Atheism means...

[Piscivore]

What is the closest to an accurate definition to you?

[paximperium]

Please define religion as you are using it here.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wait... where's the "Hating God because you want to rebel against Christianity and not have to pay for your sins and then be a slave for Satan" option??

[Piscivore]

Please define religion as you are using it here.

religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

And just to answer the next obvious question:
god
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

[Piscivore]

Wait... where's the "Hating God because you want to rebel against Christianity and not have to pay for your sins and then be a slave for Satan" option??

Yrregie's threads are thataway ===>

[Ron_Tomkins]

:D

[paximperium]

Wait... where's the "Hating God because you want to rebel against Christianity and not have to pay for your sins and then be a slave for Satan" option??
As a worshiper of tapioca, I find myself quite left out.

[paximperium]

Isn't non-belief in religion...areligious or non-religious?

[Ron_Tomkins]

As a worshiper of tapioca, I find myself quite left out.

I'm sorry but your beliefs aren't true. Mine are, because I just know it. I just know it inside of me and I need no more evidence because my awareness is more real than yours or anyone else's

Now repent. ALL OF YOU

[Piscivore]

Isn't non-belief in religion...areligious or non-religious?

It is to me. Someone in another thread asserted that atheism meant not beliving in religion, and that's how most people used the word.

[Hokulele]

Isn't non-belief in religion...areligious or non-religious?


That's what I would have said.

Atheist = A person with a lack of belief in any god(s).

I am not sure I agree with the definition of religion presented Pisci's quote, but that is neither here nor there. Atheism and religion are different creatures.

[Piscivore]

That's what I would have said.

Atheist = A person with a lack of belief in any god(s).

I am not sure I agree with the definition of religion presented Pisci's quote, but that is neither here nor there. Atheism and religion are different creatures.

That came from Dictionary.com. How would yours differ?

[Phrost]

Religion requires a belief in a god or gods.

Also, "I'm a believer in God, not Religion" is a common cop-out/catchphrase of the evangelical crowd.

[Piscivore]

Religion requires a belief in a god or gods.
You don't think that people can also make religions around other things, like Patriotism, Sex, Money, Power, or other non-"god" things?

Also, "I'm a believer in God, not Religion" is a common cop-out/catchphrase of the evangelical crowd.
Are you claiming they cannot possibly mean it?

[paximperium]

Religion requires a belief in a god or gods.

Also, "I'm a believer in God, not Religion" is a common cop-out/catchphrase of the evangelical crowd.
There's Scientology and the Raelians who do not believe in gods but in aliens.

[Piscivore]

There's Scientology and the Raelians who do not believe in gods but in aliens.

There is also loads of Animists in our not-so-distant past.

[paximperium]

You don't think that people can also make religions around other things, like Patriotism, Sex, Money, Power, or other non-"god" things?

United Tapiocans of America: Wallow in the starchy goodness.

[Hokulele]

That came from Dictionary.com. How would yours differ?


My personal definition of religion is an organized system for changing reality*. As HansMustermann was explaining in one of today's explosion of threads (I forget which one), religion comes loaded with woo baggage. The reality that when you die, you are dead is changed by inventing souls, heaven, hell, and other types of afterlife. The reality that you have an incurable cancer is changed by faith-healing or prayer. The reality that your neighbor is a bastard and gets away with it is changed by karma.

Regarding specific elements of the dictionary definition, calling it "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" pushes open the barn door of calling cosmology a religion. Calling religion "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" would pretty much lump Red Sox Nation firmly in the religion camp (although, that may have some justification for it ;)).


ETA: * - I should have worded that as "attempting to change reality". You can't really change reality.

[Hokulele]

There is also loads of Animists in our not-so-distant past.


There is a heck of a lot of ancestor worship in thousands of indigenous religions.

[Piscivore]

My personal definition of religion is an organized system for changing reality. As HansMustermann was explaining in one of today's explosion of threads (I forget which one), religion comes loaded with woo baggage. The reality that when you die, you are dead is changed by inventing souls, heaven, hell, and other types of afterlife. The reality that you have an incurable cancer is changed by faith-healing or prayer. The reality that your neighbor is a bastard and gets away with it is changed by karma.

What that describes to me (minus the "organised") is "magical thinking". When you add the "organised", it seems to me a lot like "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

Regarding specific elements of the dictionary definition, calling it "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" pushes open the barn door of calling cosmology a religion.
Which is why I think the rest of it is important- mere cosmology does not prescribe "devotional and ritual observances" or "a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs". Cosmology may include "considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies", considering who you ask.

Calling religion "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" would pretty much lump Red Sox Nation firmly in the religion camp (although, that may have some justification for it ;)).
:)

[Hokulele]

What that describes to me (minus the "organised") is "magical thinking". When you add the "organised", it seems to me a lot like "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".


I did edit that a tiny bit, sorry, however it doesn't affect your point.

I disagree. Religion isn't about the universe, it is about you, the believer. It isn't about understanding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, but rather understanding that it doesn't do what you want and how to make it do what you want. For example, if you were to ask someone to define the core tenets of Christianity, Pastafarianism, or Hinduism in one short paragraph, the origins and nature of the universe would probably not even rate a single sentence.

But you are right, without the orginization aspect, it is simply magical thinking. Once you get enough people to decide which are the correct magical thoughts and how to think them, ta da!, religion.

[Piscivore]

I did edit that a tiny bit, sorry, however it doesn't affect your point.
I saw that, and the caveat you explicated was already understood. :)

I disagree. Religion isn't about the universe, it is about you, the believer. It isn't about understanding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, but rather understanding that it doesn't do what you want and how to make it do what you want. For example, if you were to ask someone to define the core tenets of Christianity, Pastafarianism, or Hinduism in one short paragraph, the origins and nature of the universe would probably not even rate a single sentence.
That's an interesting point.

But you are right, without the orginization aspect, it is simply magical thinking. Once you get enough people to decide which are the correct magical thoughts and how to think them, ta da!, religion.
I'm pretty comfortable with calling religion "Organised Magical Thinking". I don't think doing so contradicts anything in my current understanding or any of my posts thusfar. It is still, as you say, not the same thing as "god" by any means.

[Phrost]

You don't think that people can also make religions around other things, like Patriotism, Sex, Money, Power, or other non-"god" things?

No, then you're changing the meaning of the word "religion" to suit your agenda, most likely as a pejorative.


Are you claiming they cannot possibly mean it?

I'm claiming it's nonsense. Unless your view on "god" was wholly self-conceived and free from outside influence or contribution (eg. you grew up as a feral child), it is derived from religion; a spreading of the nam-shub, if you will.

[Vox Humana]

You left off 'neither believing in god nor religion' - which is what (IMHO) the majority of people around here (American midwest) take it to mean. I can see where the pedantic definition may be either 'not believing in god' or 'not believing in religion,' but the colloquial meaning is the definition I listed above (again, IMHO.)

[JimBenArm]

Atheism means never having to say you're sorry. At least not to a non-existent entity.

[Hokulele]

I'm pretty comfortable with calling religion "Organised Magical Thinking". I don't think doing so contradicts anything in my current understanding or any of my posts thusfar. It is still, as you say, not the same thing as "god" by any means.


I completely agree, and "Organized Magical Thinking"* is much pithier than any other definition I have seen. I also agree that it doesn't change any of the points you made in earlier posts, it was just an interesting tangent to your OP. It has been a while since the last "How do you define religion?" thread, and AFAIK, there has never been an official JREF consensus on what is meant by the term.

As Phrost is currently demonstrating.



* - When did you become British?

[linusrichard]

As far as I can tell, 1 and 3 are both correct. I said 1, but I could just as well have said 3.

[billydkid]

Wait... where's the "Hating God because you want to rebel against Christianity and not have to pay for your sins and then be a slave for Satan" option??
Yes, that's me. I hate God. That's why I don't believe in him. This brings to mind a discussion I had in here with someone - an avowed atheist - he liked to make the point that God was a real bastard based on his various arbitrary and cruel activities throughout history. My feeling was, how do you have strong opinions about someone who doesn't exist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Everyone believes in religion. There are religions all over the place. You must mean something about the content of religion.

~~ Paul

[rain]

Is there a term that means you believe in God but dislike him without necessarily being Satanist?

[Phrost]

Is there a term that means you believe in God but dislike him without necessarily being Satanist?

Contratheist?

Teenager?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Is there a term that means you believe in God but dislike him without necessarily being Satanist?

Possibly Dystheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism

Or Cacotheism: thinking God's a ****.

