Atheism is not misunderstood at all. A trick is being played here through semantics to fool people and most of the people fell in the trap too.
The reason is very simple. Philosophy also has to be earned, besides learning. More often than not, purely learned philosophy runs into trouble, sooner or later.
Let me take two different analogies here to explain the issue.
In maths, we have positive and negative numbers. Right. Here, you can say that negative numbers are “apositive”. That would be true if maths would not have zero.
But, as the maths also has the concept of zero, which is specifically designed to state such a position, which is different both from positive and negative, thus you cannot define zero as apositive.
I’m the same way, in the real world, we have positive charged particles like photons and negative charged particles like electrons. Both of these are charged but opposite ones. And, we have neutrons also which are completely free from any charge.
But, do we call neutrons as apositive, just because they lack positive charge? Or, consider electrons and neutrons the same? And, if not, how can you put all non-godbelivers into one basket? You have to differinciate between those who believe that there is no god and who do have belief of either side.
This second anology fits perfectly on our issue in hand. Theism is like protons, positively charged and atheism is like electrons, negatively charged. But, agnosticm is different from both. It stands apart and presenting it as an opposite of positive only is unjustified.
Neural is as different from negative as from the positive. The same is with the agnosticm. It is as non-theistic as non-atheistic.
Gib, I do not think that this issue can be explained in any better or simpler way. And, I also think that no can counter that either.
Think over it again, very minutely.
That was cattle, not kettle. Typing mistake. Sorry for that.
I like the hard agnostic. Note: this could also be the attitude of a theist, that is, "Nothing exists, but even if something exists nothing can be known about it, yet even if something could be known…etc. "
I use this as the basis of negative theology.
Atheism is not a neutral position at all. A trick is being played here through semantics to fool people and most of the people fell in the trap too.
The reason is very simple. Philosophy also has to be earned, besides learning. More often than not, purely learned philosophy runs into trouble, sooner or later.
Let me take two different analogies here to explain the issue.
In maths, we have positive and negative numbers. Right. Here, you can say that negative numbers are “apositive”. That would be true if maths would not have zero.
But, as the maths also has the concept of zero, which is specifically designed to state such a position, which is different both from positive and negative, thus you cannot define zero as apositive.
I’m the same way, in the real world, we have positive charged particles like photons and negative charged particles like electrons. Both of these are charged but opposite ones. And, we have neutrons also which are completely free from any charge.
But, do we call neutrons as apositive, just because they lack positive charge? Or, consider electrons and neutrons the same? And, if not, how can you put all non-godbelivers into one basket? You have to differinciate between those who believe that there is no god and who do have belief of either side.
This second anology fits perfectly on our issue in hand. Theism is like protons, positively charged and atheism is like electrons, negatively charged. But, agnosticm is different from both. It stands apart and presenting it as an opposite of positive only is unjustified.
Neural is as different from negative as from the positive. The same is with the agnosticm. It is as non-theistic as non-atheistic.
I do not think that this issue can be explained in any better or simpler way. And, I also think that no can counter that either.
Think over it again, very minutely, and without trying to demean theism at any cost, which happens to be your sole objective.
There is no trick. The meaning of words is determined by how people use them. It’s not like I’m the first to use the term “atheist” in the way that I’m using it. Admittedly, most atheists believe there is no God, and they label themselves “atheist” for that reason, but you don’t have to be an atheist to use the term, and many theists and agnostics use the term as well. There are enough of the latter, as well as many atheists, who use the term “atheist” to mean a lack of belief instead of a belief in a lack.
Why not? I think you’re making this out to be more complicated than it needs to be.
The “a” in “apositive” does not mean “opposite of”, it just means “not”. Is zero positive? No. Then it is apositive. Simple as that.
We do not have to differentiate. Not if that’s not your purpose. If all I want to do is to talk about those who lack a belief in God, I can lump the agnostics and the anti-theists all under the banner of “atheist”. On the other hand, if I did want to distinguish between the agnostics and the anti-theists, then I would have to use different terms for each.
The argument that I have to distinguish is like arguing that we can’t call black people “black” because that fails to distinguish between male black people and female black people.
As soon as it comes out of the womb, the baby has to be classified - separated into categories of us and them. Look at the beautiful atheist baby. Look at the beautiful Christian baby.
Another foot-soldier to be used in a senseless conflict fought by small-minded people.
Why not leave the newborn to be in peace, instead of dumping a heap of baggage on it?
Would you consider one who doesn’t hold a belief that a god exists to be an atheist? If so, is this person any less of an atheist if they also don’t hold the belief that no gods exist?
