"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

...I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.

I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

It depends on whether "atheism" is "athe-ism" (belief there are no gods) or "a-theism" (lack of theism, i.e. lack of belief in god(s)). Rather than waste time, let's just use terms that all are agreed on.

[Alien]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

Why?

[BeRational]

...I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.

I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

It depends on whether "atheism" is "athe-ism" (belief there are no gods) or "a-theism" (lack of theism, i.e. lack of belief in god(s)). Rather than waste time, let's just use terms that all are agreed on.

For me, and I think many here, it means lack of belief in any gods.

Believing there are no gods gives the burden of proof to that believer.

I have no burden of proof as I lack a belief due to finding the claims for a god, to have not met its burden of proof.

[Alien]

I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.

Another thing wrong with it is that to define atheism as a denial of God implies that there's a cogent, shared definition of God that everybody knows, only some affirm it and some deny it. This is news to me.

Surely it is no more or less of a problem than atheism being a lack of belief in god(s). How can "lack of belief in god(s)" make sense if you have no working definition of "god(s)".

As for not actually understanding what is mean by "god", have a look in any English dictionary. We don't need to define "god" to the nth degree to know what people mean by it any more than we need to define "atom" to the nth degree either. What you understand by "atom" may well be somewhat different to what scientists understand, but we are all taking about basically the same thing.

[Alien]

Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.

If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.

O.

No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.

That might just be your lack of imagination though.

[BeRational]

Could the fourth side be in the seventh dimension?

Well it could, as I just made it up.

[Nearly Sane]

Triangles are not intrinsically wrong. Four sided shaped are not intrinsically wrong. Four side triangles are not wrong within a conceptualisation that the temporal start and end constitutes a 'side'.

Nevertheless, you are dismissing all conceptualisation of 'god' because no-one has been able to give you a sufficiently precise definition. "God is that intelligence which caused the universe to be" is sufficiently vague to give us a start point, certainly for the Abrahamic god - can you not work from there in, to develop a dialogue?

O.

I didn't say that triangles are intrinsically wrong - but we start from the idea that triangles have 3 sides so definitionally a 4 sided triangle is nonsensical. Since the universe or the multiverse and my understanding of it include time then a 'thing' or intelligence oustide of time makes no more sense than a four sided triangle. If it is in time in some sense, that doesn't appear to cover the 'cause of' partin the sense i generally see it used - so nope

[Shaker]

If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite a world veiw?

Is theism a worldview? Several people here have rejected the idea that it is.

[Nearly Sane]

If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite a world veiw?

Well there is a question as to whether theism is a world view. There is also a quastion made clear here as to whether atheism is the opposite

ETA - We might argue that being a Marxist is a worldview - but I don't think it makes sense to say that not being a Marxist is a world view.

[Shaker]

ETA - We might argue that being a Marxist is a worldview - but I don't think it makes sense to say that not being a Marxist is a world view.

A good comparison, and one which suggests that these things run only in one direction (at least sometimes) and that you can't just say that X is a worldview therefore not-X is a worldview too.

[ekim]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.

When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.

Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience.  A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it).  An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.

[Andy]

If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite, a world view?

Looking at the opposite of X tells us nothing about X other than that it is not X. They have to be viewed in isolation.
Using the old cliched example of collecting stamps as a hobby and non-stamp collecting not being a hobby... well it actually depends on what we're doing that is not collecting stamps. For example, if we're not collecting stamps but collecting butterflies, then that's still considered a hobby.

[Alien]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.

When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.

Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience.  A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it). 

"Gnostic" is a very ambiguous term, particularly if capitalised at the start of a sentence. I'd suggest that is one good reason to avoid it.

An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.

One problem we have encountered on these boards is that the ignostic may want the definition to be tighter than necessary to hold a decent conversation.

[ekim]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.

When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.

Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience.  A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it). 

1.   "Gnostic" is a very ambiguous term, particularly if capitalised at the start of a sentence. I'd suggest that is one good reason to avoid it.

An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.

2.   One problem we have encountered on these boards is that the ignostic may want the definition to be tighter than necessary to hold a decent conversation.

1.  Yes, that it why I didn't capitalise it but you are probably right.  However perhaps it made the point about knowing and not knowing.
2.   Yes, I am one of those.  There are so many gods with varying names and so much vagueness by people who believe and do not know.  I think it might be easier to talk about heaven or paradise as a hoped for 'destination' rather than god.

[2Corrie]

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...

Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.

Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?

[Shaker]

False dichotomy.

[2Corrie]

Surety and doubt, what middle ground can there be! evasion!

[Andy]

How many years and how many conversations and yet still this elementary mistake. What is the point? Perhaps it takes a theist who actually understands to explain it to these people for them to actually listen because it seems they're switched off to when atheists explain it themselves.

[wigginhall]

I thought that NS's example of not being a Marxist is very good. 

I like the word 'lack'.   If you lack a belief in God, that cannot be considered a 'world-view'.   For example, an atheist need not be a materialist.  I believe that there are some who are dualists, and it is conceivable that an atheist could believe in the soul or the afterlife.   

It's interesting  that there seem to be a very large number of things, which I lack a belief in, you might even say, an infinite number.   However, you would not say that each lack represented a world-view!   I lack a belief in Zeus, for example. 

What is interesting is why some theists want to argue that atheism is a world-view.  I'm not sure really, I suppose they are setting up a straw man, to knock down, but it doesn't work, but of course, they keep trying!

[2Corrie]

BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,

I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.

[Gordon]

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...

Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.

Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?

Neither of the above.

[Gordon]

BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,

No it isn't

I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies Gods exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.

Fify - and evidence sufficient to support belief requires a clear definition of 'Gods'.

[2Corrie]

BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,

No it isn't

I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies Gods exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.

Fify

exactly! How ironic

[wigginhall]

BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,

I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.

No, lacking a belief in something is not a belief.  For example, I lack a belief in Marxism, but this is not a belief, and certainly not a world-view.   

[2Corrie]

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...

Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.

Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?

Neither of the above.

please explain how your position does not fit into one of the above then, are you omniscient!