[linusrichard]

Yes, that's me. I hate God. That's why I don't believe in him. This brings to mind a discussion I had in here with someone - an avowed atheist - he liked to make the point that God was a real bastard based on his various arbitrary and cruel activities throughout history. My feeling was, how do you have strong opinions about someone who doesn't exist.

Ask any Star Wars/Harry Potter/anime/Twilight/etc. fan.

[Piscivore]

No, then you're changing the meaning of the word "religion" to suit your agenda, most likely as a pejorative."[quote]
Do you have a problem with defining "religion" as "Organised Magical Thinking"? If so, what wuold you offer as an alternate to the ones I have thusfar presented?

[quote]I'm claiming it's nonsense. Unless your view on "god" was wholly self-conceived and free from outside influence or contribution (eg. you grew up as a feral child), it is derived from religion; a spreading of the nam-shub, if you will.
And no one ever deviates from that teaching? How do schisms form?

[Piscivore]

* - When did you become British?

I think that it began taking root when I was reading A.A. Milne around three or four. By the time I finished the Harry Potter books the change had fully metastisised.

[Hokulele]

For those claiming that religion = godism, how would you classify Unitarian Universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism#Beliefs)?

[Dancing David]

Atheism means guiltless masturbation.

David the pagan atheist

[qayak]

Atheism means never having to waste another Sunday indoors listening to pompous ass shats share their delusions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't option 1 & 3 say the same thing? However, I am curious what the other word is. I voted for #3 because I was unaware of such a word.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everyone believes in religion. There are religions all over the place. You must mean something about the content of religion.

~~ PaulI hope this was supposed to be sarcastic.

[learner]

Atheism is how we are born. pure as the driven snow. some stay that way, by luck or judgement, some depart from this norm temporarily but eventually clean up their act and return to the fold.
Others are lost forever.

To be in an atheistic state shouldn't even require the label atheist.

There are about ten sparrows in my garden now. One of them, that visits regularly is white (ish)

That seems to me, to be, complete and descriptive of the sparrows in my garden.

There are about ten sparrows in my garden now. Nine of them are not white(ish)

That is daft.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a heck of a lot of ancestor worship in thousands of indigenous religions.You had to muck with the god definition issue, didn't you? :rolleyes:

If those dead ancestors now have magic powers, I put them in the god category. But I can see that is flawed depending on one's god definition.

[rain]

Possibly Dystheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism

Or Cacotheism: thinking God's a ****.

Thanks. I never knew that such words existed although I always figured they should.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't non-belief in religion...areligious or non-religious?OK, I guess I was looking for something more unique than just adding the prefix, non. I think one could say in a sentence: Either you are a religious atheist or a non-religious atheist.

[arthwollipot]

Hmm. I don't think I can really answer this poll as it is phrased. Religion, to me, is the trappings that human beings build up around their belief in God. Religion gives people a framework in which to engage in their worship of God. To be more non-Abrahamic about it, it is the framework in which people engage in their worship and/or veneration of supernatural entities which they believe influence the world in various ways.

Theism is not religion. Theism is merely the belief in a deity. However, theism is usually a prerequisite of religion (there are a few exceptions). So to say "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in religion" is absurd to me. I would have to say that I believe in neither God nor religion, but I also can't say that God and religion are the same thing.

Hence, I have to vote Planet X. Sorry, Piscivore.

[tsig]

United Tapiocans of America: Wallow in the starchy goodness.

If you eat tapioca it becomes part of you so if you eat enough you can become one with your god.

I once believed and preached jelloism but then tapoca came to my tongue and I have felt the Presence ever since.

[MattC]

"That thing which annoys yrreg"

[tsig]

Atheism means never having to say you're sorry. At least not to a non-existent entity.

Sometimes while in the middle of a mother-stabbin', father-rapin', babby-eatin' frenzy i stop and wistfully wonder if there might be some all-powerful deity to give me a hint about right and wrong. Then I remember that the god of the babble killed everyone in the whole world except for eight and I realize that I am falling short of the command of Jesus to "go and do likewise".

[yy2bggggs]

I agree that it could be the first or the third. I voted for the first on a technicality... atheism doesn't mean maybe believing in a religion, though an atheist maybe believes in a religion. That's the only way I could choose one over the other, or such is the lie I tell myself.

[Hokulele]

You had to muck with the god definition issue, didn't you? :rolleyes:


I live to muck with things.

[Hokulele]

Hmm. I don't think I can really answer this poll as it is phrased. Religion, to me, is the trappings that human beings build up around their belief in God.


How would you classify Unitarian Universalism (http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/index.shtml)?

This isn't meant to be a snide comment, but a genuine question.

[arthwollipot]

How would you classify Unitarian Universalism (http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/index.shtml)?

This isn't meant to be a snide comment, but a genuine question.I did say that there were a few exceptions. It was mainly UU I was thinking of when I said that.

[Hokulele]

I did say that there were a few exceptions. It was mainly UU I was thinking of when I said that.


Fair enough, I can accept that a definition can have exceptions.

At least for the purposes of discussion and avoiding a 20 page derail. :D

[Hokulele]

Believing in a god, not believing in religion. http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/polls/bar3.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/polls/bar3-r.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/clear.gif 1


OK, who let yrreg vote?

[slingblade]

Atheism means never having to say you're sorry. At least not to a non-existent entity.

Or to Tipper Gore. :D

[Darat]

That's what I would have said.

Atheist = A person with a lack of belief in any god(s).

I am not sure I agree with the definition of religion presented Pisci's quote, but that is neither here nor there. Atheism and religion are different creatures.

I'm more than ever convinced that putting it as: "A person with a lack of belief in any god(s)." creates problems that can be avoided by defining it more along the lines of:

An atheist is a person who, when asked "Which god do you believe in?", responds with "None".

That helps place the emphasis on the fact that atheism is not a belief in its own rights and thus avoids that equivocation of "You only believe there is no god like I believe there is a god".

[Dancing David]

How would you classify Unitarian Universalism (http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/index.shtml)?

This isn't meant to be a snide comment, but a genuine question.

There may or may not be a light bulb, however we choose to believe that there is a light (some of us) and that each individual may approach the light in their own way.

"We choose not to make a statement either in favour of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey, you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb. Present it next month at our annual Light Bulb Sunday Service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life, and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence."

[Dysphemist]

One can be part of a religion and not believe in god at the same time. For example, Rabbi Sherwin Wine isn't a theist (see ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)) - Humanistic Jewish but Jewish nonetheless. I've also heard John Safran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran) say that he is Jewish. Safran's co-host on an Australian radio show, Father Bob Maguire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Maguire) is a Catholic priest yet I've also heard him suggest that he leans more towards agnosticism than strict belief in God.

I think religion is becoming more and more a cultural element of religionist's lives rather than spiritual (not saying this is what religion is for everyone, or even for the majority of people). There are atheists out there who think religion is a good thing, and embrace it.

[Third Eye Open]

Skwizgar: This is stupid, doesn't he know there is no such thing as religion?
Nathan: You mean you don't believe in god. There is such a thing as religion.
Skwizgar: Well then prove it! Show me a miracle or something, to show that religion exists!
Nathan: Well um, you know, there's a bible right there.
Skwizgar: Well... then maybe... I'll re-evaluate my live...

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=14153390ad9605803b92760efba001eb

[Bob Klase]

I don't understand the basis of the question.

For atheism, not believing in god means a lack of belief that god exists.

What is not believing in religion? For consistency it seems that it would have to mean a a lack of belief that religion exists? Is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that religion exists? What are all those people really doing on Sunday morning?

[Ashles]

Of course the question might have been more relevant to the actual discussion that inspired it if the poll had been more along the lines of:

"If you describe yourself as an atheist, are you intending the word to imply..."

We already know what the word actually, specifically means. The discussion was whether the literal meaning is actually how it is in reality generally used.

Does someone calling themselves an 'atheist' in general conversation actually mean they do/might still believe in a religion not centred around the concept of god(s) e.g. specific brands of buddhism?

Do all/most/some/few/no people use the term atheist in this way?

[Jonnyclueless]

My choice, which is the actual meaning of atheism is not on there.

Atheism - the lack of a belief in 1 or more gods.

Most dictionaries are actually wrong on the definition. Some go so far as to define atheism as "sinful behavior against god". Keep in mind that many of these disctionary entries were written long ago by very religious people who like religious people today don't understand what atheism means. I am surprised that no dictionaries define it as "satan worshiping" as many religious people think. Most define atheism as a belief that god does not exist. And this is 100% false, and shows how dictionaries can be incorrect. it's not a belief despite what most dictionaries claim.

