The true meaning of Atheism (AKA A-theism), and Explornaiton of Religion

AlofRI

I agree. All indoctrination into a "belief", either theistic OR a-theistic should never happen. 
"Sunday School" should be abolished. If one wants to study religion it should be a choice at the high school level (or above).

CYDdharta

Is atheism a belief?  That's the first question you'll have to answer.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

First question would in fact be: What is a belief... No?

TKDB

@AlofRI

How does Sunday school affect you personally?

If you don't attend any Religious events, then how can you personally be affected by any of the Religious events?

If you don't participate on any Religious websites, then how can that Religious website, personally affect you? 

"I agree. All indoctrination into a "belief", either theistic OR a-theistic should never happen. 
"Sunday School" should be abolished. If one wants to study religion it should be a choice at the high school level (or above)."

And who are you to try to dictate through your own rhetoric, about choices being made for others, if religious parents are sending their kids to Sunday School, Vacation Bible School?

How are you personally being affected if you aren't in any physical contact with any Sunday School, or Vacation Bible School functions, within the walking distance of your own residence? 

I've yet to see any anti God, Jesus, or Bible individuals, protest any of the Religious buildings that I have personally gone to?

And saying that no child, should have to attend any Religious events because the anti Religious individuals have said so, through their public protest events, outside of an Internet forum?

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

How does Sunday school affect you personally?

How does Abortion affect you personally? 

In both scenario, the correct answer is: It doesn't...

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

First question would in fact be: What is a belief... No?

It could be, although i thought the meaning of a belief in the context of the thread was pretty well established.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

Ok then, so according to Linguists, Etymologists, Semanticists, and Philosophers, atheism is not a belief, it is " an absence of belief about a specific proposition"...

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

Ok then, so according to Linguists, Etymologists, Semanticists, and Philosophers, atheism is not a belief, it is " an absence of belief about a specific proposition"...

The definition is;

atheism

noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism

The entomology is

atheism (n.)

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism

Insofar as atheism is a belief, Encyclopedia.com does a pretty good job of summing it up;

ATHEISM

ATHEISM . The term atheism is employed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of the present survey atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise, and good. The focus of the present study is on atheism occurring within a context of thought normally called "religious."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/atheism


In this sense, it is a definite belief system with it's own doctrine.  In the more general sense of simply a "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods", it really denotes nothing more than confusion and a refusal to take a position on the issue at hand.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

If you want to play around with semantics, fine...

But the OP established his working definition in this particular debate, so this entire debate should work with the same, or we're not in fact debating the subject offered by the OP... So for the purpose of this debate, atheism is not a belief, as was established by the OP...

ZeusAres42

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

First question would in fact be: What is a belief... No?

This is actually an interesting philosophical question. As it stands a belief is defined as the psychological state that where someone holds a notion or idea to be true. Now, given the true meaning of A-theism (I will continue to use the hyphen from now on) A-theism cannot be classed as a belief, as also already explained in the OP as well as it being outlined in the YouTube video posted within the OP.

Furthermore, In addition to the using of the hyphen it might also be helpful not think of A-theism sounding like Athe-ism; it's not an ism.

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

If you want to play around with semantics, fine...

But the OP established his working definition in this particular debate, so this entire debate should work with the same, or we're not in fact debating the subject offered by the OP... So for the purpose of this debate, atheism is not a belief, as was established by the OP...

I take it you also noticed the "For the purpose of this present survey" line too then? Anyway, what you said

usually what I would have said, and if we are going to discuss semantics then I would be one to still ascribe to the standard Oxford dictionary of A-theism which was also mentioned somewhat in a previous post above:

atheism

nounmass nounDisbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.OriginLate 16th century from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism

Also, from the same source:

atheism

See definition of atheismnounSYNONYMSnon-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism
ANTONYMS
belief, faithhttps://www.lexico.com/en/synonym/atheism

Anyway, this is a philosophical discussion. And one thing I did fail to take into account before was that in the philosophical sense A-theism has more than one meaning, with their being different versions of A-theism (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Atheism+definition), (https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1). Now while it is generally accepted many experts that Atheism is best defined as a "lack of belief" there is no philosophical consensus on how it should be defined; there are philosophers that have argued that it is a doctrine, and there are of course, other philosophers that have argued that it's best defined as "a lack of belief;" I agree with that latter.

