The Atheist Manifesto: A Clear Cut definition of
Hello fellow Atheists! After years of observing the interactions between Theists and Atheists, I've realized that the definition of "Atheist" itself is rather nebulous (excepting the universal belief that there is no god). Thus, we should compile an unambiguous definition of what it means to be an atheist without bringing individual philosophies into conflict.
If we can all create a unified definition, then that can render the "atheism is ambiguous and vague" attacks of Theists moot. But more importantly, it can help us achieve the same-level of philosophical self-surety that believers in organized religion tout.
let's start with a debate in the comments section
- Param
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Abdullah Naqvi on -
Surely the only thing all atheists have in common is the fact that we do not believe in god?
"Atheist" shouldn't mean anything besides that. That should be the only real definition. Saying "I'm an atheist" should only be a statement about your position on one issue, and one issue only. Nothing more, nothing less.
I should point out that for most non-believers, the definition of "atheist" isn't a belief that there is no god; it is a lack of belief in a god.
Seems semantic but there is a difference.
-
Permalink Reply by Param K on -
but at the same time, many people think of Atheists as people without rules and morals or anything of the variety... surely something must be done to rectify that?
-
Permalink Reply by Tobie Barb on -
Anybody who believes that isn't doing it because of logic or evidence but because they are biased, xenophobic, closed minded, ingnorant knaves.
-
Permalink Reply by Param K on
-
that's true, but a lot of people defend the "organized" basis of religion in that it has a clear-cut, well defined set of rules and expects people to abide by them. Thus, they think that as an atheist, if I don't have Religion, then I don't have rules or morals.
-
Permalink Reply by Param K on
-
but isn't there some basic framework as to WHY we don't?
Empirical logic, experience, conjecture etc.?
-
Permalink Reply by Teri G on -
In my opinion, the only framework that would apply to everyone is reason. Is there any other way in which to come to the conclusion we all have?
-
Permalink Reply by Param K on
-
I concur.
So Daniel, what disagreements do we have on our reasons for not believing in god?
-
Permalink Reply by diggerbanks on -
I think there is. In my head is irrefutable proof. And it is quite depressing that other atheists come at a different angle. Not depressing because my ego isn't flattered but because my answer seems so true.
The ingredients needed are
- perspective
- reason
- logic
- Occam's razor
- an understanding of how we react
Use these and the answer becomes so clear, so obvious.
This is where I start. Have you ever been in a tornado, an earthquake, a tsunami, a drought, a flood etc? They are very scarey situations where you can come face-to-face with your own mortality.
Now take yourself back to a time of limited perspective, limited knowledge, limited horizons, heightened fear, and say hello to the first gods. Local and literal.
These local Gods merged with local gods of others. Eventually, given time and 'civilisation' these Gods formed a pantheon such as the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians etc.
Within civilisation it was noted how the people love/have faith in their gods and how power and control could be wielded through this faith.
So they created monotheistic religions. Ambiguity lost and teachings centralised, the purveyors of monotheistic religions spread their word and passive-aggressively found more power than they would have dreamed of.
And we know what power does...
-
Permalink Reply by Mabel on -
I should point out that for most non-believers, the definition of "atheist" isn't a belief that there is no god; it is a lack of belief in a god.
Seems semantic but there is a difference.
@ Abdullah - I don't believe in God(s). I lack belief in God(s). These mean the same thing to me. I 'don't have' and I 'lack' (same thing). What am I missing?
-
Permalink Reply by Param K on
-
thought I don't necessarily agree with Abdullah's analysis.
I would like to point out that the term "Atheist" literally means "without god" with the Greek alpha-privative, implying that god is something that is necessary for life.
I think a better term would be "nontheist", am I right?
-
Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on -
Mabel, the two statements you make are indeed equivalent to each other, but they are not matches for Abdullah's two statements you quoted, which are:
a belief that there is no god
vs
lack of a belief in a god
The first of Abdullah's statements does not correspond to your first statement "I don't believe in God(s)." Your two phrasings express the lack of something, a belief in god. If you think about it, a turnip lacks a belief in god. Or in anything else for that matter. "I don't believe in God" does not mean necessarily that you are positive there is no god. When you express that you are sure that god doesn't exist, then and only then do you have "a belief that there is no god." Most atheists won't go that far (I am one who will).
What's new today
Forum
Why isn't a 14 year old girl old enough to consent to sex?
Started by Unseen in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Morgana 27 minutes ago. 41 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Consolations of Atheism
Posted by richard vitzthum on May 25, 2013 at 11:38am 15 Comments 3 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
