ekorczynski

I believe nothing.
I experience many things.
I think, feel, consider, and doubt many things.

So,
I don't believe that these or any other definitions are accurate.

In my experience, however, those definitions clearly express major differences between peoples' perspectives, so they seem functionally useful in attempting to communicate about these topics. So, without having to deal with useless "beliefs", I can state that these definitions seem very accurate to me (in that they seem to properly distinguish the many different people that I've encountered in life).

Do these definitions seem accurate to you?

Philosoft

Quoth ekorcynski:
Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief.

How is that even possible? What kind of concept is "no god(s)" that I can even comprehend it, let alone believe in it?

Let me try a simple dialogue:

Theist: God is X, Y and Z.
Atheist: How is that possible if the world is P, Q and R?
T: Well, X is compatible with P because {insert apologetics here}
A: Sorry, your apologetics are unconvincing and, since X is clearly not compatible with P, I do not believe in your God.

In my humble opinion, I'd say that's an example of how most atheists are made. For those of us who frequent the Existence of God forum, this much is obvious. We're forever refuting the claims of those who posit arguments in favor of God's existence. There are scant few, if any, positive atheistic arguments that don't employ some kind of reductio ad absurdum in order to show one ore more putative contradictions between a god-concept and reality.

Few of us consider god-concepts we're unfamiliar with - we tend to focus on those within our purview. So, if I say, "God does not exist," it probably doesn't mean, "anything that can now or forever be remotely described by the term 'god' does not and cannot possibly exist."

So, my challenge stands. Show me this atheist who makes certainty claims about the existence of all-things-god and I'll show you an atheist who is responding to a particular definition of "God."

Shake

Well, to keep things a little simpler than ekorczynski has ...

I'd say most atheists are freethinkers and to some extent skeptics, but not all skeptics are atheists or freethinkers. Freethinkers are probably also skeptics to some extent, but again, not necessarily atheists.

IMHO, if you're any one of the three above, you're probably more inclined to become one of the others than some theist.

Mageth

I believe nothing.
I experience many things.
I think, feel, consider, and doubt many things.

So,
I don't believe that these or any other definitions are accurate.

In my experience, however, those definitions clearly express major differences between peoples' perspectives, so they seem functionally useful in attempting to communicate about these topics. So, without having to deal with useless "beliefs", I can state that these definitions seem very accurate to me (in that they seem to properly distinguish the many different people that I've encountered in life).

I looked up a few definitions of "belief", and your description that "these definitions seem very accurate to me" seems to fit at least a few of those. Still, I reckon you can state that you don't "believe" these or other definitions are accurate under your definition of belief.

But then, don't you run into the rather sticky problem that you don't believe your definition of belief is accurate?

Do these definitions seem accurate to you?

Theist believes in god(s); holds a belief.
Sounds reasonable.

Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief.
I preferably define "atheism" as lacking belief in god(s).

Skeptic does not believe in anything; no belief.
Skepticism to me is a tool, a methodology, for examining truth claims. I don't (typically) label myself as a "skeptic", but instead claim to approach and examine truth claims with skepticism.

But I think it would be a difficult task for a skeptic to illustrate that he or she doesn't "believe" anything. Are you truly not certain that the computer you're working on exists?

Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true.
That's a narrow definition, obviously. Here is an alternative definition with a broader scope, and which I prefer:

Ensign Steve

At the risk of answering the original question

atheism: Lacking a god-belief
freethought: I dunno, I don't use this word much to describe myself or anyone
skepticism: Not taking claims (especially extraordinary claims) at face-value. Demanding evidence.

I like to point out (and often use my mom as an example) that there are huge differences between atheists and skeptics. Many people who lack a god-belief are not skeptics. Wiccans, Bhuddists, etc. are atheists (from what I understand), but not always skeptics. My mom is a strong atheist, but she is still the least skeptical person I know. She gets those "dial #77" or "look out for perfume bandits" emails and takes them seriously. I think the only reason she's an atheist is because her mom was. I don't think she has ever questioned or been skeptical about anything in her life.

Anybody want to give me a loose definition for what they find "freethought" to mean?

mike_decock

I think you're using a very narrow definition of the term "atheist". It can mean either a "belief that there is no God", or "a lack of belief in God". You are holding that all atheists assert that there "is no God", but this doesn't characterize the atheist who simply states "I don't believe there is a God". One of those is a belief, the other is the absence of a belief.

I found a good article on the Religious Tolerance Website discussing the definitions of the term "Atheist" and the lack of consensus on what it means.

-Mike...

BioBeing

In my mind:

I am an atheist because the lack of evidence leads me to conclude that there is no God.
I am a skeptical about God because the lack of evidence leads me to conclude that there is no God.

My definition for both is that, without evidence, I do not believe.

In the same way:

I am a skeptical about psychics because the lack of evidence leads me to conclude that there are no psychics.

If any conclusive evidence relating to the existance of God were to be presented, I would change my position re: atheism, but I would still be skeptical about other things I have no evidence for (fortune tellers, water dowsing, aliens etc etc).

Thus, for me, atheism is part of skepticism. (And I will always be a cynic )

ekorczynski

JenniferD's post regarding her non-skeptical Atheist Mother seems to support my contention that there seems to be fundamental differences between "believing something is-not" and "not-believing in something".

