Saying that atheism is a lack of belief does not exclude atheists who believe not. They certainly lack belief for (as SentientMeat has correctly said. The problem is having theists (not all theists) dictating what beliefs one needs to be an atheist.
The first is the claim that to be an atheist you must state that you know no god exists. I don’t think anyone in this thread disputes that this is incorrect, and does not accurately represent what atheists think.
The second claim is that an atheist must believe that no god exists. Being a strong atheist myself, I believe this, but I’d say that my certainty about this belief is a bit fuzzy. I kind of believe the deist god does not exist, but that is mainly because of lack of need - both scientific and emotional. If pressed I’d retreat to a lack of belief. My wife believes in this kind of deistic god, and I never tell here I believe it doesn’t exist, just that I don’t believe it does exist.
The third claim is lack of belief. Many theists don’t like admitting that this claim defines an atheist, since to refute it requires active evidence on their part. Our dispute is whether the second and third claims are equivalent. (or if the set of the people with the third claim is null.)
I used to call myself a weak atheist, since I was confused about the difference between claims 1 and 2, and did not support claim 1, which the theists claimed was the definition of atheist. Once I figured out the difference, and that belief does not include very high confidence in the truth of the belief, I reclassified myself as strong. But I was weak for so long, I appreciate that position.
It is useful to give definitions - at least we then know if the definitions match common usage.
I have seen no person try to exclude those with active disbelief from the ranks of atheism. I agree with you in a sense - in an ideal world, all people would have the knowledge and reasoning ability to make strong arguments in favor of whatever they believe. It’s nice if someone says they believe in evolution, but it is much, much better if they know why evolution makes sense.
But that’s asking a lot of people. What if theists didn’t admit anyone to church who could give good theological arguments for god - good in their view, of course. Churches would be empty! I’d say most people believe in god because their parents, friends and neighbors do, and justify it at best with incorrect facts, like the Bible is proven to be true. People who say they just don’t buy the existence of any god deserve the title of atheist just as much as blind believers deserve the title theist. I think it is good to provide them better arguments for atheism, perhaps to convert them to being strong, but let’s not look down our noses at them. In our society, to get back to the OP, even that mild level of disbelief requires a bit of skepticism and courage.
I agree. No individual has any right to force personal definitions onto others. At some point in order to move forward we need to agree on some definition that seems reasonable to both.
The difference between “I have no reason to believe in God” and “I have reasons to not believe in God” may be subtle but I can understand it and use it as a common point from which to launch a discussion.
Theist, non Theist, and atheist are also acceptable terms.
There’s also
This seems viable as well. Let’s pick one and move on.
When strong atheists refer to atheism as only a lack of belief without explaining the different categories it seems a little disingenuous to me.
When theists insist there definition of atheism must be correct that seems arrogant. Obviously their are different degrees of theism and atheism. If someone says “Yeah I believe in some sorta God” in vague terms they are officially theists but not the same as a hard core fundie.
Agreed. Since people vary so much let’s remain flexible.
Weak atheist = “lack belief” and strong atheists =“believe not” would be common usage accepted by theists and atheists right? At least until SM successfully eradicates the term.
I believe there is no god.
I do not believe there is a god.
I call myself an atheist.
The local Baptist pastor calls me an atheist.
On this much we agree. Nothing else matters.
I cannot believe this thread has gone on for five pages, the last three of which involve bickering over the definition of an atheist. The original question was, “Does America trust atheists?”
I believe that the answer is “No,” but perhaps my opinion belongs in the IMHO category because I really have no evidence specific to the question. I am fairly certain, from a lifetime of experience with Christian Americans, that the overwhelming majority of Americans claim to be Christian (what is the percentage these days, upwards of 90 percent?) And of those, another overwhelming majority consider themselves devoutly so. The local Christians are, in my experience, deeply suspicious of anyone who isn’t Christian. When the subject comes up in conversation, they often confuse my liberalism (and its attendant emphasis on civil rights, including those of child molesters and church burners) with a lack of morality. They do not understand how a man who denies god, refuses to say the words “under god” while pledging allegiance to the U.S. flag and cannot even swear effectively because he doesn’t invoke the damnation of a god that doesn’t exist or a savior that is mythical, can even have a moral compass.
Several years ago, when I edited the local newspaper (paid circulation of about 6,000 at the time) a woman brought in her husband’s obituary and demanded that it be run exactly as it was worded. Trouble was, the obit contained the statement that the decedent “went to be with his Lord and Savior” and listed the date of death. I told her she’d have to pay for the obit because that statement (and several others, including the complete omission of his first marriage and three children resulting from it) failed our test for factuality. She was outraged, but eventually paid for the obit worded the way she wanted it. Months later, she accosted me in the local Wal-Mart and told me she had dropped her subscription to our newspaper. I started to recite the usual, “Well, no need to cut yourself off from the community because of one news policy,” but she stopped me and made it clear to me she no longer believed what was printed in the paper. “You’re an atheist!” she hissed, “and God knows what you’ll print next!”
