I guess these discussions were happening while I was snoozing like Brigham Young in the back of a wagon during the pioneer trek.

Here's my contribution to the conversation:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

That definition can mean a lot of things, which we'll get into. What needs to be said first is what it does not mean.

Atheism is NOT a claim or assertion about the existence of a god or gods. Belief = pretending. I do not pretend that any gods exist, therefore I am an atheist. My lack of pretending or make-believing that any gods exist are what make me an atheist.

I also do not pretend or make-believe that no gods exist. I would never make that claim because it's unfalsifiable. There's no point in pretending that no gods exist. There's no point in pretending that any gods do exist. Where does that leave me? In the default position: atheism. No claims. No assertions. No energy tied up in make-believe or pretending.

Glad that's settled.

Now, to the question of whether everyone is an atheist. This is where it gets tricky, and this is why I hate the phrases "Do you believe in god?" and "I don't believe in god."

To many theists there is only one god or higher power. So to point out to a christian that they are an atheist when it comes to Zeus is not very meaningful.

Here's my take on it: Any self-proclaimed theist should always be called a theist because they do in fact believe in a specific god. We'll use Allah as an example. I would call muslims theists. I would call them theists to their faces and behind their backs.

However, if a muslim attacked my lack of belief in their god I would have no problem pointing out that they don't believe in all the gods I don't believe in except one. That makes them an atheist in relation to all other gods except the one in which they do believe.

Until evidence is provided to prove the existence of one of these gods they are ALL EQUAL in my mind and none of them deserve the title of "god." To me they are all equally "a god" and they will continue to be "a god" until I'm presented with evidence that one of them is real.

At that point it won't really matter, though, because once evidence is provided to prove the existence of a specific god there will no longer be a requirement for belief and theism in relation to that god will cease to exist. But whatever.

To the question of whether someone who believes in Elohim and asserts that no other gods exist is an atheist, my answer is "sort of." Someone who asserts that no gods exist is making a claim. We call that anti-theism. That are making the claim that no gods exist.

If you're making the claim that those other gods don't exist then you certainly lack a belief in those gods. You have to be an atheist in order to be an anti-theist. You must necessarily lack a belief in a specific god in order to assert that said god does not exist.

So technically everyone who answered this question was right. Someone who asserts that no gods exist is an anti-theist and an atheist, but it's not really meaningful to call them an atheist because that's misleading and they should be referred to as an anti-theist, or in some circles as a "strong atheist" but I don't run in that circle because my lack of belief in any gods does not make me weak.

That for many newly outed exMormons the whole world of "unbelief" is very new and for some may be quite surprising.

I know that it was for me as I studied my way out of both Mormonism and Christianity, I was struck with what seemed a new realm of varying shades.

Agnostic, atheist, weak vs. strong, deist vs. theist, antitheist.

These were brand new terms, and it was interesting to see the debates not just among believers and non-believers, but non-believers themselves.

I thought it was a good point that MJ made in another thread that was something along the lines that sometimes non-believers discuss the definitions very technically in order to have clear communication.

Something else that I'd like to point out is that often when people either enter in the new world of "unbelief" or simply observe non-believers they often bring a lot of preconceived notions one of which sometimes is that all non-believers are exactly alike and now "believe" all the same things.

And that's often where these discussions about precise language come from.

Kolobian,

Your explanation sounds pretty straightforward.

I asked:

If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?

In response to the question, you answered "sort-of." Yet, when you explained your answer it sounded like a yes. Here is what you said:

"To the question of whether someone who believes in Elohim and asserts that no other gods exist is an atheist, my answer is "sort of." Someone who asserts that no gods exist is making a claim. We call that anti-theism. That are making the claim that no gods exist. If you're making the claim that those other gods don't exist then you certainly lack a belief in those gods. You have to be an atheist in order to be an anti-theist."

When I read the last two sentences of your statement, it sure sounds like your answer to the question is yes, the person is an atheist.

If you read my reply carefully, you'd see that the person is an atheist insomuch as they "lack a belief" in those gods, and an anti-theist insomuch as they "assert those gods don't exist."

In order to assert that no gods exist you must necessarily lack a belief in those gods. You can't simultaneously believe in a god and assert that it doesn't exist. Right?

