Well, the claim was apparently common enough that the early Christian apologist Athenagoras felt obliged to refute it.
(And of course the etymology of the word supports “one without a belief in God or gods” as well as it supports “one with a positive disbelief in the existence of God or gods”: a-, “without, not” + theism, “belief in the existence of a god or gods”.)
Sorry, Latro, posters can’t edit their own posts.
But that definition completely ignores the fact that many people don’t believe in religion- the pratice of gathering together to share your beliefs, or writing down your shared set of beliefs- but still believe in a higher power. I don’t believe in religion(or rather the need for it, since it obviously exists), but I would under no circumstances label myself an atheist.
Statement 1:
“I don’t care if we have hamburgers or not tonight. Whatever.”
Statement 2:
“I am so not in the mood for hamburgers tonight, it’s not even funny. I decisively do not want to come within 50 feet of a burger.”
Would you say those two statements express the exact same sentiment? That there’s no difference between not caring what you have for dinner, and caring emphatically that you don’t have something? If you see how ludicrous it is to assert that those statements are equivalent, then you should see how equally ludicrous it is to equate not having a belief one way or the other about God with actively believing he doesn’t exist.
Because it helps us to understand these studies that say “X% of the world is atheist”. Rigorous definitions are your friend. If I do a survey to see how many people have computers in their office, do I want to be counting people who define “computer” to be “a tuna fish sandwich”? Or, to be less facetious, how about people who consider a Speak-n-Spell to be a computer? Or a high-end calculator? If the people performing the surveys have very clear definitions before they start asking people questions, then even if their definitions are different from what you would choose, at least you know how to interpret the results, provided the surveyor discloses his definitions.
Ah. And here we discover that trying to define the word “religion” makes trying to define “atheist” a cake-walk. Everybody has a different idea. There was even a thread here awhile ago with people trying to hammer down what the “true” definition of religion was. For the record, I kind of loosely define “religion” to refer to a belief system regarding how the world works, that is based on faith rather than hard evidence. Thus, in my view, someone who believed strongly in Christ, but never set foot in church, would still be very religious. Similarly, someone who believed very strongly that there was no God would be deeply religious, as well, given that their beliefs are without the support of factual evidence.
Jeff
A point about whether or not atheists “have no belief in God” or “believe that there is no God”: It often depends on what you mean by “God”. If defined as “an intelligent creator of the Universe or generally as some cosmic higher power”, I personally would simply say I have no belief in such an entity. I haven’t seen the evidence for such an entity’s existence. If defined as “the being who inspired every single word of the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon of the Holy Bible to be without error and free of all contradiction” or “the being who created the universe about 6,000 years ago in six 24-hour days, and later caused the entire Earth to be covered in a worldwide deluge, leaving abundant and incontrovertible physical evidence thereof”, then I strongly believe that such a God does not exist. This is not a “religious” belief, because my views are based on evidence. Thus, one person can be both a “soft” or more agnostic-like atheist and simultaneously be a “hard” or “positive disbelief” style atheist, because the word God has so many different meanings.
I think it’s also possible, or maybe even more than possible (even though I can’t be sure), that there are atheists who label themselves “non-religious”, just because they want to avoid the negative associations with the term “atheist”.
Let’s put it another way. What is the fallback position? I do not believe that the fallback position is the null set. It is instead passively accepting that which has been spoonfed to you by your family-of-origin and society at large. It takes an active inquiry to reject the status quo.
sez Random House dictionary - “atheist, n a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods” (emphasis mine.)
Why be ashamed of having taken on an active belief? It is a reasonable conclusion, a reasonable belief to hold, one that I held myself for many years before becoming what could be best described as a soft theist. Although I am also still a hard atheist of the god-concepts described by MEB. I do not believe in a personal God who answers prayers or who is an intelligence as I’d understand intelligence. I don’t believe that the universe was created by an intelligence. But I still believe in a God that is beyond my comprehension. Both beliefs resulted from some active thought. This is not per se the same as my religion which I see value for as well.
But the point pertinent to the op, made clear in this threads discussions, is that survey data really cannot capture the range of beliefs that people hold.
Ugh, guess we’re gonna have to do this the hard way. This is my point, in excruciating detail: If we were to use the pre-Civil War view of black people as held by white slave-owners who were in power at the time, we might likely come to the incorrect conclusion that black people are inferior, subservient, and lazy. If one wishes to understand what it means to be an African-American, it would make more sense to ask an African-American rather than asking a white slave-owner. Get it?
I see where you’re trying to go with this, but food preferences are not analagous to belief in supernatural entities.
Sorry, you missed my point entirely. I don’t object to having the term defined, I object to having THEISTS define what atheists believe. To be blunt, that’s stupid.