Trust me? Well, maybe they trust me to not rape, pillage and plunder the town when they’re not looking, but I probably wouldn’t get two votes if I ran for office.
Well gee, we do have to figure out what one is first don’t we? Kidding. The thread did get sidetracked just a tad.
What really amazes me as well as disgusts me is how so many Christians look at Bush, Falwell, Swaggart and really think they are good Christians. It’s as if what Christ actually preached doesn’t matter at all. Only a recognition of the name.
I heard a lady on NPR very disappointed that Delay had resigned. “We need a good Christian man in there”
I think through dialogue and some efforts in education Christians will gradually understand. There are some good Christian groups in opposition to the extreme Christian right who are standing up and being heard. They don’t want the extremeists to speak for them. It will take some effort for the more liberal believers to educate the rest, working with other groups to promote better understanding.
It’s clear that Some of traditional Christianity feels threatened by some of the changes going on in this country. We’ll just have to deal with it. Even though I have clear spiritual beliefs I stopped calling myself a Christian some time ago because my beliefs fell pretty far outside mainstream Christianity.
No I mean gradually as in “several generations from now” Who knows. I just see ideas changing and certain information becoming readily available so that future generations will be less likely to embrace certain myths and traditions. That means Christianity will be examined and interpreted in different ways. I hope that means more people will allow others to believe as they choose and not be threatened by different ideas.
Well, then we’d get that side of the debate degenerating into a theological “No True Scotsman” quagmire of definitions of “good” Christian, “real” Christian, “strong” Christian, “weak” Christian, “Cafeteria” Christian… Hmmm… Hell, THAT dispute HAS been going on with vigor (and oftentimes with armed violence) since even before the religion was legalized in Rome.
But nonetheless, even if the question is about Atheist v. Believer, not necessarily Christian, in the eyes of the proverbial “Mr. Joe Middle American”, not just any nominal flavor of “Christian” but even a Jew, a Buddhist, or even a Hindu or Zoroastrian, would be more understandable than an Atheist because at least Joe can wrap his mind around deriving your moral compass from belief-in-some-greater-power, even if he thinks it’s the wrong “greater power”. The idea that you can derive morality solely through the power of human reason* and make it stick even when it stops suiting you * is just far out to him.
Maybe that’s it. Personally I don’t consider them report mentioned in the OP to be very accurate.
Seems to me all it takes in knowing one atheist who is a good person to shatter that impression. I suspect if you asked the right questions you’d get very different results and lots of people realize that atheists can be and are good honest people.
I know a lot of Americans willing to admit to agnosticism. It doesn’t carry the same stigma as atheism. To a Christian, an agnostic is someone who can’t make up his mind, while an atheist is someone who actively opposes his beliefs. Big difference.
What I’ve seen, or thought I’ve seen, was people defining atheism as the lack of belief that god exists - not the total lack of belief about gods. Do you have an example of someone doing what you said? I agree with you that this would be very misleading.
Well, that’s kind of a conversation-stopper, but I thought I’d continue on anyhow. I think that what you’re saying about the first decision someone has to make bieng “god vs. no god”, and the second one being to choose a religion is interesting, and logically sound, but not very applicable to the world we live in and the beliefs that people hold. How many people, when arriving (through conscious choice or any other path) at their faith (or lack thereof) first decide to believe in God, and only then decide what religion (if any) to follow? I just don’t think it happens that way very often. The vast majority of people who are religious are the religion they are just because they were raised that way. And when people convert (for instance, non-believers become born-again) it’s not because soemone sat them down and said “OK, let’s first have a discussion, based on logic or personal experience or what have you, about whether God exists. After that, if I’ve convinced you that God, in some undefined fashion, exists, well, then I have some GREAT news about how believing in Jesus will get you in to heaven…”
Also, on the issue of whether arguing against a specific religion is a valid thing to do while arguing for atheism, it may not be valid in some global sense, but it’s certainly reasonable in a practical sense. If someone says to me “I believe in a literal God who created the universe 6000 years ago and listens to my prayers and is simultaneously infinitely good and powerful and wise… now convince me why I should be an atheist instead”, should I refuse to point out flaws in the God that HE believes in, just because they are not necessarily universal to ALL conceptions of God? Or should I say “well, here are some issues I have with your belief system, but of course I’m only arguing specifically against YOUR god… even if you find my argument 100% convincing, feel free to become a deist of some sort”?
