It’s useful in that it takes less time to say than “I don’t believe that your god, or any god exists, so if you don’t mind I’m sleeping in on Sunday and saying that I am destined for Hell isn’t going to have an effect on my decision because I don’t believe that exists, either.”
Your definition matches what wikipedia calls a “less broad” definition of atheism, whereas Kevbo’s matches the broader one. Whether your claim that your definitition is how *we *use the word “atheist” ist true, depends on how you define “we”.
Does Kevbo’s definition include a lampshade? Well, if you refer to a lampshade as “someone”, then yes. Returning to the realm of humankind, his definition would put a Vietnamese farmboy, who has never encountered the concept of deity, in the “atheist” category. Your definition would require some unnamed third category between atheism and theism for him. I happen to find that unnecessary, but it seems to me that at this point we are down to a matter of personal preference, so I guess we can leave it at that.
Is this the “evidence” people put forth like “the beauty of a sunrise” or “the pocketwatch’s complexity” or “story about some dude building a giant boat”; because that “evidence” doesn’t do much for me.
Personally, my lack in belief in God has not changed much at all if we discount childhood years. Why should it have? It’s not like astounding experiments or events have occurred that scrape against or for a god’ s existence. I have had a number of incidents that made me wish there was or wasn’t one but nothing meaningful to make me think so.
And the best part- I get to enjoy beauty of the sunrise, be in awe of the evolution of complexity, and consider how my behavior has an impact on my life and society, all without having to believe in a g-d!
Amen!
Preach it! Can I get a hallelujah?
Because it’s an important cultural phenomenon that we all engage with in some way?
I had to figure out at some point whether I believe in China. It was easy: done! I had to make the same determination about ocelots, the Marianas trench, telepathy, Steven Hawking, galoshes, and god.
My lack of belief in telepathy, when I was an infant, is changed, because as a child I hadn’t grappled with the idea. Now that I have, I’ve rejected (provisionally) the idea of telepathy. That’s a significant change.
“Astrology can foretell the future”, “homeopathy cures diseases”, “men are more intelligent than women” - you will not have to look long to find “massive” anecdotal evidence backing each of these nonsensical claims. Anecdotal evidence simply is not evidence. It’s just stories.
Funny, for me I find the question absolutely, profoundly, unimportant.
I am extremely philosophical and consider “the unexamined life not worth living”, but pondering the absence or presence of g-d is of little interest to me. Obviously, this is a clear case of YMMV.
So, you continue to fight the hypothetical.
All right so there are several times the term “True Atheist” could be uttered by a hard Atheist or be meaningful:
“I dont believe in God, so I am a atheist but I do believe in ghosts and the supernatural”
A Buddhist, who does have religion, faith and a belief in the spiritual. But not a god as we define it.
A person who claims to be atheist, but when pressed says “*Well, I dont really know do I? You’re asking me to Know the Unknowable. I dont go to church or anything, but I keep a open mind on the subject.” * Most would call him more of a agnostic.
Exactly, good point.
“My lack of belief in telepathy, when I was an infant, is changed, because as a child I hadn’t grappled with the idea.” LD #228
What hypothetical?
And he can still be an atheist. One can not know, not go to church, keep an open mind, and still be an atheist as long as he is without… eh, I give up.
He keeps saying this, and I’m not sure if he knows what the word means.
The “hypothetical” appears to be a tu quoque, from
the premise being that there is some sort of canonical definition of “atheist” in way that is similar to a canonical definition of “Catholic” or “Baptist” or “Mormon”. Aside from the fact that there is no Atheist Canon, in any case, there is more divergence of perspective within any given broad classification than there is cohesiveness. What DrDeth would call a “True (Whateverist)” is almost certainly different from what the next guy would have to say about it.
Sure, on an individual basis. But on a cultural level, there’s not really any variance: this is an issue that has profound effect on our culture, and on every other culture. When I say it’s an important cultural phenomenon, I’m talking about its influence on culture and society, not saying it’s interesting to you.
So imagine a Christian came up to you and said, “You atheists just have a different faith from mine.” Would you punch him?
Because you should stop fighting the hypothetical.
Spoken like someone who has not participated in any threads on the topic on the SDMB.
The fervor and venom that has been expressed when various posters have submitted (or challenged) the definitions of atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic, and related terms have rivaled any number of disputes among the numerous Christian denominations.
This is not a claim that “atheists are just like theists,” but an observation that some atheists are quite as capable of internecine warfare as any Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Sunni, Shia, Orthodox Jew, or Reform Jew and claims to the contrary will be contradicted by even the most cursory examination of such discussions. The attempt to blame such feuds on “occasional nutters” simply indicates the amount of sugar that one chooses to apply to or withhold from one’s porridge.
Pretty much why I picked Agnatheist as my handle was from one of those very nasty debate threads.