And if we're defining A-theism as a lack of belief then it does not logically follow to conclude that, that lack equates to a doctrine/belief system. I don't understand how a lack of a belief can be a belief. Now, some people may argue that A-theism is the belief that God doesn't exist which it isn't by the way; but even if it was, for the purpose of this debate that's not how it's being defined here. So, in this in particular instance an A-theist is NOT someone that believes there is no God; they just don't believe the claim that there is one, as they see no reasons as yet to accept those claims put forward that God does exist. Of course, if a person believes God does not exist then that is indeed a belief; but that's not what's going on in this particular instance. Here, an A-theist is someone that understands that the idea of God is an unfalsifiable one that cannot be proved true or false, and therefore sees no reason as yet to believe/accept this idea. And they are most certainly not confused on the issue. On the contrary, I think the confusion is noticeably reflected on the individuals that equivocate a-theism with denialism, to confuse a non-acceptance of a claim to be an affirmation of the opposite of that claim. Maybe it is just me, but to me, to not to accept a claim as being true does not equate to an immediate affirmation that the claim is false; to make that assumption is what confusion on this issue looks like.

I'm not entirely sure, but I have thought of one particular reason as to why some people tend to (either intentionally or unintentionally) play around with words and definitions, especially with reference to religious/philosophical debates like this is because of something to do with the Burden of proof. If you claim to be an A-theist that does not deny the existence of a God but just don't see any reason as yet to believe that idea then the burden of proof is always on Theist. Now the Theist or whoever the A-theist's opponent here needn't be intimidated by this position; especially a smart one, and there are many smart Theists out there too. However, the opponent will significantly weaken their position if the immediate response is "no, no, that's not what that means;" that is just a cop-out.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

You're off topic @Plaffelvohfen

The below is the theme:

"The true meaning of Atheism (AKA A-theism), and Explornaiton of Religion"

MayCaesar

I think there is a difference between an induced belief, and an informed belief. An induced belief is something you take on as a result of cultural conditioning, peer pressure and so on - it is something that does not really have a logical base of its own, and its elements are loosely connected through questionable claims. On the other hand, an informed belief is something one develops as a result of rigorous application of logic; it is something that one does not have to rationalise and can objectively defend with practical arguments.

I am not atheist because someone convinced me I should be one. I am atheist because every time I interacted with religions, I did not see anything logical in them, so I never had a reason to change my initial stance, which is that supernatural things do not and cannot exist in principle. Everything that exists is a part of nature, and if it is not a part of nature, then it only "exists" in our imagination, since our physical reality is bound to the nature.

How many theists can say the same: that they are theists not because someone convinced them they should be one, but because they came to the idea of God on their own, in their personal logical search? I have met such people, but they seem to be a rarity.

Now, I am not saying that every atheist position is more logical than every theist position; far from it. I do think, however, that theism strongly correlates with induced thinking patterns, and atheism correlates with informed thinking patterns quite a bit more.

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

Anyway, this is a philosophical discussion. And one thing I did fail to take into account before was that in the philosophical sense A-theism has more than one meaning, with their being different versions of A-theism (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Atheism+definition), (https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1). Now while it is generally accepted many experts that Atheism is best defined as a "lack of belief" there is no philosophical consensus on how it should be defined; there are philosophers that have argued that it is a doctrine, and there are of course, other philosophers that have argued that it's best defined as "a lack of belief;" I agree with that latter.

It seems to me you're trying to thread a needle with your definition.  In your own words, atheism is more than just "a lack of belief", since you dismiss "a disbelief" as not being what you perceive as atheism.  In fact your version of atheism not only requires the possibility that God, Gods, Creator, etc., exist but that such a being/beings can be known.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;
So, the first thing I would like to clear up is what Atheism actually is. Now,

Does this mean Atheist are people who simple admit to not believe in what other may call a God? Either sometime or all the time in a way that can be reciprocated by the person originally shown. As it stand atheism is simple just the admission to chose not to believe in what some may call God? Meaning there is room for the creation of a new word to describe the latter of the to options. Takes out flashlight and shines under chin, laughs in a slow and eyry way..... who...….ha    ha       ha...……….ha. Is often more frightening when in a exploring dark locations.
Trick or treat!

CYDdharta

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;
So, the first thing I would like to clear up is what Atheism actually is. Now,

Does this mean Atheist are people who simple admit to not believe in what other may call a God?