If I were to label a person who asserts that a god or gods don't exist I would call that person an antitheist. I would also acknowledge that they lack a belief in gods, but that doesn't tell the whole story, does it?

Are you attempting to get an atheist to agree that "asserting that no gods exist" is atheism? If anyone does, it won't be me.

Thanks. That helped me.

You said: "Are you attempting to get an atheist to agree that "asserting that no gods exist" is atheism? If anyone does, it won't be me."

So, can I conclude that if a person believes that one god exists, but asserts that no other god exists, you would say that is NOT atheism even with respect to the all of the other gods the person asserts do not exist?

Because you have said you would tell a muslim he is atheist with respect to all other gods he says to not exists. But, the muslim could say to you, "I don't lack belief in any other gods. Instead, I assert no other Gods exist."

He's explaining a concept here.

Atheism is a lack of belief.
Anti-theism is a belief in non-existance.

I am reasonably sure that none of the millions of deities created by humans exist but I agree with Kolobian that I can't claim that they don't exist because such a claim cannot be verified by being falsified. So logically and rationally I am left with a reasonable certainty (similar to my certainty that mass attracts mass) which says, "It is most likely that no involved, benevolant, omnipotent deity exists but I will reevaluate this conclusion in the light of further evidence."

That's one reason that many theists have such a hard time discussing things with those who apply logic to their worldview. There's an inherent degree of uncertainty and a willingness to alter conclusions with evidence.

<<<So, can I conclude that if a person believes that one god exists, but asserts that no other god exists, you would say that is NOT atheism even with respect to the all of the other gods the person asserts do not exist?>>>

If a person believes in a god they are a Theist. With respect to all other gods, that person is an antitheist if they assert that those gods do not exist. If they simply lack a belief in those other gods, without asserting that those gods do no exist, they are atheists in relation to those other gods.


<<<Because you have said you would tell a muslim he is atheist with respect to all other gods he says to not exists. But, the muslim could say to you, "I don't lack belief in any other gods. Instead, I assert no other Gods exist.">>>

If a muslim told me he didn't lack a belief in any other gods, that instead he asserted that those gods didn't exist, I would call him an antitheist. I would also have him visit a doctor to have his head examined, because how can you assert that something doesn't exist if you believe it exists? That's silly.

Kolobian,

I really do appreciate you dealing with my persistent questions. I think what started it for me was trying to understand why to some atheists it was important to stress the "lack of belief" versus believing something does or does not exist. Ultimately what I wanted to get to was why the distinction was important to some atheists. But first I was trying to clarify that I understood the distinction (much to some posters chagrin).

It sounds to me like the "lack of belief" definition is partly used for purposes of discussion with a believer. In your answer you state that:

"However, if a muslim attacked my lack of belief in their god I would have no problem pointing out that they don't believe in all the gods I don't believe in except one. That makes them an atheist in relation to all other gods except the one in which they do believe."

Again, this statement makes it sound like your answer to my original question is yes, the person is an atheist. In your conversation with the muslim you are saying the muslim is an "atheist in relation to all other gods except the one they do believe."


Dave the Athiest said "No" to my question.

MJ said "technically no."

You said "Sort-of" but your subsequent explanation was yes.


I get a sense (a warm feeling) that the atheists on the Board don't want to disagree with each other to overtly (except Dave the Athiest :)) I'm definitely getting different answers to the question. I'm a bit surprised that in this quest for the raw truth there seems to be a little love-fest between the atheists.

For the record, anyone who talked to me when I was 12 would have likely told me I was an atheist and I assume you would as well.

Dave the Atheist and MJ are right. A person who asserts that those gods do no exist is an antitheist. I agree with them.

You cannot assert that those gods don't exist without lacking a belief in those gods.

You can, however, lack a belief in any gods without asserting that those gods don't exist.


I don't see how any of us are disagreeing.

I'm following.

But my question is: If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?

MJ said "technically no."

Your answered (or explanation) really sounded like a "yes." Even above you said: "You cannot assert that those gods don't exist without lacking a belief in those gods." So, I assume a "lack of belief" in those gods would constitute atheism with respect to those gods.

At this point I think you're not listening.

Someone who believes in Elohim and also asserts that no other gods exist is a Theist.

They are a Theist because they believe in Elohim. That is what takes prescendence. That is their title. That is what is relevant to them.