What? I’m not doing that at all – quite the opposite! I’m excluding those without disbelief from atheism. (I still don’t know what “active” belief or disbelief means, frankly, so I’ll ignore it here - what does nonactive belief or disbelief entail, exactly?). I do this because I think it’s too easy a cop-out to jump on the atheist bandwagon without having to say what you do believe with regards to cosmology etc. If you’re undecided, that’s fine, but calling that indecision “atheism” (weak or whatever) just equates two clearly different positions IMO.
Actually, I think that depends on one’s environment – in the midst of undecideds-who-call-themselves-atheists having no explanations for things you want explained (nor even disbelief if that “weak atheists don’t believe-not” meme isn’t dead yet), theism could be said to require more scepticism and courage. (Again, just my opinion, really).
Finally, Voyager, cosmosdan and anyone else who thinks (with some justification) that I’ve been stirring a semantic storm in a teacup here, thanks for your patience. I think the Belief-O-Meter still works no matter how the balance point is marked :).
No, and I probably don’t have the patience to wade through several threads to find one. It seems to me I recall some believers saying atheism is belief as much as theism is and strong atheists pouncing in that to say “No! it’s a lack of belief”
It is that, but it’s more that just that, with themselves as an example. I think a more honest answer would be to explain the common terms, although I’m beginning to think there aren’t any.
You don’t have to find a cite for that - I’ve seen it plenty of times. I’ve interpreted that comment as saying that the minimum requirement to be an atheist is a lack of belief in any god - not active belief in no god. I’ve never thought that meant no atheist has an active belief that no god exists.
This kind of comment (which I think I have mentioned in this thread) is one of the reasons I’m so vehement about defending weak atheism (by our definition) as a valid point of view.
Actually, I’d agree that we do need a good Christian (man or woman) in that position, but Tom DeLay is not a “good” anything, Christian or otherwise. He is a power-hungry cynic who will do anything to stay in power, and who thoroughly enjoys having sycophants pay homage to him. He clearly sees his current setback as temporary, and already is making plans to regain some kind of power after the money-laundering problem goes away.
I think we need “good Christians” as well as good Jews and even a few good Muslims and a good atheist or two in positions of political power. Mostly, we need very good Christians because, whether I believe or not, the U.S. is a nation populated largely by Christians, and they need to be comfortable with their leaders. I still urge self-styled Christians to adhere to the dogma of their faith (having once been a candidate for Canon 9 priesthood in the Episcopal Church, I usually know what that dogma is better than they do.) I am perfectly comfortable in a society of Christians who adhere to their own theology. It’s the ones who make stuff up as they go that give me the willies.
Yes, mainstream Christians often feel overwhelmed by changes in society because religious dogma is one thing that doesn’t adapt easily to cultural change. And when people find themselves suddenly outside the mainstream – or headed in that direction – it frightens them. It frightens me to realize that my generation is losing power to the next generation. It’s an irrational fear that I have to work to overcome, but it’s there. (Seriously, how can a generation that never slow-danced to “Hey Jude” possibly run this country?! OK, I wasn’t really being serious.)
Most Americans still look at the artificial 1957-style nuclear family as the ideal, and they believe that if they achieve that – but with a bigger house, of course – everything will be OK. And it jars them badly to realize that even if they do achieve that, it won’t prevent their children from being gunned down in school or smashed to pieces in an auto accident, and it won’t assure their jobs and lifestyle. We all know that “bad things happen to good people,” but then we tell ourselves “but not to me!” When bad things happen to good Christians, they have to know why, because their religious dogma says there MUST BE a reason, and that reason is (A) God willed it or (B) somebody didn’t do what God willed. Like me, they cannot believe that God could possibly have wanted their gifted 18-year-old daughter to die of a bullet to the brain in some demented loser’s deathrage. So the answer to them is, somebody thwarted God’s will, and that’s because things aren’t right with God in America, and we need to get America back right with God. (I, on the other hand, attribute the tragedy to the randomness of the universe and bad parenting somewhere in Outer Suburbia.)
The normal human response to things going awry is to “crack down.” And that never works. What will work is finding out what part of our “family values” causes people to become addicted to internet pornography and violence and drugs and all the other evils of American society. That, and getting Christians back into their churches and studying the real dogma of their religion, and adhering to it.
It’s also incorrect for for theists to assume that atheism is some kind of god negative religion. I do think that if theists claim atheism is a belief the more accurate response is “Only strong atheists have a belief that god does not exist.” There is also a simple lack of belief in god that is referred to as weak atheism" I suppose either way it can be tricky to explain and grasp.
No kidding. When people ask me what religion I am, the utter looks of non-comprehension when I say that I don’t have one* are (I have to admit) somewhat amusing.
*as opposed to “I am a weak atheist/militant agnostic.”
No wait a minute, most people don’t know what those mean, either…
