That puts it quite well. I don't have any problem with my agnosticism being labeled a belief. Agnocicity? oh wait, agnocentrism. Heheh.

@Slartibartfast lol we can call ourselves fred but it won't change us! on the other hand, being mislabeled is akin to being misunderstood, and no one likes that, right?

g

@Slartibartfast by the way, good job on those fjords!

g

You're two examples of being an atheist don't seem to differ. Feel free to elaborate.

As for your comment regarding "ism", I think you need to re-read my post. I never said you cannot be an atheist without having a philosophy. My expressed issue is associating a philosophy to being an atheist when it is merely not believing in god(s). You can be as philosophical as you want as an atheist but my point is that none of those philosophies are atheism.

@Gawd Sorry but I think you should reread my response. I understood your post just fine but your response to mine does not seem to be related to what I said.

g

@genessa I think it is. But that's ok, we can disagree.

My mother doesn't believe in God, rejects the idea of God, & criticizes her Christian relatives & their hypocrisy in particular.
By just that definition, Is she an athiest?

@gNappyHead Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Seems she is pretty close.

@Truthseeker1968 Well then I hate to break it to you that "more philosophy" & "serious look at reality" seem to have no relation in this case. She also happens to believe in ghosts, karma (the western kind), holistic healing, rejection of modern medicine, rejection of climate change, & against gmo's.

@gNappyHead Not sure how that applies. But OK.

No. You're applying assumptions to atheists. Are atheists in general more inclined to be the things you state - sure. But they are not prerequisites to being an atheist. All it takes to be an atheist is ONE thing - not believing in god(s).

@Truthseeker1968 You said "Atheists take a serious look at reality and existence" & I gave you an example of an Atheist that does not have a serious look at reality. A logical thought process will lead to an atheist conclusion, but the idea that there is no god does not require logic to reach that conclusion.

All dogs are mammals. Not all mammals are dogs. Athiesm in & of itself has no philosophy.

@gNappyHead Ahhh. My apologies. I did not realize I had to go to the length of explaining that there are exceptions to what I said as there are in just about everything.

If you do not see that Atheists (for the most part) do not fall into that definition of philosophy there is nothing at all wrong with that. You and I have different experiences in our Atheism evidently. Again nothing wrong with that. But I have had, heard and read about more philosophical discussions, as that definition describes it, in Atheist circles than just about any other circle I have been party to or spectator of.

@Truthseeker1968 Well naturally anyone who is going to actively participate in their identity to be in atheist circles will be engaging in philosophical discussions. But have you ever attended an early morning bible study? There A LOT of theist out there discussing philosophy out there. (the exception of course) The majority of religious people can't be bothered to get up to that. Hell, they can't even be bothered to even go to church, read the Bible, or even know what & why the believe anything.

I would beg to argue the same for atheists. The majority of people that don't believe in god are not going around actively considering that believe (or lack there of).

Do you believe in god?
--No
Why not?
--IDK, it just sounds stupid
OR
--I used to go to church & those guys were assholes
OR
--It's just like the government trying to control you or control your mind, man.

& Not much more to it than that.

Now of course, this is all anecdotal I suppose. I'll concede that. But I think my assumptions are at least consistent with would we would logically predict: & that's that logical thought, open mindedness, & philosophical discussions ARE the exception.

@gNappyHead To be clear, I am not saying that Atheism is in itself a philosophy. But it does share in philosophical attributes in my experience. Again. My experiences with philosophical discourse in Atheistic circles are somewhat different than yours. I have read, heard, engaged in and been spectator of philosophical discussions that go beyond the one you depicted - discussions that delve deeply into a fundamental knowledge of reality and existence. Therefore I differ with the original poster’s claim that “There is no core philosophy, dogma, or principles shared by people who are atheists”.

Typically, again in my experience, those who hold to religion are not about to allow reality a chance. They are too locked into a fairytale. Thus I would suggest that philosophy has a presence in Atheistic discourse even more so than in religious ones. You and I seem to have a fundamental disagreement here, which, as I have noted, is perfectly fine. We are both free. We are both open armed to those around us sans any requirement to think like we do. Dare I say we are closer to true happiness than the religious. And that is something to drink to and feel great about.

@Truthseeker1968 I can dig it! Lol

Salute!

No wonder your handle is blahblah.

Can you name me one atheist who defines it that way? It's fine if you do. I just don't know anyone who calls themselves atheists who use ti that way.

Conceding to know what answer without evidence?

There are extensions to the term atheist such as "negative atheist", "positive atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheist" that some people use to clarify whether or not the assert the definite non-existence of god(s).