If you were to question them on what they thought about other gods like Zeus and FSM, and they said they don't believe those gods are real, they would be antitheist in relation to those other gods.

At the end of the day, however, they are a Theist because they believe in Elohim. (technically henotheist because of the mormon view on gods but whatever).

You couldn't rightfully call that person an atheist in regards to those other gods because they've taken their lack of belief in those gods and gone a step further by making a negative claim about the existence of those gods. So I would not call them an atheist in regards to those other gods even though they obviously and necessarily lack a belief in those gods in order to assert that those gods don't exist.

Still with me?

I'm completely with you. I've got your point. There are obviously some different points of view on the issue - perhaps subtle and inconsequential to some, but I really wanted to get my hands around it because there was something in one of your earlier posts that was a bit more interesting than the typical definition of an atheist or the typical explanation I hear from an atheist. I wanted to make sure I was understanding your view.

Now, I'll spend some time thinking about it. Thanks. :)

I don't see how there are different perspectives on this issue. Again, it's becoming apparent that you may have an agenda.

Can you show me where I, MJ, Dave, AtheistMarine, Raptor, Rebekah, or anyone else have disagreed on the following definitions:

Theism = belief in a god or gods

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods

Antitheism = belief in the non-existence of a god or gods

They aren't fully atheists because they do believe in one deity. They are merely atheists in relation to all the deities they don't believe in. (And there are a lot of deities that people simply don't believe in.)

Thanks Rebeckah. That's what I am understanding - I felt like Kolobian's answer was a qualified yes. MJ's answer to the question was "technically no."

Your question, "If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?" is being seen as a trap. The simple answer "yes" is too simple, because it appears that you are trying to equate a sub-group "antitheist" to the main group "atheists". "Antitheists" are part of the larger group "atheist" by definition, as Kolobian states, "In order to assert that no gods exist you must necessarily lack a belief in those gods."

Lets break down your question:

- "If I believe in Elohim" - Then you are a theist, you believe in a "God", specifically the Mormon God "Elohim", supposedly the same god of all Christians, according to the Mormons.

- "but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,'" - Then, in addition to being a theist, you are also antitheist, you "assert" something, this is active, it is "anti".

- "am I an atheist?" - Yes, for two reasons, and no for another... Yes because you don't believe in any god other than "Elohim", so you are atheistic in regards to any other "God" out there, Zeus for example. The second why is because you can not assert that no other gods exist unless you don't believe in them. No, because you do believe in a God, so you are both an atheist in regards to all other gods and a theist in regards to "Elohim".

If you changed your question to, "If I believe in Elohim, but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,' am I an antitheist?" There is a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who asserts one or more god does not exist is an antitheist"

If you changed it another way to "If I believe in Elohim, but i "lack a belief in any [other] god or gods," am I an atheist?" You also get a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who lacks a belief in one or more god does is an atheist".

If you changed it yet another way to "If I believe in Elohim, am I an atheist?" You also get a cut and dry answer "No, You believe in a god".

Your question requires explanation. You can not equate a sub-group to it's parent group, which is what it appears that your question is attempting to do. Atheists, myself included, are very protective of the definition of the term "atheist" and want a clear distinction from the active, I believe no other god exists and the passive, I hold no belief that any god exists. There is a lot of misconceptions out there that we deal with constantly, theists constantly try to equate an atheists lack of belief with their belief, it's not the same thing. Hence the more detailed explanation rather than a simple yes or no, your question isn't that simple, not to someone who wants to make sure they are understood.

Edited to add clarification regarding theistic/atheistic duality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 12:48PM by Finally Free!.

<<Your question, "If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?" is being seen as a trap.>>

Good observation. I was getting the feeling that people saw the question as a trap and did not want to answer directly. I found it fascinating that the atheists couldn't just answer the question without worrying about avoiding the trap (if there was one). Give an honest answer and if another question comes along, answer it.

I think you answered it straightforward - Yes, with respect to the god[s] I assert do not exist and no with respect to the god I assert exists.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 12:58PM by thingsithink.

i have to say:
I think what you say is great. really succinct and rational.
me like! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 12:56PM by bignevermo.

That was absolutely fascinating but I sincerely hope there will not be a test on it later.