fideist, who agrees that there is no evidence at all, but still believes? Interesting thought...

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 08:27 AM

Who/what determines if a definition is good, bad, or indifferent? I 'do not believe in God', and I'm reasonably sure that most folks understand what I mean by that assertion.

joedad · 06-17-2002, 08:34 AM

Helen,

I lifted this from a discussion I am having with someone about creation ex nihilo:

Quote:

To understand the concept of "ex nihilo" one has to have the viewpoint of just Who/What God is, and is not. (This does not mean that you have to agree with the following qualifying statements, it just means that you need to see God as a believer sees God.) God is not constrained by time, place, size, space, etc. God is beyond! Space, and time are creations. Before all else was, God IS. God is beyond energy. He is neither infinitely small, nor infinitely huge. He cannot be contained in the Universe, and yet He can contain everything that He is in a tiny wafer of bread. In fact there is just as much of God's Presence in the tiny miniscule crumbs of the host (bread) as in the entire host. God is beyond thought. All light, all energy, all matter, all molecules, everything is nothing that has been transformed into something just by the "Will" of God. God did not have to put forth any effort to create, He needed only to want it, and it was. At one time, you, Joe, were nothing. Right? There was a time in history when the DNA that is now Joe didn't exist. It took the melding of your father's dna, and your mother's dna to form that first fertilized egg.. and then YOU existed. You came from nothing. All of our plants, and animals come from nothing, because at one time they didn't exist, and now they do exist. Why would it be any harder, or impossible for God to create a whole Universe from nothing? The Universe isn't "part" of God, in as much as it is held together by God's will. God is not reliant on the Universe, He exists perfectly, with or without the Universe's existance. The Cosmos relies on God for it's existance. God permeates everything, but that does not mean that everything is God. In other words, one cannot worship the creation called "Universe". God is beyond. The heavens, and earth cry out in voiceless praise, and glory to the works of God just by their existance.

Am I supposed to define atheism from that?

And I know that this person is simply expressing his convictions, but it illustrates the point I make about the word "God," in that it more describes a behavior than a thing, as opposed to a deity like a Zeus or any other mythological or fictional character.

joe

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad:
... it illustrates the point I make about the word "God," in that it more describes a behavior than a thing, as opposed to a deity like a Zeus or any other mythological or fictional character.

joe

I don't understand what you mean. Describe "Zeus".

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-17-2002, 08:59 AM

I can't believe this is still an issue.

The word is self-descriptive:

Quote:

A=without
Theism=a belief in a god or gods.

Atheism=without a belief in a god or gods.

NOT "disbelief in God" or "I believe there are no gods;" without belief.

If you are atheist, then you are without a belief in a god or gods. Period.

If you "believe that there are no gods," then you are not an atheist; you are an agnostic, since you are still engaging in a level of uncertainty, aka "belief."

Atheist. Without belief in a god or gods. Without. None. NO beliefs in a god or gods.

No more or less complicated than that.

HelenM · 06-17-2002, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad:
Helen,

I lifted this from a discussion I am having with someone about creation ex nihilo:[...] Am I supposed to define atheism from that?

Beats me, joedad - are you?

You seem closer to what noncognitivism has argued, than some.

Koy, unless you are omniscient, how can you know your definition of 'atheist' is better than other peoples'?

But if you are I hope you are also patient enough to bear with the people who lack your knowledge...

Besides, don't you realize new people are coming in here continually? So you could have the definition down to a T and tomorrow someone would ask about it again...don't you think?

love
Helen

DRFseven · 06-17-2002, 09:22 AM

Helen, what is so silly about the claim that the concept of "God" is undefined? If a stranger asks me if I believe in God, my answer should probably be "I have no way to address that question." It is as if someone asks you if you believe there could be a material that is immaterial with hilarious chromosomes that smell sad. How could you logically answer?

In realty, it is easier to answer "no" to the God question, but it works to prevent professed believers from thinking about how incoherent the concept of "God" remains.

joedad · 06-17-2002, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

I don't understand what you mean. Describe "Zeus".

Zeus: The chief god of the ancient Greeks. He was the ruler of gods and men and the god of the sky and weather, son of Cronus and Rhea, and husband of Hera. The Romans called him Jupiter...World Book Dictionary

Compare this to the very abstract nature of the quote I posted.

joe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2002, 08:25 AM	#13
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Helen, the famous philosopher and freethought activist Paul Kurtz has coined the word 'igtheism' which precisely fits your definition. An igtheist is, as I understand the terms, a noncognativist. Atheism is being without belief in a god or gods. So I suppose one could be both, or an atheist who claims to understand the concept (therefore not an igtheist), but I am unsure if one could be a theist and an igtheist at once. Maybe this would be some sort of fideist, who agrees that there is no evidence at all, but still believes? Interesting thought...

06-17-2002, 08:27 AM	#14
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Who/what determines if a definition is good, bad, or indifferent? I 'do not believe in God', and I'm reasonably sure that most folks understand what I mean by that assertion.

06-17-2002, 09:22 AM	#19
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Helen, what is so silly about the claim that the concept of "God" is undefined? If a stranger asks me if I believe in God, my answer should probably be "I have no way to address that question." It is as if someone asks you if you believe there could be a material that is immaterial with hilarious chromosomes that smell sad. How could you logically answer? In realty, it is easier to answer "no" to the God question, but it works to prevent professed believers from thinking about how incoherent the concept of "God" remains.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.