Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cyberjesus

  Tec your definition implies that God was the creator of the universe. I would say

  Theist- has a God

  Atheist - does not have a God.

  Regardless of his existance, his attributes and the things he has done. That is a different issue. The Fact that I am an Atheist- means that I have no God. But that doenst mean he doesnt exist and or what he did or didnt do.

  So quilsky Atheist is the abscense of belief in a God. Thats all. I am actually Anti-theist. I believe that Religion causes more problems than positive things.
• 

  Essan

  Excuse me if I misunderstand the debate, but isn't atheism the belief that there is no God, which is the polar opposite of belief in God?

  They are both belief systems. A 'negative' belief is still a belief. The atheist asserts a belief: "There is no God", which he can't really prove, much like the Christian.

  Agnosticism, on the other hand, is withholding judgement, whereas both belief in God and atheism both make a judgement without full knowledge.

  No?
• 

  Quillsky

  I don't understand your question. "Ultimate" in what respect?

  Ultimate in discussion terms, whether discussions on definitions of atheism are about god or about types of belief about god.

  To put it simply, I'm proposing that theism/atheism discussions are not so much about the existence of god/gods/no gods (since we'll never know and it's all academic anyway) but rather about belief itself, and the relevance of various states of belief (to a discussion on what "atheism" means.)

  This is a tangent :-) My original tri-part question remains, since I don't want to begin a mind-numbing thread about the nature of belief itself.

  My original question is about the term "atheist".
• 

  Quillsky
• 

  Essan

  It sounds like you are actually agnostic Q, rather than atheist.
• 

  tec

  Okay to answer that tri-part question - I think its different things for different people. Same as theism.

  Tammy
• 

  Quillsky

  I'm not taking a personal stand here, Essan - it's about terminology. On a forum about religion I think it's interesting that posters throw around the word "atheist" without having consensus on its meaning.

  So in terms of terminology I personally think the word should mean a belief in no belief, but am hugely grateful for other opinions and love grand debate!

  (PS Essan.... Yes I believe I'm agnostic, but that's beyond the scope of the topic!!)
• 

  Essan

  OK Q. Well, as far as I'm concerned the three terms mean the following.

  Theist (belief) - "God/s exist!"

  Atheist (belief) - "God/s do not exist!"

  Agnostic - (no belief) "God has not been proven either to exist or not exist. So, I withhold judgement and belief either way."

  I know some people speak of "strong" and " weak" theism and atheism but I don't really think this idea makes much sense as such stances quickly become contradictory and render their labels meaningless.
• 

  Quillsky

  Excuse me if I misunderstand the debate, but isn't atheism the belief that there is no God, which is the polar opposite of belief in God?

  The core question I'm asking is summarized here:

  Is atheism the belief that there is no god (or are no gods)?

  Or is atheism specific non-belief that there is a god (or gods)?
• 

  Essan

  "Is atheism the belief that there is no god (or are no gods)?

  Or is atheism specific non-belief that there is a god (or gods)?"

  I think it's the former. Firstly, if it were to be defined as the latter it would require that the long-standing meaning of atheist be abandoned and secondly the definition you propose excludes millions of Atheists, probably the majority, who very definitely do believe that there is no God. They would have to abandon the label, something I'm pretty sure they would not be prepared to do.

  The second definition you gave doesn't quite make sense, IMO. You can't have a "specific non-belief that there is a God or Gods", without an accompanying "non-belief" in the definite absence of God or Gods. Otherwise, the non-belief is really a belief, as exposed by the "non-belief" not being extended to the other possibility. To apply "non-belief" selectively in this way reveals bias and so reveals belief. After all, neither position can be categorically proven, therefore to lean one way or another is to make the same mistake just in a different direction.

  To put it simply, if an atheist truly embraced the concept of 'non-belief', they would be agnostic LOL.