I'd vote for the 1st option if they were to remove the part about religion being another word.

[Piscivore]

Of course the question might have been more relevant to the actual discussion that inspired it if the poll had been more along the lines of:

"If you describe yourself as an atheist, are you intending the word to imply..."

We already know what the word actually, specifically means. The discussion was whether the literal meaning is actually how it is in reality generally used.

Does someone calling themselves an 'atheist' in general conversation actually mean they do/might still believe in a religion not centred around the concept of god(s) e.g. specific brands of buddhism?

Do all/most/some/few/no people use the term atheist in this way?

By all means, post your own poll the way you think it should read.

[RandFan]

By all means, post your own poll the way you think it should read.I dread starting polls. They are never right. :)

[Piscivore]

I dread starting polls. They are never right. :)

I hear ya. :)

[paximperium]

I dread starting polls. They are never right. :)
I believe we should start a poll to determine if a new poll needs to be started.

[Bob Klase]

My choice, which is the actual meaning of atheism is not on there.

Atheism - the lack of a belief in 1 or more gods.

That would make Christians, Jews and pretty much everyone else atheist. Good luck finding some who believes in all gods.

[Steve]

Everyone believes in religion. There are religions all over the place. You must mean something about the content of religion.

~~ Paul

This was my thought also. I see compelling evidence for the existence of religion every time I pass a church. For gods, not so much. That is why I voted "Not believing in god, believing in religion". This in no way makes me a religious person.

[slingblade]

Atheism (n): I don't believe in any of that ****; no, I'm not going to give you any money; I already found Jesus, he was behind the sofa the whole time; I'll believe in god as soon as I find Christmas presents under my tree from Santa, watch as sweet candy eggs come shooting out of a rabbit's butt, and am led by an incredibly short Irish man to a large amount of precious metals contained in a cooking vessel; you don't control me anymore, you don't make me feel guilty anymore, and your potluck suppers have always been just awful!

[Piscivore]

Atheism (n): I don't believe in any of that ****; no, I'm not going to give you any money; I already found Jesus, he was behind the sofa the whole time; I'll believe in god as soon as I find Christmas presents under my tree from Santa, watch as sweet candy eggs come shooting out of a rabbit's butt, and am led by an incredibly short Irish man to a large amount of precious metals contained in a cooking vessel; you don't control me anymore, you don't make me feel guilty anymore, and your potluck suppers have always been just awful!

:D

[JimBenArm]

Atheism (n): I don't believe in any of that ****; no, I'm not going to give you any money; I already found Jesus, he was behind the sofa the whole time; I'll believe in god as soon as I find Christmas presents under my tree from Santa, watch as sweet candy eggs come shooting out of a rabbit's butt, and am led by an incredibly short Irish man to a large amount of precious metals contained in a cooking vessel; you don't control me anymore, you don't make me feel guilty anymore, and your potluck suppers have always been just awful!
Ah, another former member of Gashland Baptist Church...

[Beerina]

[X] Not believing in anything spiritual, for lack of a better word.

I do not believe someone would be an atheist if they didn't believe in gods, conventional or old-school, but did believe in animism and spirits of the wind, and so on.

It's splitting hairs and missing the bigger picture.

[Jonnyclueless]

That would make Christians, Jews and pretty much everyone else atheist. Good luck finding some who believes in all gods.

Uh, what christian believes in less than 1 god? What Jews believe in less than 1 god? And correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't all gods be more than 1?

How did you come up with that math?

[Jonnyclueless]

Atheism (n): I don't believe in any of that ****; no, I'm not going to give you any money; I already found Jesus, he was behind the sofa the whole time; I'll believe in god as soon as I find Christmas presents under my tree from Santa, watch as sweet candy eggs come shooting out of a rabbit's butt, and am led by an incredibly short Irish man to a large amount of precious metals contained in a cooking vessel; you don't control me anymore, you don't make me feel guilty anymore, and your potluck suppers have always been just awful!

Can I use that as a signature?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hope this was supposed to be sarcastic.
No, it wasn't. Don't you believe in religion? I sure do. There are three or four churches in my town alone. There are definitely religions.

I do not know what it means to "not believe in religion" or "not believe in organized magical thinking." Don't we need to consider a specific set of magical thoughts in order to decide whether we believe in them?

~~ Paul

[linusrichard]

No, it wasn't. Don't you believe in religion? I sure do. There are three or four churches in my town alone. There are definitely religions.


Seriously?

Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in capital punishment? Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in abortion?

Do statements like that confuse you? This is basically the same thing.

[Bob Klase]

Atheism - the lack of a belief in 1 or more gods.

Uh, what christian believes in less than 1 god?

Your definition doesn't mention anything about "less than 1". It only requires a lack of belief in 1 or more.

All christians lack a belief in Zeus, Apollo, and hundreds of others- that would be 1 or more and meets your definition's requirement for a lack of belief of 1 (or more) god(s).

What Jews believe in less than 1 god?

All Jews lack a belief in Jesus (the christian god). Therefore they lack a belief in 1 (or more) gods. They meet your definition.

And correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't all gods be more than 1?

Certainly 'all' gods would be more than 1. Fifteen gods would also be more than one. Two would be more than one. And even one would come under "1 or more"

How did you come up with that math?

I simply calculated that even if there were two gods to pick from and I lack a belief in at least one of them then I've met your definition's requirement for "the lack of a belief in 1 or more".

[slingblade]

Can I use that as a signature?

If it will fit the sig size restriction, you most certainly may. :D

[Jonnyclueless]

Your definition doesn't mention anything about "less than 1". It only requires a lack of belief in 1 or more.

It doesn't have to because any thing other than one or more is none;.

All christians lack a belief in Zeus, Apollo, and hundreds of others- that would be 1 or more and meets your definition's requirement for a lack of belief of 1 (or more) god(s).

INCORRECT. They worship at least one god, and therefore are not atheist. If they believed in NO gods, then they would be Atheist. But seeing as all those religions believe in 1 or more gods, they don't qualify. Ask a christian how many gods they believe in. Answer: 1. Thus they are not atheist. Repeat for all other religions.



All Jews lack a belief in Jesus (the christian god). Therefore they lack a belief in 1 (or more) gods. They meet your definition.

All Jews believe in a god, therefore they believe in 1 god. Not Atheist by my definition. Sorry. They do NOT lack a belief in 1 or more gods because of their god that they believe in. 1 god = 1. Simple math.



Certainly 'all' gods would be more than 1. Fifteen gods would also be more than one. Two would be more than one. And even one would come under "1 or more"

Exactly!



I simply calculated that even if there were two gods to pick from and I lack a belief in at least one of them then I've met your definition's requirement for "the lack of a belief in 1 or more".

If you believe in at least 1, then you don't meet my definition. The only thing that can meet my definition is a belief in less than 1 god, which happens to be no gods. Any god what so ever, or more than one god, and you are not an atheist.

[sphenisc]

...An atheist is a person who, when asked "Which god do you believe in?", responds with "None"...


That's a confusing definition for worshippers of this god (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nun.htm). :)

[Bob Klase]

It doesn't have to because any thing other than one or more is none;.

I agree with you about what an atheist is, but what you wrote does not mean what you intend it to mean.

If the requirement is "One or more" that means that just one meets the requirement. Anything more than one also meets the requirement. Once that requirement is met your definition ignores whether or not they believe in any others.

INCORRECT. They worship at least one god, and therefore are not atheist.

Your definition didn't say anything about worshiping or believing- it said a "lack of belief" in 1 or more. If they lack a belief in 1 (or more) then they are atheist under that definition- even if they also have a belief in one or more.

If they believed in NO gods, then they would be Atheist.

I agree again, but that's not what your definition requires. Again- it only requires a lack of belief in one (or more) It doesn't require a lack of belief in all (or a belief in none).

But seeing as all those religions believe in 1 or more gods, they don't qualify.

Your definition doesn't say anything about what they believe in- it only requires a lack of belief.

Ask a christian how many gods they believe in. Answer: 1. Thus they are not atheist. Repeat for all other religions.

I still agree. But you are not following what you wrote as your definition.

All christians believe in one god. That means that lack belief in all the others. Your definition "a lack of belief in 1 or more gods"- they lack a belief in all gods other than their own- that's a lack of belief in 1 or more.

All Jews believe in a god, therefore they believe in 1 god. Not Atheist by my definition. Sorry.

See last paragraph. They are atheist going by the definition you wrote.

They do NOT lack a belief in 1 or more gods because of their god that they believe in.

That one makes no difference- they lack a belief in all the others- that's a lack of belief in one or more.

