Abeliefist Atheism

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Abeliefist Atheist
n.

One who lacks a belief in God(s) or anything else. Lives by an ethical system because an aethical society would be chaos. Thinks that Good and Evil are only human constructs; just like mathematics. Uberskeptical.


Are there any others on the forums who think this label fits them?
I don't know if my definition has already been coined by someone else. It's not in the dictionary. I became one about a year ago(previously an atheist since the Spring of 2001).

[EdipisReks]

that would be me.

[chance]

SkepticJ Seems to fit me also, although I’m not sure how literally I should take the “or anything else" part of the definition. I also think “provisional morality� needs to be included somewhere.

Is there some list we can choose from?

[The Cats Venm]

I'd say that fits me well.

I don't think I'd use the term though, it just doesn't roll off the tounge.

[Anders]

I don't get it. Why would anyone be überskeptical if one doesn't believe in god? Not believing in god is more like low to moderate skeptical.

[apoger]

Abeliefist Atheist

Atheism is a lack of belief by definition. There is no need for the "abeliefist" addition.

Ethics have nothing to do with lack of belief. I propose that you are now treading into philosophy. By your definition I would say that you are describing Secular Humanism. Might I suggest the following link to the "Counsil for Secular Humanism" : http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

I consider myself to be a secular humanist, and I suspect that many on these forums share the same values.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by apoger
I consider myself to be a secular humanist, and I suspect that many on these forums share the same values.


Yup. That's me. I want to help make this world a better place for others so that it will be a better place for me.

[Oleron]

Secular Humanist, at last I've found a cool sounding label for my position.
SkepticJ's atheist definition would also fit me.

[Flo]

Great definition, but the word "abeliefist" sucks !


Apoger wrote: Ethics have nothing to do with lack of belief.

I suppose SkepticJ refers to the silly accusations of atheism=lack of morality/ethics by the likes of 1iC

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Are there any others on the forums who think this label fits them?

It fits me, but I already have a label I cherish. I went to a rather religious college and was questioned closely about my budding atheism. When I expressed the opinion that "Good" and "Evil" might as well be termed "Nice" and "Naughty" for all the universal truth they carry, my venerable philosophy professor nodded and explained "You're not just an atheist, you're a goddamned atheist."

My fundamentalist classmates really didn't understand how that was a compliment.

[The GM]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Abeliefist Atheist
n.

One who lacks a belief in God(s) or anything else. *snippity snip*

Hey guys, I've been mulling a thought for a bit. Maybe you can help me out? Lessee if I can pose this succinctly.

How can atheism be the uberskeptical viewpoint? I understand the no evidence for god/s, so I don't believe in 'em bit. However, (as the argument goes) you can't prove god/s don't exist either. It seems that agnosticism would be the true skeptic viewpoint (I acknowledge there could be a god/s, just haven't seen the evidence.) It almost seems as though atheism is a belief system in itself, the belief of non belief, I guess, (Say that 3 times fast!) as opposed to agnosticism which says I don't know, and am still open to investigation of the subject to prove or disprove the theory of god/s.

Anyone want to take a crack at clarifying this topic?
Danke.

[MRC_Hans]

It fits me, but "abeliefist" is superfluous. In its true meaning "atheist" covers it just as well, and I don't believe in renaming things every time somebody tries to throw dirt on something (like Christians try do do on atheism).

Also, "abeliefist" looks absolutely silly in Danish eyes (because "abe" = monkey in Danish).

Hans

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by The GM
Hey guys, I've been mulling a thought for a bit. Maybe you can help me out? Lessee if I can pose this succinctly.

How can atheism be the uberskeptical viewpoint? I understand the no evidence for god/s, so I don't believe in 'em bit. However, (as the argument goes) you can't prove god/s don't exist either. It seems that agnosticism would be the true skeptic viewpoint (I acknowledge there could be a god/s, just haven't seen the evidence.) It almost seems as though atheism is a belief system in itself, the belief of non belief, I guess, (Say that 3 times fast!) as opposed to agnosticism which says I don't know, and am still open to investigation of the subject to prove or disprove the theory of god/s.

Anyone want to take a crack at clarifying this topic?
Danke.
The problem, as is too often the case, is one of definition.

Atheism is oft-times taken as an assertion or belief that there is no God. This stance is more precisely termed strong atheism or positive atheism, since it makes a positive statement. "I believe (or assert) there is no God."

The flip side, of course, is weak atheism, or negative atheism, the claim of which is "I do not believe there is a God." It makes for a subtle difference and a lot of confusion.

Now, agnosticism can certainly include the second proposition, but not the first. Someone who says "I am agnostic" may be avoiding the term atheism to avoid association with strong atheism. Someone who says "I am atheist" may be espousing weak atheism, and avoiding the perceived wishy-washiness of the word agnostic. (These are not the only motives one may have, of course, but I feel they are regularly used.)

Strong atheism is not, as I see it, a particularly skeptical belief. Weak atheism, or agnosticism, is. The consequence of all this is that we should really pay more attention to what a person says and does than the label they apply to their philosophy.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Also, "abeliefist" looks absolutely silly in Danish eyes (because "abe" = monkey in Danish).

