# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/281 "2013-02-05T19:12:33Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Someone who does not believe “god” exists AT ALL and matter came out of nothing. Wrong. If you’re going to insist that, find me one source that agrees with you and tell me where you got that definition from. If you can’t, admit that you’re making up your own definitions for a word that already has one. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/282 "2013-02-05T19:12:40Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Someone who does not believe “god” exists AT ALL and matter came out of nothing. What a coincidence. To me, a “real Christian” is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus and only eats pistachio ice cream on Thursday. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/283 "2013-02-05T19:14:16Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Someone who does not believe “god” exists AT ALL and matter came out of nothing. > > Not someone who is not sure or doesn’t care or is waiting for the evidence. If you aren’t sure, you don’t believe. > [@](#): > > And my definition of “god” is the PRIMARY CAUSE of all matter. Wouldn’t that mean anything that caused the universe to exist is god? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/284 "2013-02-05T19:17:36Z")
Did someone recently release a Christian dictionary with alternate definitions? Between this thread and the other thread on atheism, I’m beginning to wonder. ---
**Author:** ![koufax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@koufax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koufax)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/285 "2013-02-05T19:18:35Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Wrong. If you’re going to insist that, find me one source that agrees with you and tell me where you got that definition from. If you can’t, admit that you’re making up your own definitions for a word that already has one. Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/286 "2013-02-05T19:20:06Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I consider what you said and what I said roughly interchangeable. “I lack belief in god until proven otherwise” seems like an assumption to me. I lack belief that a man in a hat is walking past my house right now, but I am not making the assumption that such a man is not walking past my house, one may be. I am simply without that belief because I don’t have evidence for it. It’s the same with weak atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/287 "2013-02-05T19:20:29Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. Is that what it says at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)? edited to add: Hint-see post #195. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/288 "2013-02-05T19:20:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. OK, so now you know. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/289 "2013-02-05T19:23:01Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. We went over this in posts 119 to 128 already. Read them again. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/290 "2013-02-05T19:23:10Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > OP here again and I apologize for what I started although I have learned two new cool words… Misotheists and Dystheists. > > So I would like to ask the people on here who consider themselves REAL atheists as defined by someone who does not believe in “god” (or whatever you want to call it), do you believe that physical matter came out of NOTHING with ABSOLUTELY NO FIRST CAUSE? > > Please answer with a simple “yes” if you believe this happened. > > If you answer with more than “yes” I doubt if you are a real atheist. > > (Something tells me, I am going to regret this post) The bible-thing says that a jehovallah person started with nothingness (which may not be quite the same thing as nothing) and made all this (_what, the curtains?_). Since I lack a belief in this particular mythos, as well as that of Yggdrasil, Olympus, _et cetera ad infinitum_, I do not even feel compelled to believe there was ever nothing. If there is real validity to the big bang theory, why should I necessarily regard it as the beginning of everything, rather than some cataclysmic event? In other words, what if everything was already here, in some form or another, and has never not been here? Timespace is pretty weird, what we observe is a very tiny slice of it, there is no reason to believe in any particular creation event over the possibility that “eternity” stretch infinitely backward as well as forward. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/291 "2013-02-05T19:32:06Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re saying it’s an assumption that no gods exist. Then what’s your definition of a strong atheist? It’s the strong atheist that goes a step further and makes the assumption. Lacking belief is not an assumption. No, a strong atheist doesn’t merely **assume** no god exists, a strong atheist is **positive** no god exists. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I lack belief that a man in a hat is walking past my house right now, but I am not making the assumption that such a man is not walking past my house, one may be. I am simply without that belief because I don’t have evidence for it. It’s the same with weak atheism. Yes, I say that’s an assumption – it’s lack of belief, but lack of belief (and the null hypothesis in general) is an assumption. Like when you have a physics problem in a physics class – unless there’s evidence to the contrary you assume that you’re operating in a vacuum in euclidean space, all objects are travelling at low speeds (etc). I think you’re using a connotation of “assume” that’s stronger than mine. To me it’s essentially definition 1. [here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assume), “to take for granted without proof.” Because of Occam’s Razor, absolutely anything that I cannot know the answer to or have no evidence for I “assume” is false\*, including statements I haven’t heard yet. You seem to be using assume in a stronger sense of “actively believe such a thing”. To me assumption requires no action, an assumption is the default state. Anyway, the fact that I was hoping the whole “null hypothesis” thing would have hinted what I was getting at. Apologies if I worded that too awkwardly. - Well, probability and fuzzy logic and all that, but we’re simplifying here ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/292 "2013-02-05T19:34:10Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Someone who does not believe “god” exists AT ALL and matter came out of nothing. > > Not someone who is not sure or doesn’t care or is waiting for the evidence. > > And my definition of “god” is the PRIMARY CAUSE of all matter. Your definition of atheist is incorrect. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in a god or gods. It does not imply certainty, and does not imply any particular beliefs about the origin of life, the universe, or matter. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/293 "2013-02-05T19:35:02Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. Now that you have been provided the actual definition of “atheist”, do you understand and accept said definition? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/294 "2013-02-05T19:42:53Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > No, a strong atheist doesn’t merely **assume** no god exists, a strong atheist is **positive** no god exists. Depends where you get your definition from. From [infidels.org](http://infidels.org): _Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism.”_ Not really important to our discussion of weak atheism, though. > [@](#): > > Yes, I say that’s an assumption – it’s lack of belief, but lack of belief (and the null hypothesis in general) is an assumption. You said it was an assumption that no gods exist. Lacking belief is not an assumption that no gods exist. A weak atheist can be without belief yet believe that it’s possible that gods may exist- therefore an assumption that none exist can’t consistently be made at the same time (even using the definition that you provided). ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/295 "2013-02-05T19:57:46Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Depends where you get your definition from. From [infidels.org](http://infidels.org): > > _Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism.”_ > > Not really important to our discussion of weak atheism, though. I feel like we’re talking past each other here. Because that quote from infidels, to me, says logically the **exactly** what I just said with different words. A strong atheist actively believes god or gods do not/cannot exist == a strong atheist is positive gods don’t exist. I’m using “positive” in the sense that they feel it is logically or physically impossible – a claim which bears the burden of proof – and IMO entails and is entailed by the statement “do not (or cannot) exist.” > [@](#): > > You said it was an assumption that no gods exist. Lacking belief is not an assumption that no gods exist. A weak atheist can be without belief yet believe that it’s possible that gods may exist- therefore an assumption that none exist can’t consistently be made at the same time (even using the definition that you provided). I feel like the definition I gave covers that 😕. I say I merely **assume** no gods exist because I lack proof for them, and thus lack belief. However, I maintain that I could be surprised by evidence to the contrary. Or I could get proof no god exists, in which case I’d no longer be assuming, I’d be sure and thus a strong atheist. To me that’s covered by “take for granted without proof” – there is no proof so I take for granted no gods exist, if there WERE proof either way either I wouldn’t be taking it for granted (no longer an assumption) or I’d believe in a god (not an atheist, nor making assumptions). (And tangentially to this whole thing because someone might bring it up. It’s possible to be a strong atheist with respect to some gods and a weak one with respect to others. For instance I’m a strong atheist with respect to a tri-omni god because it’s logically impossible, but a weak atheist to, say, Thor). ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/296 "2013-02-05T19:59:41Z")
Why not use axiomatic that gods do not exist when describing strong atheism instead of assumption? Assumption implies an understanding of imperfect knowledge where the assumption can be modified pending new evidence which is the weak form. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/297 "2013-02-05T20:03:11Z")
I can’t help thinking this is just going to cause problems for **pchaos** and **koufax**. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/298 "2013-02-05T20:03:54Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Why not use axiomatic that gods do not exist when describing strong atheism instead of assumption? Assumption implies an understanding of imperfect knowledge where the assumption can be modified pending new evidence which is the weak form. I don’t think axiomatic works. An axiom is an assumption about the basic rules of a system, in math, the underlying rules are “called” axiomatoc because they can’t be proven but are needed to prove anything else in that system. A strong atheist claims to know for certain and thus is claiming that a god’s nonexistence is derived **from** the axioms of the universe (or logic). I guess a strong atheist **could** take it as axiomatic that a god doesn’t exist (which is awfully close to “having faith god doesn’t exist”), but it’s not the only way to be a strong atheist. > [@Marley23](#): > > I can’t help thinking this is just going to cause problems for **pchaos** and **koufax**. Think of it as bonus scenes for when they come back and look at the thread again once [del]induct them into our satanic cult[/del] [del]convert them to atheism[/del] get them to understand what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/299 "2013-02-05T20:04:33Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Why not use axiomatic that gods do not exist when describing strong atheism instead of assumption? Assumption implies an understanding of imperfect knowledge where the assumption can be modified pending new evidence which is the weak form. It still depends on the definition of “god” and/or “gods”. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/300 "2013-02-05T20:06:30Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > A strong atheist actively believes god or gods do not/cannot exist == a strong atheist is positive gods don’t exist. I don’t want to keep dragging dictionary differences into this, but I see a meaningful difference between those two statements. There’s a difference between believing something and being positive of it. > [@](#): > > I say I merely **assume** no gods exist because I lack proof for them, and thus lack belief. That may fit you, but it doesn’t fit all weak atheists. I lack belief that a man in a hat is walking past my house right now, but I don’t assume that such a man is not walking past my house. It is not necessary to assume that no gods exist to be a weak atheist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=16)