Certainly 'all' gods would be more than 1. Fifteen gods would also be more than one. Two would be more than one. And even one would come under "1 or more"

Exactly!

Exactly? So you agree that if they lack a belief in 2 gods they've met your definition of "lack of belief in 1 or more". Since they've met your definition of 1 or more then we can ignore their belief/lack of belief in all the others.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say an atheist is, but your definition doesn't agree with what you're saying now.

[leafman91]

I believe in unity through belief
I believe in motives for morality through belief
I believe in kindness through belief
I believe in charity through belief
I believe in belief that improves life quality
I believe in the alcoholics who have given up their addiction for their religion
I believe in the drug addicts who have given up for their religion
I believe in people who stop fighting because of belief, not just in people who fight for it
I believe in people who will give their lives for others in good faith

I believe in the power of belief

Do you?

[Paulhoff]

I believe in unity through belief
I believe in motives for morality through belief
I believe in kindness through belief
I believe in charity through belief
I believe in belief that improves life quality
I believe in the alcoholics who have given up their addiction for their religion
I believe in the drug addicts who have given up for their religion
I believe in people who stop fighting because of belief, not just in people who fight for it
I believe in people who will give their lives for others in good faith

I believe in the power of belief

Do you?
"Belief"....... well that narrows it down...........NOT.

Paul

:) :) :)

[linusrichard]

I believe in unity through belief
I believe in motives for morality through belief
I believe in kindness through belief
I believe in charity through belief
I believe in belief that improves life quality
I believe in the alcoholics who have given up their addiction for their religion
I believe in the drug addicts who have given up for their religion
I believe in people who stop fighting because of belief, not just in people who fight for it
I believe in people who will give their lives for others in good faith

I believe in the power of belief

Do you?
Yes! I believe in all of these things! And more!

I believe in division through belief
I believe in motives for wickedness through belief
I believe in cruelty through belief
I believe in avarice through belief
I believe in belief that detracts from life quality
I believe in people who take drugs for their religion
I believe in the people who commit suicide for their religion
I believe in people who fight because of belief, not just in people who stop fighting because of it
I believe in people who will take the lives of others in "good" faith

I believe, most wholeheartedly, in the power of belief

[leafman91]

Fair enough...

[Third Eye Open]

I agree with you about what an atheist is, but what you wrote does not mean what you intend it to mean.

If the requirement is "One or more" that means that just one meets the requirement. Anything more than one also meets the requirement. Once that requirement is met your definition ignores whether or not they believe in any others.



Your definition didn't say anything about worshiping or believing- it said a "lack of belief" in 1 or more. If they lack a belief in 1 (or more) then they are atheist under that definition- even if they also have a belief in one or more.



I agree again, but that's not what your definition requires. Again- it only requires a lack of belief in one (or more) It doesn't require a lack of belief in all (or a belief in none).



Your definition doesn't say anything about what they believe in- it only requires a lack of belief.



I still agree. But you are not following what you wrote as your definition.

All christians believe in one god. That means that lack belief in all the others. Your definition "a lack of belief in 1 or more gods"- they lack a belief in all gods other than their own- that's a lack of belief in 1 or more.



See last paragraph. They are atheist going by the definition you wrote.



That one makes no difference- they lack a belief in all the others- that's a lack of belief in one or more.



Exactly? So you agree that if they lack a belief in 2 gods they've met your definition of "lack of belief in 1 or more". Since they've met your definition of 1 or more then we can ignore their belief/lack of belief in all the others.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say an atheist is, but your definition doesn't agree with what you're saying now.

I think what he is trying to say is that 'someone who lacks a belief in (one or more gods) is an atheist.'

As in: Do you believe in (one or more gods)? No, I do not believe in either one or more gods. Atheist.

Bah, semantics.

[Steve]

Seriously?

Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in capital punishment? Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in abortion?

Do statements like that confuse you? This is basically the same thing.

If I may,

I believe in both capital punishment and abortion because there is overwhelming evidence that they both exist (as procedures, not objects). Whether I think or agree that they should exist is a matter of opinion, not belief. I have heard people say both of the things stated above. The use of the word believe in that context is different that the use of the word in regards to the existence of deities. In the context of the poll, the use of the word 'belief' in the above statements does not apply.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seriously?

Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in capital punishment? Have you ever heard someone say he didn't believe in abortion?

Do statements like that confuse you? This is basically the same thing.

No, it isn't. Capital punishment and abortion are specific social practices that I can agree with or not. Religion is much too amorphous. Even if I mean "agree with" when I use the term believe in, it's still rather meaningless to say that I don't agree with religion.

I have to say, though, that I didn't interpret believe in to mean "agree with" in this context. I interpreted it to mean belief in the philosophical sense of justified faith. Apparently so did dogguy.

~~ Paul

[Piscivore]

Fine, read "believing in religion" as "believing in the precepts of or following a religion".
:rolleyes:

[Ashles]

By all means, post your own poll the way you think it should read.
This thread illustrates why I wouldn't.

[Jonnyclueless]

I agree with you about what an atheist is, but what you wrote does not mean what you intend it to mean.

If the requirement is "One or more" that means that just one meets the requirement. Anything more than one also meets the requirement. Once that requirement is met your definition ignores whether or not they believe in any others.

Correct, and so once you believe in at least one god, you are no longer an atheist. If we were to say the lack of a believe in a god, then anyone who believes in multiple gods would be an atheist because the don't lack a believe in one god.


Your definition didn't say anything about worshiping or believing- it said a "lack of belief" in 1 or more. If they lack a belief in 1 (or more) then they are atheist under that definition- even if they also have a belief in one or more.

Yes, if you lack a belief that there is a single (1) god, you are an atheist. If you kac a belief in mutliple gods, such as the Greeks did, you are an atheist.


I agree again, but that's not what your definition requires. Again- it only requires a lack of belief in one (or more) It doesn't require a lack of belief in all (or a belief in none).

Yes it does. Because all gods are more than 1 god. If there are 10,000 gods, then you reject between 1 and 10,000. This covers not only mono-theisms, but poly-theisms.


Your definition doesn't say anything about what they believe in- it only requires a lack of belief.

That's completely correct. Because there is no belief involved in atheism. I as an atheist have no beliefs what so ever. So therefore any kind of believe would regarding a god would be incorrect. Just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. It's a lack of that hobby.


I still agree. But you are not following what you wrote as your definition.

All christians believe in one god. That means that lack belief in all the others. Your definition "a lack of belief in 1 or more gods"- they lack a belief in all gods other than their own- that's a lack of belief in 1 or more.

But they DO believe in 1 god, which disqualifies them because they believe in 1 or more gods.



See last paragraph. They are atheist going by the definition you wrote.

No, they aren't, because they believe in 1 god. They don't lack a believe in 1 or more gods because they HAVE a belief in at least 1 god. They may lack a belief in gods OTHER than theirs, but they still have at least 1 god and therefore have no lack of a believe in at least 1 god.



That one makes no difference- they lack a belief in all the others- that's a lack of belief in one or more.

It does. Because they DO have a belief in one god and therefore are not lacking.



Exactly? So you agree that if they lack a belief in 2 gods they've met your definition of "lack of belief in 1 or more". Since they've met your definition of 1 or more then we can ignore their belief/lack of belief in all the others.

No. I state 1. If they lack a belief in 1 or more, then they meet my definition. 1 is included, not more than one, but one OR more. The OR is very important. It's not more than one, it's one OR more.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say an atheist is, but your definition doesn't agree with what you're saying now.

I disagree with your disagreement over the definition. If for example one would say "it's the lack of belief in god" as most claim, then one could use your same argument and say that any polytheist would then be an atheist by that definition. And that includes most dictionaries.

[Piscivore]

This thread illustrates why I wouldn't.

I don't see it. This has been an interesting thread.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fine, read "believing in religion" as "believing in the precepts of or following a religion".
So is this item #1?

Not believing in a god. Non-belief in the precepts of any religion has a different word.

Is there a list of all the religions somewhere so that I can confirm whether I believe in any of their precepts? The problem is that god and the precepts of religions overlap.


I don't see it. This has been an interesting thread.
And I appreciate your putting up with my crap. :D

~~ Paul

[Bob Klase]

I think what he is trying to say is that 'someone who lacks a belief in (one or more gods) is an atheist.'

As in: Do you believe in (one or more gods)? No, I do not believe in either one or more gods. Atheist.

Bah, semantics.

Exactly. It is semantics. What he was trying to say after giving a "definition" made what he thinks an atheist is clear. However as he continues to try to defend his "definition" the question is not what he considers an atheist but the semantics of what he specifically designated a 'definition'.