What's wrong with monkeys?

I would be proud to be known as a monkeyist.

Only problem, people might assume I worshipped Hanuman.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What's wrong with monkeys?

I would be proud to be known as a monkeyist.

Only problem, people might assume I worshipped Hanuman.
I've been assuming that for weeks now, anyway. I was wrong? :p

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I've been assuming that for weeks now, anyway. I was wrong? :p

I will admit to owning a children's version of the Ramayana at a tender age. Some sort of early-eighties multiculturalist publisher put out a bunch of the world's classics for kids. It was actually very cool, although the illustrations would be viewed as patronizingly racist these days.

Hmm. Wondering if my current atheism has anything to do with early exposure to different religions?

(Holy crap! This is my 999th post! No wonder my project at work isn't done yet...)

[Marquis de Carabas]

You better make the next one something good. This will be your crowning achievement.

[Anathema]

So, would a creationist be an aabeist?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Anathema
So, would a creationist be an aabeist?
No, merely an aacceptanceoftheblatantlyobviousist.

[neutrino_cannon]

The abeliefist modifier could be a useful distinction in the case of religions which have no god, per se, but do believe any number of strange things.

I can't think of any examples, it's a theroretical case.

I suppose there are those who do not believe in god(s, dess, desses) but do believe in other things.

Methinks the term goes the way of "bright".

[Anathema]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
No, merely an aacceptanceoftheblatantlyobviousist.

Wow, so a Creationist who also supports the idea of imposing his beliefs through government would be an antidisestablismentarianistic aacceptanceoftheblatantlyobviousist?

....end hijack....running and hiding now....

[Z]

The abeliefist modifier could be a useful distinction in the case of religions which have no god, per se, but do believe any number of strange things.

Pure Taoism?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by The GM
Hey guys, I've been mulling a thought for a bit. Maybe you can help me out? Lessee if I can pose this succinctly.

How can atheism be the uberskeptical viewpoint? I understand the no evidence for god/s, so I don't believe in 'em bit. However, (as the argument goes) you can't prove god/s don't exist either. It seems that agnosticism would be the true skeptic viewpoint (I acknowledge there could be a god/s, just haven't seen the evidence.) It almost seems as though atheism is a belief system in itself, the belief of non belief, I guess, (Say that 3 times fast!) as opposed to agnosticism which says I don't know, and am still open to investigation of the subject to prove or disprove the theory of god/s.

Anyone want to take a crack at clarifying this topic?
Danke.

I believe that, at the end of the day, we are all agnostic. Now, what I mean by that is no one can prove with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a God. So, atheists and theists alike are agnostic in that there is no evidence they can provide to prove the issue definitely one way or another.

Of course, does that not make the terms "atheist" and "theist" irrelevant? Well, no. I can say that I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe there is a God. I'm basing this opinion on my own assesment of the evidence, and my aversion to believing in things that can't be proven to exist. I can't come out and definitely say "God does not exist" and provide proof of such a statement, but I can say that I have no good reason to believe there is a God because of lack of evidence.

I hate to drag out a classic (and probably overused) analogy, but is it reasonable to hold out a belief that leprechauns exist? Is there really any way for me to prove they don't exist with 100% certainty? Does that then mean that I must call myself agnostic regarding their existence. Or can I say "I don't believe leprechauns exist" and still be considered a skeptic with an open mind.

What I'm really saying is that I have no good reasons to believe in leprechauns based on lack of evidence to show they exist. Thus, until evidence is put forth to prove their existence, I can safely say I don't believe in them. Does this make me close minded? I think it makes me reasonable.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Also, "abeliefist" looks absolutely silly in Danish eyes (because "abe" = monkey in Danish).

What is offensive about that? Monkeys are our ancestors, as are mammal-like reptiles-->amphibians-->fish-->Pikia-->????????????????????????????????????????????--->bacteria--> (abiogenesis)complex prelife chem.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What's wrong with monkeys?

I would be proud to be known as a monkeyist.

Only problem, people might assume I worshipped Hanuman.

My youngest son, instead of being fascinated by dinosaurs like a lot of young boys, loves monkeys. So he wants to start his own religion. He calls it apeism (rhymes with atheism).

I think he just wants the tax dodge.

Edited to fix my lousy typing.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
[B]My youngest son, instead of being fascinated by dinosaurs like a lot of young boys, loves monkeys. So he wants to start his own religion. He calls it apeism (rhymes with atheism).

What do apeists worship? A jet black rectangular prism?

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What do apeists worship? A jet black rectangular prism?

Bananas.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What is offensive about that? Monkeys are our ancestors, as are mammal-like reptiles-->amphibians-->fish-->Pikia-->????????????????????????????????????????????--->bacteria--> (abiogenesis)complex prelife chem. I didn't say it was offensive. Just that the word looks silly. Some words look silly, like "noone". No big problem, but you'd generally like the word describing your life philosophy not to look silly.

Hans