An atheist does not make the assertion that a god does not exist, for then the burden of proof would fall on them, just as the burden of proof falls on those who assert that a god does exist.

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s).

Look at this assertion: There is one God and Jesus is the Messiah.

Believer: Yes, that is true: Must have proof.
Doubter: No, that is not true: Must have proof.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Atheist: Non-belief; The absence of belief; Does not care.

A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

If it is about a god entity, then no one knows. To prescribe a faith that expresses itself outside our reality, we are standing on the precipice of insanity.

@nogod4me I think a few (not me) atheists do make that (level 7) claim.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@FearlessFly You may enjoy the book: “The Logic of Self-Destruction - The Algorithm of Human Rationality” - by Matthew Blakeway,

There is an excellent review of the book by Claire M. Fletcher-Flinn on the “Frontiers in Psychology” website.

Here is an excerpt: “Blakeway makes an important distinction between statements of 'believing in' and 'believing that.' The latter can be subjected to scientific scrutiny and experimentation, but the former cannot, as a 'belief in' is irrefutable. Presumed true because they cannot be falsified, having 'beliefs in' makes human conflict inevitable. History is replete with examples of incompatible belief systems that drive conflict and war….

Furthermore, the actual words that are used to talk about ideological concepts, like 'democracy' or 'capitalism,' encapsulate compound beliefs. The more accumulated concepts that your understanding of the ideological term has acquired, the more prone you (and others) are to 'belief drift' and conceptual thought-fluff."

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

I do not have a belief about something that doesn't exist. Do you have a belief about a "poontuba"?

Atheism is the absence of belief/faith.

@nogod4me does believing in poontuba make you not an atheist? How can we know that poontuba does not exist? All we can say is there is no evidence of it. Absence of evidence does not logically negate the possibility of poontuba. Then, on the basis of absence of evidence that poontuba exists, we can reasonably believe that poontuba does not exist, but it remains a reasonable belief, a conjecture and not a theorem. This is true of most statements we make about our world. We can only make statements about how we perceive our world and not how the world is.

@Spongebob I don't have to believe or even consider the magnitude of beliefs and nonsense that people invent or believe. As a matter of fact it would be impossible, belief is fickle. That was my point about poontuba, and no, it is not a "reasonable" belief.

A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

If someone tells me that a god, or Bigfoot, or a poontuba hates, or loves something, or even exists, THEY would be responsible to prove those assertions.

I don't have to consider their nonsense without evidence.

Your comment: "We can only make statements about how we perceive our world and not how the world is", is nonsense. We consistently make accurate statements about "how the world is".

Atheism is the absence of belief/faith.

@nogod4me Yes, that as far as I know, it doesn't exist

@nogod4me, @Spongebob A belief is only a statement about our perception, & not reality, as we have no way of knowing reality directly outside our perception. One can reasonably believe a "poontuba" does not exist based on the complete lack of evidence for its existence & the lack of definition of what a "poontuba" is. Definition can proceed or follow proof, but it cannot be entirely absent, or the assertion makes no sense

@Remiforce Not true, you can believe in proven facts and reality and you can make statements about both. This is why we have peer reviews. I can be wrong in my perceptions, but it is less likely when others get exactly the same results.

Concerning poontuba: That is why I did not define "poontuba", I wanted the imagination to be free, let the believer hang themselves.

A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

Atheism is the absence of belief.

I tend to agree with you.

Are you a theist?

No.

Then you are a non-theist, an a-theist.

I don't really mind being called an Atheist. I'm not much for labels however since the belief in god(s) has such an influence in our world, be it political, social, etc. I am fine being candidly exposed to being on the other side. Perhaps the word atheist will be completely redundant some day.

Atheism is the term I particularly don't like. As well, I dislike "atheist" being associated with anything else other than non-belief.

@Gawd so what is it then? You "don't really mind" or you are "always annoyed"?

@Gawd, @ToakReon so what are you if you believe in the tooth fairy? A toothist? And if you don't, an a-toothist?

@Mofo1953 Yes indeed... If you define a toothist as someone who believes in the toothfairy, then I am indeed an atoothist.

But the point is that there MAY be 'toothists', but they don't screw up society, terrify children, declare themselves the moral judges of everyone else, and so on in the name of their toothism.

Toothism isn't a problem, so not being toothist is almost an irrelevance - and because it's irrelevant I don't find need to declare myself an 'atoothist'.

Theism IS a problem. A massive, society damaging, persavive problem. This makes theism 'significant', and the position of being atheist becomes significant by negative association.