[Bob Klase]

You keep arguing things that no one disagrees with. Your definition falls short because it's worded badly.

If you used the phrase "you are not an atheist if you have a belief in one or more gods" then you could determine if someone is an atheist with nothing but the information required by that phrase:

You meet someone you've never seen before. You know nothing about them. You ask "Do you believe in one (or more) gods". They answer "Yes, I believe in allah." You have enough information to determine that person is not an atheist.

Your definition:

Atheism - the lack of a belief in 1 or more gods.

You meet someone you've never seen before. You know nothing about them. You ask if they believe in allah (1 god). They say "no, I lack a belief in allah".

You now have all the information your definition requires to answer the question "Are they an atheist?". So are they an atheist by your definition?

If you have to get additional information then your definition falls short of defining.

Correct, and so once you believe in at least one god, you are no longer an atheist.

I lack a belief in at least one god. Am I atheist? You don't know what I do believe about other gods but your definition doesn't require that information.

Yes, if you lack a belief that there is a single (1) god, you are an atheist.

Your definition says "one or more", not "a single god or more".

That's completely correct. Because there is no belief involved in atheism. I as an atheist have no beliefs what so ever.

You definition says nothing about what beliefs I might have. It only calls for a lack of belief about one or more.

So therefore any kind of believe would regarding a god would be incorrect.

That's true. A belief in any god makes you 'not an atheist'. But your definition doesn't require the information on what gods I may or may not believe it- it only requires knowledge about 1 or more gods that I lack a belief in.

I disagree with your disagreement over the definition. If for example one would say "it's the lack of belief in god" as most claim

What most claim is not relevant here- we're talking about your specific definition. But I don't think 'most' claim 'it's the lack of belief in god'. Most claim it's a lack of belief in any and all gods.

[Piscivore]

So is this item #1?

Not believing in a, any or all god(s). Non-belief in the precepts of a, any or all religion has a different word.
That's how I'd probably phrase it if I were starting right now, yeah. Sounds good. They only give you a certain amount of space in that little box, though, so I tried to be succinct.

Is there a list of all the religions somewhere so that I can confirm whether I believe in any of their precepts?
Each religion typically keeps its own list of precepts. Not always written down.

The problem is that god and the precepts of religions overlap.
Sometimes. Maybe even often. Not always.


And I appreciate your putting up with my crap. :D

~~ Paul
What's the expression about "dishing out" and "taking it"? :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Not believing in a, any or all god(s). Non-belief in the precepts of a, any or all religion has a different word."

That's how I'd probably phrase it if I were starting right now, yeah. Sounds good. They only give you a certain amount of space in that little box, though, so I tried to be succinct.
But everyone disbelieves in some gods and some religious precepts. So everyone would have to check the first box.

I think an atheist disbelieves in all gods. So to be consistent, it would have to be disbelief in all religious precepts. I don't know if there is a word for that, but I do think it would be nearly impossible to know if one disbelieved in all religious precepts.

~~ Paul

[godless dave]

I believe that religions exist, but I don't believe in the fact claims of those religions.

[Jonnyclueless]

You keep arguing things that no one disagrees with. Your definition falls short because it's worded badly.

As do you. And I disagree that the definition falls short or is worded badly. And it's worded no differently than most definitions of it which anyone could use the same semantic argument against. Much like the parallel argument over the term "not believing in religion". It's very clear what it means, while someone can argue that it clearly states that one doesn't believe there is such thing as religion in general.

If you used the phrase "you are not an atheist if you have a belief in one or more gods" then you could determine if someone is an atheist with nothing but the information required by that phrase:

Because that wouldn't be a definition. That's the definition of someone who is not atheist.


You meet someone you've never seen before. You know nothing about them. You ask "Do you believe in one (or more) gods". They answer "Yes, I believe in allah." You have enough information to determine that person is not an atheist.

Or I could ask them if they are an atheist, and I would know that they they lack a belief in 1 or more gods.

Your definition:



You meet someone you've never seen before. You know nothing about them. You ask if they believe in allah (1 god). They say "no, I lack a belief in allah".

Incorrect. I would ask them if they are an atheist. That response does not answer the question if they are an atheist. It simply says they lack a belief in a particular god. They may still believe in 1 or more gods. I would ask them though if they believe in 1 or more gods, and they would say yes if they are not atheist.

You now have all the information your definition requires to answer the question "Are they an atheist?". So are they an atheist by your definition?

No they are not, because the question is just if they believe in Allah or not. And thus the question is not complete enough to determine if they are atheist or not. There's actually a good video on youtube by nonstampcollector that demonstrates this.

If you have to get additional information then your definition falls short of defining.

I see your question as lacking information. Not mine. You proposed a question for me, which is not a question I would use or agree with. And it certainly does not meet my definition.



I lack a belief in at least one god. Am I atheist? You don't know what I do believe about other gods but your definition doesn't require that information.


Correct. And that isn't my definition. My definition requires that you believe in less than 1 god. If your answer is 1 or higher, you are not an atheist.


Your definition says "one or more", not "a single god or more".

Correct. And if someone believes in only 1 god, as opposed to multiple gods, they are not an atheist.


You definition says nothing about what beliefs I might have. It only calls for a lack of belief about one or more.

It does not care about what beliefs someone has unless those beliefs involve one or more gods. If they have a belief in fairies, then no that is irrelevant. If they believe in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it is irrelevant. If they believe in 1 or more gods, they are not atheist. But correct, it does call for the lack of belief in 1 or more. If the answer then is zero, then you are an atheist.



That's true. A belief in any god makes you 'not an atheist'. But your definition doesn't require the information on what gods I may or may not believe it- it only requires knowledge about 1 or more gods that I lack a belief in.

But it does. It requires less than 1 god. Which god or gods do not matter. It needs no knowledge of any gods, just how many. Anything other than 1 or above.


What most claim is not relevant here- we're talking about your specific definition. But I don't think 'most' claim 'it's the lack of belief in god'. Most claim it's a lack of belief in any and all gods.

I know we're talking about my specific definition. So am I. And I have met very few out of the thousands of atheists I have met that don't use the same definition. Here for example is atheists.org:

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

And like your semantics I could argue that this leaves out believing in 1 god since it only specifies plural. But we know very well what the definition means.

Wikipedia also defines it as the lack of belief in deities.


You could word it either way and make the same semantic argument.

[Bob Klase]

But it does. It requires less than 1 god. Which god or gods do not matter. It needs no knowledge of any gods, just how many. Anything other than 1 or above.

1/3. The christian god has 3 parts- father, son and holy spirit. I only believe in the holy spirit- more than zero and less than one. I'm atheist.

[Jonnyclueless]

1/3. The christian god has 3 parts- father, son and holy spirit. I only believe in the holy spirit- more than zero and less than one. I'm atheist.


Haha. so true.

[slingblade]

Your definition says "one or more", not "a single god or more".

Have you determined if that's an exclusive or inclusive "or?"

[Bob Klase]

Have you determined if that's an exclusive or inclusive "or?"

No. Although you could ask, there's no way to know based only on what the definition says. That's probably the basic problem with the definition as written. If you can't determine what it means without further information then the sentence is inadequate as a definition.

[Bob Klase]

And I have met very few out of the thousands of atheists I have met that don't use the same definition.


Under the assumption that you are in the US, I think you just made that up. "Thousands" would be at least 2000. The % of atheists in the population is around 10% (generally less for most of the last 100 years). So that would require you to meet about 20,000 people to meet 2000 atheists. Even if you actively seek out atheists it would probably take more than 15,000 people.

It's also unlikely that the question of atheism comes up with every person you meet. It's much more likely that it never comes up with most of them but even giving you a high estimate like 25% you'd still have to meet 60,000 people to ask 15,000 of them if they are atheists to find 2000 that are.

And it's even more unlikely that you've asked every atheist you ever met if they agree with that definition exactly as you wrote it here. But even allowing that you did ask 50% of them, we're now up to 120,000 people that you've had to meet to find 2,000 atheists that agree with exactly what you wrote.

If you live in a country with a higher atheist population than the US the number would be more believable but still unlikely.

[slingblade]

No. Although you could ask, there's no way to know based only on what the definition says. That's probably the basic problem with the definition as written. If you can't determine what it means without further information then the sentence is inadequate as a definition.

I suppose. I find I often have to clarify what I read, and I often think the inadequacy lies with me as much as, or even more than, with what I'm reading.

I understood what was meant, though I usually put it slightly differently. I don't believe in a god or gods. Sometimes "in god(s)." Was it the use of a number that threw it off, made it less than clear?