If it was that simple, it wouldn't warrant a debate.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

I think there is a difference between an induced belief, and an informed belief. An induced belief is something you take on as a result of cultural conditioning, peer pressure and so on - it is something that does not really have a logical base of its own, and its elements are loosely connected through questionable claims. On the other hand, an informed belief is something one develops as a result of rigorous application of logic; it is something that one does not have to rationalise and can objectively defend with practical arguments.

I am not atheist because someone convinced me I should be one. I am atheist because every time I interacted with religions, I did not see anything logical in them, so I never had a reason to change my initial stance, which is that supernatural things do not and cannot exist in principle. Everything that exists is a part of nature, and if it is not a part of nature, then it only "exists" in our imagination, since our physical reality is bound to the nature.

How many theists can say the same: that they are theists not because someone convinced them they should be one, but because they came to the idea of God on their own, in their personal logical search? I have met such people, but they seem to be a rarity.

Now, I am not saying that every atheist position is more logical than every theist position; far from it. I do think, however, that theism strongly correlates with induced thinking patterns, and atheism correlates with informed thinking patterns quite a bit more.

Interesting things there. And it looks like we're exploring not just philosophy but also psychology here too. And I guess it could be said I have been touching a bit psychology here too, as I happened to previously mention a belief as the psychological state of mind where an individual holds a proposition to be true. I appreciate how informed beliefs may lead one to become an A-theist, and how induced beliefs correlate largely with one's own cultural environment. However, A-theism itself is neither an induced nor an informed belief; it's simply "no belief." Some people have even gone so far as to call A-theism a religion of its own which is also just another misconception. Truth be told, A-theism is no religion, it is no doctrine, no, codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, no collective A-theist movement, no-A-theist churches, no A-atheist groups praying and worshipping their non-beliefs, no laid out set of principles to abide by, etc. Rational Wiki and Sam Harris say also make this very clear in the following:

Misconceptions of definition

“”Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. —Sam Harris[54] Atheism and agnosticism are not entirely mutually exclusive, and atheists are not "actually agnostic because no one can ever know whether God exists." This is a highly contested point among religious believers and atheistic philosophers alike, as most, if not all, thinking atheists would happily change their minds given the right evidence, and thus could be considered "agnostic" in this sense. However, this conflates the ideas of belief and knowledge. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge - which is often accepted on all sides of the theistic debate. Atheism takes the position that it is rational to think that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnostics, on the other hand, state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion at all. There are agnostic atheists, who can be either weak or strong. It is at least logically possible for a theist to be an agnostic (e.g., "I believe in a pantheon of lobsterish zoomorphic deities, but cannot prove this with evidence, and acknowledge and embrace that my belief is rooted in faith")—but it is markedly difficult to find anyone who will fess up to such a position.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#Misconceptions_of_definition

FYI, on that Rational Wiki page you will find a plethora of information on Atheism as well as lots of links to credible and reputable sources explaining exactly what Atheism is and what it isn't. The following might also be of particular interest to some people as well:

Definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"

For the mostpart the following definitions are nearly identical, yet have distinctly separate definitions because maintaining the accuracy of their meanings and uses are important for communicating clearly and accurately, which is why both the descriptive and prescriptive aspects are covered.  Please also see our research references for relevant academic and non-academic sources. atheism
noun
/'āTHē,izəm/ absence of belief in deities Linguistic structure Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without," hence "atheism" is therefore concisely characterized as "without theism."
See also:  Lack of belief in gods (educational YouTube video; 10 minutes)
https://www.defineatheism.com/