But they’re not defining what atheists believe. They’re defining what atheism is, which is an entirely different matter.
Again, let’s revisit the vegetarianism example that I cited. I mentioned that I knew someone who claimed to be vegetarian because he ate very little meat. By pointing out that he is NOT a vegetarian, I’m not defining what he eats. Rather, I’m defining vegetarianism, and in the process, pointing out that he falls nowhere within that category.
Moreover, the definition of atheism in question is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, used by the theistic community alone. It is thus specious to insist that this definition is merely imposed by theists.
I am a non religious person as well. HTe word atheist was made up by the religious to brand you evil in their vocabulary. My resons for non religion are quite simple. If you listen to a man standing in his 5000$ robe (the pope) discussing the worlds starving it makes you kinda sneer at his hippocracy. If you look at the rules laid down over years and years each time modified by the opinion of the ruler. If there really is a god he made us smart enough to know a scam when we see one!
Then that has to mean the data are skewed, doesn’t it? I mean, if you put down “non-religious” and I put down “non-religous”, what can be meaningful about that?
Cite, please? ’ Cuz that’s not what other “atheists” claimed, earlier in this thread.
Wait a minute. Are you honestly making a judgment of ALL religion in that manner? Are you honestly claiming that every single church, every single religion, every single religious person, is necessarily guilty of what you just described?
And if so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?
As the resident defender of the weak, inclusive defintion of “atheist” I have to say: it’s not an easy or definative question. It certianly is not one that has a definative answer (but then, few questions of definition do, or should).
Different people calling themselves atheists define it differently. Myself, I call atheist, and by that I mean what seems, to me, to be the obvious usage: that I simply don’t believe (not that I “I believe not”). But if someone gets their panties in a wad about that definition, I’m happy to switch to “non-theist.” The problem with surveys is that they cannot capture such ideas: the idea of definitions being contextual and changing, or the willingness to use alternative definitions when needed.
Part of the problem is that atheists have traditionally been isolated and alone, figuring out who they are among nothing but theists, making up their own definitions all by themselves, or from scraps of what they can find. There is also the problem of negative definitions: they are unusal and the exact opposite of what a person is used to when defining themselves (a positive thing). Even plenty of non-believers have a hard time figuring out that not believing in god doesn’t necessarily commit oneself to believing “not god” and hence they feel that they’re stuck in an either/or situation.
The reality is that theists HAVE taken advantage of precisely that problem in their attempt to convert. Theological writing is rife with this sort of false dilemna, especially aided by the Pauline idea that “everyone knows that god exists: some just choose to turn away from Him and deny it.” The modern version of this subterfuge was born with James Maritan, and quite obviously continues to this day…
—I still believe in a God that is beyond my comprehension.—
In my opinion, an oxymoron. If someting cannot be comprehended, how can one even know WHAT they are taking a position on in regards to its existence or non-existence? Comprehension is a pre-requisite for any further specific claims.
Hey, I don’t even understand quantum physics, yet I know it exists. I can’t think in eleven dimensions, yet I believe those who posit that string theory describes shapes that have such dimensionality. A blind man cannot comprehend what vision is like, yet he can believe that it exists. I am merely not so arrogant as to believe that I am not a very limited creature of restricted capacity. A God I could understand would be no God. IMHO.
And for my edification: how would you differentiate your version of “atheism” (which I see as having no belief either way) from agnosticism?
—“atheism” (which I see as having no belief either way) from agnosticism?—
Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge.
The pope does not discredit all religions…I mean we can all believe in much more worthy religions like drinking the kool aid or riding the comet with applewhite…lol…I am simply saying I cant think of one that is not a controling or politically motivaed practice, besides wiccan or pagan religions which were “labeled” atheists. Most are organizations and sales representatives that go so far as to go door to door now. I wonder if they make commision? Almost all religions are about money! Regardless they are about money. If you knew how much the vatican and the other xian religions brought in annually it would make you sick to think that it is religious practice to be obligated to pay 10% of your income to your belief. Its a business like any other or they couldnt opperate on the faith they profess. I dont 100% agree with my government but in communistic ways I am forced to pay them or loose my freedom. I will not be threatened into believing I am gonna suffer eternal damn nation to buy my preist a porsche.
Taboo
Not to be obnoxious about this, but how do you differentiate between “belief” and “knowledge” in this context.
“I do not know if God exists” and “I do not believe that God exists” differ exactly how?
—“I do not know if God exists” and “I do not believe that God exists” differ exactly how?—
In my case, not knowing that god exists precludes my believing so. But plenty of people don’t claim to know if God exists: but they believe regardless, on faith.