[H'ethetheth]

That's how I'd probably phrase it if I were starting right now, yeah. Sounds good. They only give you a certain amount of space in that little box, though, so I tried to be succinct.Piscivore, I think Paul is talking about what I thought when I read the poll options; The poll seems to use "belief" in two different ways. For example, I assume I'm supposed to read:

"Not believing a god exists, believing religion is a good thing."

But the way it's phrased, the word belief can be taken to mean any of its colloqiual meanings. I could read:

"Not believing a god exists, believing religion exists."

or, at the other end:

"Not believing a god will succeed at whatever the hell he's trying to accomplish, believing religion is a good thing."

However, since you asked my opinion, I will say that I voted Planet X, I do believe religion exists, I'm not sure it's a good thing, and I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, which, I reckon, would cause him to fail at whatever the hell he might be trying to accomplish.

[Paulhoff]

"GOD", now there's a word, many think that what it means to them is the same for everyone else.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, I think Paul is talking about what I thought when I read the poll options; The poll seems to use "belief" in two different ways.
I think you're right, that I inadvertently did that.

For example, I assume I'm supposed to read:

"Not believing a god exists, believing religion is a good thing."
That's pretty close.

But the way it's phrased, the word belief can be taken to mean any of its colloqiual meanings. I could read:

"Not believing a god exists, believing religion exists."
Quite so. My bad.

or, at the other end:

"Not believing a god will succeed at whatever the hell he's trying to accomplish, believing religion is a good thing."
It could.

However, since you asked my opinion, I will say that I voted Planet X, I do believe religion exists, I'm not sure it's a good thing, and I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, which, I reckon, would cause him to fail at whatever the hell he might be trying to accomplish.
Do you use "Atheist" to communicate all of that?

[Piscivore]

"GOD", now there's a word, many think that what it means to them is the same for everyone else.

Paul

:) :) :)
Amen. :D

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't believe in fairies

[Jonnyclueless]

Under the assumption that you are in the US, I think you just made that up. "Thousands" would be at least 2000. The % of atheists in the population is around 10% (generally less for most of the last 100 years). So that would require you to meet about 20,000 people to meet 2000 atheists. Even if you actively seek out atheists it would probably take more than 15,000 people.

It's also unlikely that the question of atheism comes up with every person you meet. It's much more likely that it never comes up with most of them but even giving you a high estimate like 25% you'd still have to meet 60,000 people to ask 15,000 of them if they are atheists to find 2000 that are.

And it's even more unlikely that you've asked every atheist you ever met if they agree with that definition exactly as you wrote it here. But even allowing that you did ask 50% of them, we're now up to 120,000 people that you've had to meet to find 2,000 atheists that agree with exactly what you wrote.

If you live in a country with a higher atheist population than the US the number would be more believable but still unlikely.

No, I not only meet many online through theist meet groups, and have hundreds of friends who are atheists and whom we have discussions upon in on a regular basis. But also online forums with access to many thousands of atheists. Several thousands of which I talk to on a person to person basis like we are here. Do I have an exact count? Of course not any it's unreasonable to assume when someone uses a vague numeric description that they have an exact number.

And then you take into account that the definition is then supported by groups such as atheists.org which have numbers in the many thousands, and richardawkins.net which also has numbers in the several thousands, it's not really difficult to see at all.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming I would have to know 20,000 people in my direct physical contact. And another error is the assumption that it's all just random people and thus you get 20% out of random people. But if most of the people I meet are through atheism beliefs, then that number doesn't really work does it? I I was born in an atheist colony (if one existed) and never went outside of it, then 100% of the people I know would be atheist, and not 20%. And just the opposite if I were born in a religious colony. The point being that you cannot use statistics in that way.

[Darat]

Fine, read "believing in religion" as "believing in the precepts of or following a religion".
:rolleyes:


Now you tell me!

[Miss_Kitt]

Okay. Time for Miss Kitt to wade in here. (pushes sleeves up)

Jonnyclueless, are you not a native English speaker, or just a recent graduate of the public school system? (Some of your word choices are grammatically wrong or odd.) The multi-post discussion with Bob Klase was/is a result of you not understanding the ambiguous nature of the wording of your definition.

Now, to the topic of the poll and most of the discussion: I think that there are religions that lack specific deities. Taoism comes immediately to mind, and some forms of buddhism as well. There are also religions with some form of quasi-gods, such as animism of various stripes, ancestor worship, Cargo Cults, etc.

I can't buy into the "organized magical thinking" definition because there are a number of forms of that that lack the moral / social order aspect of religions. For example, homeopathy is a highly organized form of magical thinking, complete with rituals, a Holy Text, and adherents willing to die for--or at least from--their beliefs. Yet I don't think one can seriously consider homeopathy to be a religion. (Nor, sadly, the Red Sox Nation--if they were a religion, the Pope could threaten to excommunicate those who engaged in its rituals which would reduce the number somewhat.) I think it can be said that all religions have some component of "because this is the nature of the world, one should act in this way."

Sometimes the relationship is propitiatory (sacrifice this or Yahweh will smite you) and sometimes it is prescriptive (letting go of your ego is the road to Understanding) but all religions include directives on How to Live and/or How to Be Good.

The topic of religion and theism and their relationship is very complex, and would make a good 40 or 50 threads--perhaps will make them!

But to answer Piscivore's underlying question, I don't think that "atheism" per se means necessarily an antipathy to all religion. I do think that most people who are both a-theist and think all religions are bunk tend to describe themselves as "atheist", at least in America; but there are also self-described atheists who support religions or religious analogs that do not have deities.

Thanks for the fun topic, MK

[H'ethetheth]

Do you use "Atheist" to communicate all of that?Ah yes, I forgot to tell you that. The answer is: No, I use "atheist" only to communicate the lack of belief in the existence of any deity.

[blobru]

I did edit that a tiny bit, sorry, however it doesn't affect your point.

I disagree. Religion isn't about the universe, it is about you, the believer. It isn't about understanding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, but rather understanding that it doesn't do what you want and how to make it do what you want. For example, if you were to ask someone to define the core tenets of Christianity, Pastafarianism, or Hinduism in one short paragraph, the origins and nature of the universe would probably not even rate a single sentence.

But you are right, without the orginization aspect, it is simply magical thinking. Once you get enough people to decide which are the correct magical thoughts and how to think them, ta da!, religion.


Ta da! -- woo?

I think religion is a species of organized magical thinking; however, so are homeopathy, astrology, seances, dowsing, etc... not usually classed as religions (though it's tempting, as they have OMT in common).

Religions add moral prescriptions that aren't essential to magical thinking (a homeopath just has to know the procedure and ingredients, for example, no more moral than baking a cake [how dare you 'beat' those eggs!?]).

"Magical Morality", to differentiate it from other forms of OMT, might be closer to the sacred heart: that is, getting magical results -- abundant life now and/or forever from a moral universe -- by being moral.

Sorry, I'm behind the times and off-topic here (and I see my reservations echo Miss Kitts' two posts ago -- good company; for me, at least); so let's see... atheism = "no belief in god"... that'll do. :)

[Hokulele]

Ta da! -- woo?

I think religion is a species of organized magical thinking; however, so are homeopathy, astrology, seances, dowsing, etc... not usually classed as religions (though it's tempting, as they have OMT in common).

Religions add moral prescriptions that aren't essential to magical thinking (a homeopath just has to know the procedure and ingredients, for example, no more moral than baking a cake [how dare you 'beat' those eggs!?]).

"Magical Morality", to differentiate it from other forms of OMT, might be closer to the sacred heart: that is, getting magical results -- abundant life now and/or forever from a moral universe -- by being moral.

Sorry, I'm behind the times and off-topic here (and I see my reservations echo Miss Kitts' two posts ago -- good company; for me, at least); so let's see... atheism = "no belief in god"... that'll do. :)


While I agree that trying to be pithy (OMT) has its flaws, I disagree with both you and Miss_Kitt regarding moral obligations as part of the definition of religion. That certainly holds true for the Abrahamic religions and several of the major non-western ones (Confucianism, Jainism, etc.), but the vast bulk of animistic religions, including many indigenous flavors, have few or no moral lessons, other than "make spirits happy or else!". I think that is one reason why in Japan, Shinto (animism, little or no morality) can coexist so well with Buddism (lots and lots of morality). Please note, by Shinto, I am referring to the folk version or the current priestly version. The state Shinto that flourished before and during WWII is a different beast.