To me the fundamental difference, again, is between probability and certainty. Not-believing means we neither accept nor deny, we choose no belief, we remain a Skeptic. Believing something is-not means we deny, we've chosen a belief, we've become Dogmatic.

A Skeptic perspective acknowledges that things appear as they appear to us in the moment, and that we may contemplate probable causes/conditions such that we may make decisions and act in life; however, a Skeptic doesn't take principled probability and fabricate dogmatic certainty.

In one of the recent posts, "Mageth" raises some logical questions regarding my perspective that I shall here attempt to answer. I believe in no thing. I choose no beliefs. I do not believe that my computer exists. I do not believe that my computer doesn't exist. I hold no beliefs regarding my computer, definitions of words, God, psychic healing, or bottled water (list chosen somewhat at random). I consider that my computer (like the rest of what we term "physical reality") seems to exist and functions as it functions, I consider that definitions of words should be clear and consistent with experience, I consider that a "personnal interventionist Abrahamic God" seems extraordinarily improbable such that I typically discount any such phenomena, I consider psychic healing as similarly improbable, and I consider bottled-water as mostly a waste of money in most of North America. I don't need any beliefs, and I'm neither a Sophist nor a Nihilist.

Writing of Nihilists, in my past posts I'd omitted the other fundamental category of thought from the original Skeptic perspective:
Dogmatists believe in Truth (both Theists and Atheists fall into this camp),
Skeptics hold no beliefs in Truth (while not asserting that Truth is impossible, only asserting that Truth has not yet been shown),
Acedemics assert that there is no Truth ("Acedemics" in ancient times seem approx.= to the modern term "Nihilist" though there may be subtle differentiations that I've missed).

How can I "illustrate that I hold no beliefs"? I'm not sure if the examples in the previous paragraph suffice. I don't claim to hold "the one true" perspective, nor would I say that I believe I'm right. I can say that when I read Bury's translation of Sextus Empiricus's words I see the best description of my perspective that I've ever seen in the English language (despite Bury's dense style, and many of the obsolete examples), so it seems probable that Sextus Empricus' perspective would have been fundamentally similar to mine.

The definition of a Skeptic as one who holds no beliefs, specifically opposed to someone who hold any belief (whether positive or negative), is the definition used by Sextus Empiricus as representative of the perspective held by Pyrrho. The beliefs of Theists and Atheists and other Dogmatists don't seem to me to have changed fundamentally in the last 2000 years, so these definitions still seem quite functional.

I just thought of a mundane general example: If you believe that there has been substantial progress in thought from the ancient to the modern eras, then it's likely that you'll consider it useless to read ancient texts. Why bother? If, instead, you hold no belief regarding relative progress in thought between the ancient and modern eras, then you will probably consult both ancient and modern texts. In a more specific example, if you believe that "modern skeptics must be more developed than ancient skeptics" then you'll probably remain content never having read an ancient text; if you hold no beliefs regarding anything, then you'll hold no belief regarding development of skeptic thought, and you'll probably consult ancient as well as modern texts, and you may be pleasantly surprised by a broader perspective.

Your Transcendent Skeptic friend,
edo

Philosoft

No one doubts your contention. What I doubt is your ability to show it applies to even a significant minority of atheists.

You are using specific terms entirely too loosely. Please show that 'choosing a belief' necessarily entails "becom[ing] Dogmatic."

Neither do most atheists.

Why not? Would it be "dogmatic" if you did?

Nor do you apparently have much of a point.

Some do. But I'll dogmatically state you haven't nearly the data to make this generalization.

What happens when truth is "shown"? Will there cease to be skeptics?

Well, you know some ancient Greek philosophy. What has this to do with anything?

You can't. You can only assert it.

Really? Not even a little bit? So how did you come to accept your current worldview? Flip a coin?

That's really outstanding philosophy. Instead of trying to determine what modern folk actually do or do not believe, merely take a case or two that support your preconceptions, generalize them to the entirety of the population, and apply 2000-year-old definitions that were written by individuals to support their own beliefs. Does this really seem reasonable to you?

Even if this logic had the slightest merit, what makes you think we've all read "ancient texts"? In any case, I have seen your dichotomy, and it is false. Yea, verily.

Are you suggesting atheists support a total disconnect between ancient and modern concepts? This is a strawman of your own making. You may burn it at your leisure, but it has no bearing on reality.
But if I do hold some beliefs regarding development of skeptic thought I won't be inclined to learn about its historicity? Does that really make sense to you? How can I even hold said beliefs without understanding the ancient concepts I'm allegedly asserting no longer apply? What if, after learning about ancient and modern skepticism, I come to the conclusion that some change has taken place? Am I still not justified to hold that belief?

Ensign Steve

I agree. I know that my mom is in the minority of atheists I know. I think she would have accepted, without skepticism, whatever "dogma" she had been raised with, be it Christian, Bhuddist, whatever. It just happened to be atheism, because my grandparents were big-time skeptics. But she's just one person, and I doubt she is representative of most atheists, especially those who come from a religous background. Also, I think when you are raised atheist, there isn't as much of a reason to become skeptical, because you weren't raised with a belief system that makes such outrageous claims as to be met with skepticism.