You said that atheism is “a form of Faith or Belief,” and that is flat wrong. Most atheists exhibit a lack of faith or belief. I realize that some theists assert that “it takes just as much faith to be an atheist” (some even say it takes more faith), but despite what our President says, the fact that you can find people who agree with you doesn’t mean you are right.
The exception, which I noted, are the hard atheists who positively assert that there is no god. I have seen no evidence for that position, nor can I conceive of any – unless you are talking about a particular god with well-defined characteristics, and even then the evidence could not compel 100% certainty. So I agree that hard atheism can be a form of faith or belief. But IMO it’s more likely to merely be shoddy thinking. It’s akin to looking all over your house for polar bears, and assuming they don’t exist when you don’t find any.
It’s your thread, so I guess you can define “True Atheists” any way you want. But I see no justification for your definition, so I’ll feel free to ignore it.
I’ve never encountered anyone who spends all his time mocking faith. If I did, I would assume that he was mentally unbalanced.
Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, specifically, the lack of knowledge. Atheism is a position on belief, specifically the lack of belief.
A person who doesn’t believe in gods because they have no knowledge of gods is an agnostic atheist. The terms describe different things, and thus aren’t exclusive.
And no, atheism is not a belief; it is the absence of a specific belief.
I spent a number of years associated with a formal CSICOP-type group and while I have no tolerance for paranormal believers/fakers and no like for religious issues, I eventually found my way elsewhere because of the relentless antagonism and negativity of some of the members.
Firmly negative towards bs and woo is one thing, but endless bashing is another. So yeah, people who can’t resist mocking and baiting the religious are out there.
Although I am aware of the particular development of this thread, I want to strictly address its question, which happens to have at least one point, in my opinion.
Colloquially, an “atheist” can be defined as “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings” (dictionary.com). But in a discussion that aims to get to the bottom of things, this definition will turn out to be inadequate because various “spiritualists” regard themselves as atheists too. They seem to believe in a wide range of forces and energies that show moral and spiritual qualities.
In my opinion, a good definition of the atheists should mention the lack of belief in any type of “divine” or supernatural.
yes for both of these for me. And I have done both.
I have certainly recited the words of a prayer, under stressful situations, whilst never believing a word of it and certainly never believing in any gods. It can just be something for the mouth to do while mind is elsewhere.
Now if you ask whether I actually started praying* to a god*, in a time of stress…No, it never enters my head.
If , of course, an atheist suddenly started believing in a god and so started praying to them rather than just saying words, at that point they wouldn’t be an atheist in my view. But it is the belief, not the words of the prayer, that make the difference.
Right up until that mental switch they were an atheist, then they aren’t for the period of time that they believe, then perhaps they may switch back again.
None of these are particularly difficult or insightful questions if you will merely accept the simple definition I’ve already given you.
Using dictionary definitions to try and definine complex terms in a complex discussion is, IMHO, less than useful. Dictionaries provide language definitions, not necessarily complete functional ones. Trying to define a religious or philosophical stance by lining up formal word interpretations just about the most misdirecting approach there is.
If I call someone a “mother fucker” or a “shithead”, they are not meant to be taken literally. Similarly, saying “oh god” or “god damn” are not meant to imply a literal god. That is MY take.
These are stupid questions. Amateur Barbarian had already answered this in post 3.
Why? Atheist means not believing in God or gods. Why should the same word be applied to people who don’t believe in “spirits” or “energies” or other new-age woo? “Skeptic” seems to work fine for that. No need to overload terms.
I feel like people want to shoehorn a particular type of atheist (usually the kind they’re familiar with) into the definition of the term, and then use other words to apply to other kinds of atheists. I’m not sure why that is a useful thing to do.
There’s no particular thing you need to believe to be an atheist. You only need to not believe in one particular thing. If there is a certain set of beliefs or philosophies you want to advocate for, come up with another name. “Humanist” and “Skeptic” are both terms that seem to apply to what people in this thread want to define as exclusively “atheist”.
Materialist is pretty bad, too, even if one of its exact meanings fits. I’d maintain that people free of godism aren’t the ones who need a special label. How about “normals” or “freebirds,” though?
“Materialist” is a fine word, that’s been misused in American culture for a long time to mean “greedy person who likes money and luxury”. I’m all for reclaiming it.
Othering and judgmental language should be avoided. We’re all just different kinds of people. Would you be ok with “normal” being the term for people who are white, or not transgender, or not on the autism spectrum? If not, you shouldn’t seek to hang that kind of language on anyone else.