The bit that I originally proposed that was weeded out in later discussion dealt with deliberately trying to change the laws of physics, or the way the universe is. Astrologists, dowsers, and homeopaths all believe they are following the laws of physics (i.e. they believe their efforts are natural, not super-natural), they just don't seem to understand how those laws work. People who are praying to some god, on the other hand, know full well they are asking for an exception to the normal rules.

Psychics, mediums, and their ilk may be closer to my definition of religion, although I wouldn't call them or their methods organized in any useful sense.

[stilicho]

What is the closest to an accurate definition to you?

How do some of those options work? For example:

Maybe believing in a god, maybe believing in religion.

How would you do that and be an atheist? Are there some sort of secret semantics involved in this poll?

[Piscivore]

How do some of those options work? For example:

Maybe believing in a god, maybe believing in religion.

How would you do that and be an atheist? Are there some sort of secret semantics involved in this poll?

I did not want to leave out anyone's potential interpretation. I do not consider most of these to be accurate definitions. In fact, I'm surprised some of these are getting votes at all.

[Xulld]

Very confusing set of questions.

Atheism says nothing about religion, its just says that you do not believe in god.

A-theism.

Without a belief in god.

Theism.

Belief in god.

[Bob Klase]

I suppose. I find I often have to clarify what I read, and I often think the inadequacy lies with me as much as, or even more than, with what I'm reading.

That happens. But if you look up a definition and have to clarify what it means because it's ambiguous then it's not a good definition.

I understood what was meant, though I usually put it slightly differently. I don't believe in a god or gods. Sometimes "in god(s)." Was it the use of a number that threw it off, made it less than clear?

It was the use of "1 or more" that made it less than clear. The "1 or more" can be interpreted as being fulfilled by only one, or by more than one (but not all), or by one and a few more, or by one and all others.

The original post read:

My choice, which is the actual meaning of atheism is not on there.

Atheism - the lack of a belief in 1 or more gods.

Most dictionaries are actually wrong on the definition.

His claim that most dictionaries are wrong has a clear implication that his is right along with a clear implication that he's giving a definition. Reading that post I was not clear on what he intended. The meaning was clarified by subsequent posts and his continued arguments (and my disagreement) was strictly semantics. But if semantics aren't important in giving a definition then semantics have no importance at all.

[Bob Klase]

How do some of those options work? For example:

Maybe believing in a god, maybe believing in religion.

I did not want to leave out anyone's potential interpretation. I do not consider most of these to be accurate definitions. In fact, I'm surprised some of these are getting votes at all.


You shouldn't be surprised at the votes for "maybe believing in god" when there's even a vote for "Believing in a god, not believing in religion".

[blobru]

Ta da! -- woo?

I think religion is a species of organized magical thinking; however, so are homeopathy, astrology, seances, dowsing, etc... not usually classed as religions (though it's tempting, as they have OMT in common).

Religions add moral prescriptions that aren't essential to magical thinking (a homeopath just has to know the procedure and ingredients, for example, no more moral than baking a cake [how dare you 'beat' those eggs!?]).

"Magical Morality", to differentiate it from other forms of OMT, might be closer to the sacred heart: that is, getting magical results -- abundant life now and/or forever from a moral universe -- by being moral.

Sorry, I'm behind the times and off-topic here (and I see my reservations echo Miss Kitts' two posts ago -- good company; for me, at least); so let's see... atheism = "no belief in god"... that'll do. :)

While I agree that trying to be pithy (OMT) has its flaws, I disagree with both you and Miss_Kitt regarding moral obligations as part of the definition of religion. That certainly holds true for the Abrahamic religions and several of the major non-western ones (Confucianism, Jainism, etc.), but the vast bulk of animistic religions, including many indigenous flavors, have few or no moral lessons, other than "make spirits happy or else!". I think that is one reason why in Japan, Shinto (animism, little or no morality) can coexist so well with Buddism (lots and lots of morality). Please note, by Shinto, I am referring to the folk version or the current priestly version. The state Shinto that flourished before and during WWII is a different beast.

"Japan is the favorite of the 'gods' [kami]": not a bad mystical basis for Japanese fascism.

:eusa_shifty: suddenly getting strong, non-religious feeling of deja vu... perhaps the kami reminding me we've had this discussion, and hijacked threads with it, before... damn dirty kami...

I can't dismiss animism as almost amoral. In some ways, it is more moral, more broadly moral at least, than more recent forms of religion, extending the moral obligation, the obligation for respect, to the natural world (thus an animist must apologize to the being whose life it takes to further its own). I think the belief that everything has a spirit gives a moral cast to everything one does. One way Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophy prepare the West for science is by taking spirit out of nature, by making nature either inanimate, or animal (spirit less than soul), and allowing us to analyze it without fear of divine repercussions. Morality pertains only to other people, and to a lesser extent to animals (why ecological activists look to animistic religions for icons to express a new/old moral relationship between humanity and nature).

But we may be using "moral" differently. For me, morality is reasoned conduct ("always treat others as ends and not means, because..." "don't be a tattle-tale, because..." "be kind to tall turtles, because..."). So, "everything is alive: respect all life; take no life needlessly, because... the kami will be angry, and you (and everyone in your circle) will soon have bad luck, and when there's nothing left of you but kami you might not have it so good either", is a very broad, and very serious moral injunction, however silly it sounds [to put a plant or bug or ghost or cloud or a lake on the same moral plain as a person].

As for Buddhism & Shinto: except for Zen, I don't know much about Japanese Buddhism. My guess is that Buddhism and Shinto are compatible because Buddhism doesn't deny that Nature is animate (the core belief of animistic Shinto); contrast this with the conflict between paganism [animate Nature] and Christianity in the West.

The bit that I originally proposed that was weeded out in later discussion dealt with deliberately trying to change the laws of physics, or the way the universe is. Astrologists, dowsers, and homeopaths all believe they are following the laws of physics (i.e. they believe their efforts are natural, not super-natural), they just don't seem to understand how those laws work. People who are praying to some god, on the other hand, know full well they are asking for an exception to the normal rules.

Psychics, mediums, and their ilk may be closer to my definition of religion, although I wouldn't call them or their methods organized in any useful sense.

By "organized" you mean [I]organized into a collective hierarchy / church (presumably for sorting out authority)?

"Woo" is pseudo-science. As you say, science minus understanding [that the "science" they're using is centuries out-of-date]. Ironically, as pseudo-science, it appears pseudo-religious. Both are attempts to bend nature to human will, to charm it, to 'woo' it to our side. Woo wants results in this life; religion can wait until the next, it imagines. Religion is patient woo? -- (reward for its patience, it's largely untestable).

Maybe it's its status as pseudoscience that separates woo from religion. Woo often lacks a definite moral component: pretending to be science, its focus must be temporal results, not eternal rewards. Where it does have or acquire a moral component, promising results and rewards for good behavior, it may [after some organization] become a religion.

Or so it seems to me. I think. (Not to naysay too much because I think OMT is in the ballpark, maybe moreso than magic + morals, just unconvinced).

:dio: definitions: reality, reduce, regurgitate... here we are: religion!

[Hokulele]

"Japan is the favorite of the 'gods' [kami]": not a bad mystical basis for Japanese fascism.

:eusa_shifty: ...am getting strong, non-religious feeling of deja vu... perhaps the kami reminding me we've had this discussion, and hijacked threads with it, before... damn blabby kami...


I think we did have a similar discussion, maybe triggered by a divine fart wind. ;)

I can't dismiss animism as almost amoral. In some ways, it is more moral, more broadly moral at least, than more recent forms of religion, extending the moral obligation, the obligation for respect, to the natural world (thus an animist must apologize to the being whose life it takes to further its own). I think the belief that everything has a spirit gives a moral cast to everything one does. One way Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophy prepare the West for science is by taking spirit out of nature, by making nature either inanimate, or animal (spirit less than soul), and allowing us to analyze it without fear of divine repercussions. Morality pertains only to other people, and to a lesser extent to animals (why ecological activists look to animistic religions for icons to express a new/old moral relationship between humanity and nature).

But we may be using "moral" differently. For me, morality is reasoned conduct ("always treat others as ends and not means, because..." "don't be a tattle-tale, because..." "be kind to tall turtles, because..."). So, "everything is alive: respect all life; take no life needlessly, because... the kami will be angry, and you (and everyone in your circle) will soon have bad luck, and when there's nothing left of you but kami you might not have it so good either", is a very broad, and very serious moral injunction, however silly it sounds [to put a plant or a bug or a ghost or a cloud or a lake on the same moral plain as a person].