Define atheism :: Polysemy

A word that can be used in multiple ways is said to be "polysemous" or to have a "polysemous characteristic."  For example, while the word "colour" is most commonly used in describing the visual appearances of objects, environments, etc., it's also polysemous because it can be used in other ways, such as metaphorically to describe a person's character (e.g., events in their past have taken on a different colour), to describe bias (e.g., the racist is not colour-blind), to indicate a factor of influence (e.g., the presenter coloured the audience's perceptions), etc. In the case of atheism, the use variations all seem to include "absence of belief in deities" which fundamentally characterizes atheism (and atheists).  Some common variants we've encountered are: the position or belief that deities do not exist This is an anti-theistic position that also consequently includes the "absence of belief in deities."  Historically, some dictionaries did unfortunately cite only this definition, but such instances have gradually become less common as most publishers have been correcting and updating their definitions accordingly over time. The problem with this variant is that it attempts to limit the scope of the meaning that leads to attempts to incorrectly impose a burden of proof onto atheists who don't actually take such a position.  One of the reasons some theists continue to use this manipulative tactic is that when debating an adversary who does not take an opposite position, they feel disadvantaged due to their own lack of confidence and conviction about their own position, and an adversary who does take the opposite position can serve as a convenient diversion. the doctrine that there is no god This is an anti-theistic position that also consequently includes the "absence of belief in deities," and it's a defective dictionary definition that fails because atheism doesn't have any doctrine.  Doctrines are generally important pinnacles of religions that are usually expressed in the form of scripture and/or holy books. The fundamental problem with this variant is that it always lacks a reference to the very doctrine it claims that atheism is comprised of.https://www.defineatheism.com/polysemy/

If I have not made it clear by now what A-theism is and isn't then I don't know what else we can do to make it any clearer.

Moreover, in regard to you saying that you're saying MayCaesar that you don't/didn't see anything logical in any of the religions you interacted I will have to say that is one thing I cannot entirely agree with. If someone believes that God does exist then it logically follows for that person to believe that people were created by God. Likewise, if someone believes all people with brown hair are bad tampered then it logically follows for them to believe that their uncle who also has brown hair is bad-tempered. Many things can logically follow if you just accept, believe and/or assume the premises to be true in the first place.

Then, the other question we have is if it is logical to believe those premises as being true? Is logical to believe that God exists? I currently can't think of any logical reason as to why to believe in God; but I also appreciate how us mere human beings do many things that are not based on logic anyway. We don't use logic when deciding what movie to watch, what fictitious books to read, what cake to eat, and so on.

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Anyway, this is a philosophical discussion. And one thing I did fail to take into account before was that in the philosophical sense A-theism has more than one meaning, with their being different versions of A-theism (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Atheism+definition), (https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1). Now while it is generally accepted many experts that Atheism is best defined as a "lack of belief" there is no philosophical consensus on how it should be defined; there are philosophers that have argued that it is a doctrine, and there are of course, other philosophers that have argued that it's best defined as "a lack of belief;" I agree with that latter.

It seems to me you're trying to thread a needle with your definition.  In your own words, atheism is more than just "a lack of belief", since you dismiss "a disbelief" as not being what you perceive as atheism.  In fact your version of atheism not only requires the possibility that God, Gods, Creator, etc., exist but that such a being/beings can be known.

  I appreciate that is what you may have read, but that's not what's being said here. Since the word disbelief is synonymous with "lack of belief" or "lack of faith" I don't dismiss that at all. I am not sure what piece of information you're basing that conclusion on.

One thing I will say though is that in my previous quote above that I was wrong to say that there are philosophers that define A-theism as a doctrine; that was a general assumption on my part based on what I was reading on the plato.stanford.edu. Now, while there may well indeed be philosophers that do argue A-theism as being a doctrine in its own right that is not what I was reading. What I was reading and what I will concede is that there are some philosophers that construe A-theism as a proposition to take; that proposition being that there is no God, but I will not accept that as being valid definition of someone that does not believe an unfalsifiable idea to be true. Furthermore, given the true meaning the word doctrine which is a set codification beliefs and teachings I doubt there are many philosophers (both theistic and a-theistic ones) that claim a-theism is a doctrine.

However, I do appreciate that to some people it's jut no fun having or watching a debate where someone claims they're an A-theist that does not deny the existence of God, but just doesn't believe there is one or believes in one as yet.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;
So, the first thing I would like to clear up is what Atheism actually is. Now,

Does this mean Atheist are people who simple admit to not believe in what other may call a God? Either sometime or all the time in a way that can be reciprocated by the person originally shown. As it stand atheism is simple just the admission to chose not to believe in what some may call God? Meaning there is room for the creation of a new word to describe the latter of the to options. Takes out flashlight and shines under chin, laughs in a slow and eyry way..... who...….ha    ha       ha...……….ha. Is often more frightening when in a exploring dark locations.
Trick or treat!

Well, you immediately just described an A-theist that somehow belongs to a collective group of people. There's only one thing that all A-theists share in common and that is the lack of belief in a Theistic God, and it is that simple. On another note, happy Halloween. And fun fact: Halloween originated in Ireland.

Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in). The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago, mostly in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom and northern France, celebrated their new year on November 1. https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween#section_1

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

  I appreciate that is what you may have read, but that's not what's being said here. Since the word disbelief is synonymous with "lack of belief" or "lack of faith" I don't dismiss that at all. I am not sure what piece of information you're basing that conclusion on.

One thing I will say though is that in my previous quote above that I was wrong to say that there are philosophers that define A-theism as a doctrine; that was a general assumption on my part based on what I was reading on the plato.stanford.edu. Now, while there may well indeed be philosophers that do argue A-theism as being a doctrine in its own right that is not what I was reading. What I was reading and what I will concede is that there are some philosophers that construe A-theism as a proposition to take; that proposition being that there is no God, but I will not accept that as being valid definition of someone that does not believe an unfalsifiable idea to be true. Furthermore, given the true meaning the word doctrine which is a set codification beliefs and teachings I doubt there are many philosophers (both theistic and a-theistic ones) that claim a-theism is a doctrine.

However, I do appreciate that to some people it's jut no fun having or watching a debate where someone claims they're an A-theist that does not deny the existence of God, but just doesn't believe there is one or believes in one as yet.

If your contention is that atheism is a lack of belief, you have to exclude those who have a belief, which includes agnostics and, lets call them traditional atheists.  The term atheism was changed sometime in the 1990s.  The Oxford English Second Edition (1989) definition of atheist was;

atheist, n. (and a.)
 (ˈeɪɵiːɪst)Also 6 atheyst, 6-7 athist(e.[a. F. athéiste (16th c. in Littré), or It. atheista: see prec. and -ist.]

atheist, n. (and a.)
 A. n.

atheist, n. (and a.)
One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[a1568: Coverdale Hope of Faithf. Pref. Wks. II. 139 “Eat we and drink we lustily; to-morrow we shall die: which all the epicures protest openly, and the Italian atheoi.”]

1571: Golding Calvin on Ps. Ep. Ded. 3 “The Atheistes which say..there is no God.”

1604: Rowlands Looke to it 23 “Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.”

1709: Shaftesbury Charac. i. i. 2 (1737) II. 11 “To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause, Measure, or Rule of Things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.”

1876: Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 “By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.”

Traditional atheists have a belief and a doctrine, as do agnostics (an agnostic is - one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing).  Since you have defined atheism as a lack of a belief, you have to exclude at least these two groups from your definition.  It seems what you're after is those who doubt the existence of God but don't disbelieve in God.  That's OK, but it excludes the traditional meaning of the term.

AlofRI

@TKDB ;
I don't see where expressing an opinion is "dictating". 
I DO think Sunday School is "indoctrinating" young minds. By the time they outgrow Sunday School they have, for the most part, a theory imbedded in their minds that they will likely carry forever. SOME will still think with open minds, SOME will realize that facts and theories learned after SS just do not sustain what they were taught, but, that will be a minority. 
I believe that minority will get larger with each generation as we move forward and science becomes even harder to reject or question, thank intelligence.

ZeusAres42

AlofRI said:

@TKDB ;
I don't see where expressing an opinion is "dictating". 
I DO think Sunday School is "indoctrinating" young minds. By the time they outgrow Sunday School they have, for the most part, a theory imbedded in their minds that they will likely carry forever. SOME will still think with open minds, SOME will realize that facts and theories learned after SS just do not sustain what they were taught, but, that will be a minority. 
I believe that minority will get larger with each generation as we move forward and science becomes even harder to reject or question, thank intelligence.

I get where you're coming from on indoctrination. I am not so sure about the abolishment of Sunday Schools. That seems a little extreme. But I agree that children should not be indoctrinated as to what to believe and what not to believe in.

With reference to the indoctrination In the video Dr. Dawkins explained how he was furious at an A-theist conference when someone said "All you Atheist children come up on the stage." Not only is that indoctrinating children to be Atheists but it is also adding ever more confusion to the term A-theism. Also, when people who call themselves A-theists do this they are also giving religious people an excuse to continue to construe A-theism as an opposing belief which it isn't; it's simply the negation of a belief. But it's those that claim to be A-theists that deny the existence of a God and continue to add more fuel to fire. And as Sam Harris said, we don't need a generic term to identify someone who doesn't believe in a Theistic God just as we don't need a generic term to identify someone as a non-astrologer. In fact I agree with Sam Harris when he says Atheist is actually a term that should no longer exist.