Let’s divide all numbers into two categories:
All positive numbers
All numbers which don’t fall into category #1
In which category does 0 lie? If it is a number and it doesn’t lie in #1, then it would have to lie in #2. So zero is indeed a-positive. Likewise, one who neither holds the belief that a god exists or holds the belief that no gods exist would not be a theist. And unless you wish to redefine words, that would make such a person an atheist.
You can have implicit atheists and explicit atheists.
Agnosticism isn’t the middle ground between atheism and theism. It’s on a different plane.
[i]Theism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an atheist (literally, “one without theism”) is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn’t mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
The god exists.
The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
Belief or acceptance of the claim.
Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Note that one may wish to consider a “third option” of simply reserving judgment. This is actually consistent with position number 2. “Disbelief” means lack of belief. If someone reserves judgment, then clearly they don’t believe — and thus they disbelieve, which is position 2. In light of this, one must interpret the term “rejection of a claim” as meaning “lack of acceptance” (and thus, in a sense, only a rejection “if forced to choose right now”). In particular, the term “rejection” should not be interpreted as being based in any way on an acceptance of the opposite claim.
Therefore, atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of “god” is sufficiently well-defined in the first place) — and so if one claim is not true the other must be true — there is no such implication in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn’t believe something, that doesn’t mean they believe the opposite. (For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the Slinky died in a spring-related accident doesn’t mean one positively believes that he didn’t die that way.) This is one reason why the theist’s accusation that atheism requires “just as much faith” as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, as discussed below).
Knowledge
Gnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, “one who lacks knowledge”) is someone who makes no such claim.
Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.
Typically, the gnostic’s assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god’s existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an “untheist” or “antitheist”, perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence. (See also Proving a universal negative and You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.)
Combining terms
As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren’t mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:
Agnostic Gnostic
Atheist 1. Agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that no god exists
2. Gnostic atheist
believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Theist 3. Agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge.
Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified “believers”.[/i]
Eh. A baby is an atheist. How ridiculous to call a baby a Catholic, a Muslim or a Protestant?
You’d not call a baby a rationalist, or a scientist…
Why saddle a baby with a label about religion in the first place?
No, no, no. Agnostic is a person who knows he is an atheist as he is of the opinion that god is 'unknowable". Agnostic is a person knowlingly unknowing.
Since Mutcer wants to divide the world into two categories, then the baby must be an arationalist or ascientist if the baby is not a rationalist or scientist.
Did you just saddle the baby with the label ‘atheist’. Why did you do it?
According to the number theory of mathematics “zero” is “not positive” (which means “apositive”, “the lack of positive”) and “not negative” (which means “anegative”, “the lack of negative”). The right alternative word for “negative” is “antipositvie”, and the right alternative word for “positive” is “antinegatvie”. The word “apositive” means just “not posiitive”, thus it can be “negative” and/or “neutral”. But “antipositive” means “the opposite of positive”, thus “negative”, and “antinegative” means “the opposite of negative”, thus “positive”.
For God’s sake, Zinnat! Photons are not “positively charged”, the charge of photons is “0”, thus neutral (“free of charge”, “chargeless”, “acharged”, “not charged”).
No, because the charged opposite ones in an atome are protons (+) and electrons (-).
Like photons.
We could call them “apositive”, because they are “not positive” (see above), but we could not call them “antipsoitive”, because they are “not negative”.
There are god-believers (theists), non-godbilievers (non-theists, thus: a-theists), and anti-godbelievers (anti-theists). Compare protons (positve), neutrons (neutral), and electrons (negative) in an atome.
Theism is like a proton, positively charged, atheism is like a neutron, neutrally charged, and antitheism is like an electron, negatively charged.
Most ot them who call themselves “atheists” are “antitheists”, otherwise they would not fight against theism. Real atheists are not interested in theism, but antitheists are very much interested in theism. So you can also easily verify it here, because all ILP members who call themselves “atheists” are antitheists. Verify it!
I called protons as photons in my whole post. My mistake. Surprisingly, I did not strike me even once that I am committing a blunder. Thanks for correcting me.
I have not read the full post of yours. I will come to that if there will be anything else to address besides this photon mistake of mine.
Unknown, unclear and uncertain probably aren’t as applicable as not X or not Y. Based on studies of newborns cognitive capabilities, it’s highly unlikely they hold the belief that a god exists. Therefore, they are atheists.
You and Lev are confusing religion and theism/atheism. Not the same thing.
If you do not accept the standard dogmas and rituals of a standard religion, then you can be called non-religious. That’s a conscious choice. You can call a baby non-religious but it doesn’t make much sense, since the baby is not aware of religions and it is not making a decision about religions (as far as we know, LOL). It’s a pointless label.
Yes it is a political position. You know what ‘democrat’ means and you have make a decision not to be associated with it. You are labeling yourself as ‘not democrat’.