I can see what you mean here. I was mostly directing my morality comments to human interaction, as that seemed to be the direction Miss_Kitt was heading, and you seemed to be following her.

As for Buddhism & Shinto: except for Zen, I don't know much about Japanese Buddhism. My guess is that Buddhism and Shinto are compatible because Buddhism doesn't deny that Nature is animate (the core belief of animistic Shinto); contrast this with the conflict between paganism [animate Nature] and Christianity in the West.


I would suggest that the conflict between Christianity and pretty much any other flavor of religion is based more on the fact that worshipping anything other than their triune god is immoral by their standards. I don't think is has much to do with animism or inanimism (if such a beast exists) judging by Christians' adoption of parts of the Jewish law, including not worshipping false gods (animate) or idols (inanimate). In other words, Christianity codifies jealousy (moral dictate), Buddhism does not.

By "organized" you mean [I]organized into a collective hierarchy / church (presumably for sorting out authority)?


Somewhat, I haven't thought that part of the deal all the way through. I was originally thinking of codification and education more than social/political power plays.

"Woo" is pseudo-science. As you say, it's science minus understanding [that the "science" they're using is centuries out-of-date]. Ironically, as pseudo-science, it appears pseudo-religious. Both are attempts to bend nature to human will, to charm it, to 'woo' it to our side. Woo wants results in this life; religion can wait until the next, it imagines. Religion is patient woo? -- (reward for its patience, it's largely untestable).


Patient woo. I like it!

Maybe it's its status as pseudoscience that separates woo from religion. Woo often lacks a definite moral component: pretending to be science, its focus must be temporal results, not eternal rewards. Where it does have or acquire a moral component, promising results and rewards for good behavior, it may [after some organization] become a religion.

Or so it seems to me. I think. (Not to naysay too much because I think OMT is in the ballpark, maybe moreso than magic + morals, just unconvinced).


I am still not completely convinced about the morality aspect, especially as you are equating morality with good behavior here. For example, probably the most widespread of the Polynesian gods/demi-gods/heros is Maui. He is a trickster in the classic sense of the word, and many of his actions, although they benefited mankind, were rather sleazy at best (ends justifying the means). Prometheus getting punished by the gods for bringing fire to mankind is another example of religion being fairly ammoral.

:dio: definitions: reality, reduce, regurgitate... here we are: religion!


Resolved!

But in the end, I guess religion is too much like pornography. Hard to define exactly, but I know it when I see it.

[Piscivore]

You shouldn't be surprised at the votes for "maybe believing in god" when there's even a vote for "Believing in a god, not believing in religion".

Yeah, what the hell is up with that? I should have checked the box that made who voted for what public.

[blobru]

I think we did have a similar discussion, maybe triggered by a divine fart wind. ;)

Kamikazoo? :flamed:

I can see what you mean here. I was mostly directing my morality comments to human interaction, as that seemed to be the direction Miss_Kitt was heading, and you seemed to be following her.

Our normal usage.

I would suggest that the conflict between Christianity and pretty much any other flavor of religion is based more on the fact that worshipping anything other than their triune god is immoral by their standards. I don't think is has much to do with animism or inanimism (if such a beast exists) judging by Christians' adoption of parts of the Jewish law, including not worshipping false gods (animate) or idols (inanimate). In other words, Christianity codifies jealousy (moral dictate), Buddhism does not.

Yeah, that's better. Monotheism (maybe "monortheism": ONE-TRUE-GOD-ism) is going to conflict with everything, isn't it. Polytheism, animism and atheism can always reinterpret or ignore each other and get along.

Somewhat, I haven't thought that part of the deal all the way through. I was originally thinking of codification and education more than social/political power plays.

Teachers and students a kind of hierarchy.

Patient woo. I like it!

:flirt: Memo to Mr. Hokulele...

I am still not completely convinced about the morality aspect, especially as you are equating morality with good behavior here. For example, probably the most widespread of the Polynesian gods/demi-gods/heros is Maui. He is a trickster in the classic sense of the word, and many of his actions, although they benefited mankind, were rather sleazy at best (ends justifying the means). Prometheus getting punished by the gods for bringing fire to mankind is another example of religion being fairly ammoral.

Haven't managed a good definition of morality yet. "Reasoned reciprocity" is what I want to say: decide who's on the same empathic plain and how they should treat each other.

Most of the Greek philosophers thought Homer was immoral for his portrayal of the gods and heroes as less than ideal (Plato famously banished poets from his ideal Republic). Mythologies offer stories for discussion and interpretation; different ages may take different lessons from the same story; classical western philosophy has a problem with stories that don't have obvious morals, preferring plain absolutes to sophisticate relativism. And so the battle between mythos and logos is joined ("where is the eros?"). :(

Resolved!

But in the end, I guess religion is too much like pornography. Hard to define exactly, but I know it when I see it.

Religion and Pornography. Now there was a thread. My three and only infractions in under an hour. (Thank you, Miss Anthrope.) :loveatfirstsight:

[amb]

Why make it so complicated? Atheism means a non-belief in god/s.
Which in turn means a non-belief in any religion.
I voted 10.

[arthwollipot]

...religion is too much like pornography.I've got nothing to add here, I just wanted to take that statement out of context.

[amb]

ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

[yy2bggggs]

ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.
Why make it so complicated? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, just like monotheism is belief in one god, polytheism belief in many gods, pantheism belief that everything is god, etc.

No matter what other things you want to glue onto it, it's not a movement. It's not a philosophy. It's not a world view. It's simply a classification.

[amb]

What's so complicated about it? It's rather simple when looked at properly.

[yy2bggggs]

What's so complicated about it? It's rather simple when looked at properly.
Give me a context for "properly" other than begging the question. Here, I'll help you out.

The following are ways in which you can establish what a word means:
1. Usage. See results of the poll.
2. Etymology--how a word was coined, or where it came from. From etymonline, atheist (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist), roots are a (without) and theos (a god).
3. Dictionaries. atheism Pick any, from any dictionary.
4. Technical. A private, formal usage of terms within a particular field for specific pragmatic usage within that field. The closest applicable field I can gather here is philosophy.

You're running low on legitimate means of binding atheism to some particular motives to be an atheist--4 is your best bet, though you're going to have to actually appeal to an argument rather than redefining "properly" to mean "begging the question".

Oddly enough, your "simplification" makes the definition more complicated by appending your own prejudices onto a well established term--and it sounds more like a True Scottsman fallacy to me... as if you're a fighting faction of atheism saying that others aren't True Christians atheists because they have religion.

[amb]

How the hell can you be an atheist and a xtian at the same time???
A true atheist cannot have a religious bone in him/her.

[paximperium]

How the hell can you be an atheist and a xtian at the same time???
A true atheist cannot have a religious bone in him/her.
Look up Cultural and Philosophical Christians.

[yy2bggggs]

How the hell can you be an atheist and a xtian at the same time???By believing in the teachings of Jesus and not believing in any gods? (I'm assuming by "you" you mean to refer to the general, and not me).
A true atheist cannot have a religious bone in him/her.
A true atheist is simply not a monotheist or polytheist. Now, if you're wanting to avoid having any religious bones in your body, might I warn you that truthiness is next to Godliness.

[Pure Argent]

Atheism simply = not believing in god(s). Whether or not you "believe in religion" (whatever THAT means) does not change the definition of atheism.

[amb]

By believing in the teachings of Jesus and not believing in any gods? (I'm assuming by "you" you mean to refer to the general, and not me).

A true atheist is simply not a monotheist or polytheist. Now, if you're wanting to avoid having any religious bones in your body, might I warn you that truthiness is next to Godliness.

I did mean the ''you'' in general terms, not you personally.

The teachings of Jesus are a myth. You can find most of what he's made to say in the O/T and other pagan religions that precede christianity, sometimes by millenia. For example, the ''love your neighbor as you love yourself'' was authored by Hillel in around the year 10AD.

[yy2bggggs]

The teachings of Jesus are a myth.You can believe in myths and not believe there's a god.

[amb]

Sure you can! I used to believe in Santa Clause when I was around 5 years of age.

I started to doubt religion when I was around ten years of age. I'll never forget it.
I had read the babble and remembered one of the ten commandments where Yahweh says.'' You shall not make any graven images of thy god in any form.'' Or words to that effect. Imagine my shock when sitting in the pew in a catholic church I looked around me and saw nothing but statues, crosses, a virgin Mary etc.
I was helped a little by my father who claimed, like Freud that religion is the opium of the people. My dear old dad hated priests with a vengence for a reason he never explained to me. Perhaps he had a bad experiance with some priest when he was just a kid. I will never know as he passed away 20 years ago.