So you'd argue that the concept of the universe is knowable but unknown, whereas the concept of god is unknowable?

^Perhaps I should modify this by saying that the *nature* of the universe is knowable but unknown, whereas the *nature* of god is unknowable.

Arguably, the nature of the universe in it's entirity is not knowable. Assuming an infinite universe and an inability to travel back in time to witness it's actual birth, we can't possibly know everythign about it. We have conjecture, theory, postulates, etc. But we do not have absolute knowledge with 100% certainty.

But, in theory, given infinite time (or one TARDIS), the human race could collect infinite information on an infinite universe, no?

I think the nature of the universe can be understood in only limited, human, reductionist ways.

You might even have several theories of the universe (which don't work well together) but fail to grasp the whole.

Like a fundamental theory of everything, in physics, does include a specific description of human emotions. Whereas a complete theory of social interactions doesn't need to have any reference to physics.

@Hecks, there is a difference between knowing all of the things, and understanding.

Then Hecks, we wouldn't need to know God as well for we would *be* God.

@Draug,
Perhaps not. We'd be omniscient, but we would not be omnipresent, nor omnipotent, nor (presumably) infinitely good.

@draugnar

No, you can't just chime in whenever you feel like it and ignore me when I ask you to explain yourself. I have no interest in having a one-sided conversation with you. In other words, answer your previous opinion-phrased-as-fact-that-I-called-you-out-on before making a new one.


@hecks:

Then what definition of an atheist ought we use? I choose to operate under what atheists call themselves. To do otherwise risks the problem we see with fasces, who attacked atheists, but in reality is only attacking a very small minority of atheists. Or we get the problem we see with octavious, where 90% of self-identified atheists fall under the category of agnosticism.

Look, if you don't think my definition is actually the most prevalent, why don't you just type "atheism" into google and see what comes up. You might be surprised at what the commonly accepted definition actually is. Virtually any definition you will find there (or anywhere) states that atheism in its most general sense is the ABSENCE of a belief, not a belief itself.

Again, it's OK to have been mistaken about this. I only realized the distinction myself a year or two ago. Before that I called myself an agnostic.

@YJ,
It seems pretty clear to me that an atheist is one who affirms the non-existence of a god.

As in the dictionary definition of atheist (Merriam-Webster): "one who believes that there is no deity"

Note, not "one who does not believe that there is a deity," but "one who believes that there is no deity."

@YJ - What page? I must have missed it.

"nor (presumably) infinitely good"

That is a presumption that is not actually part of the defintion of God. There are many "gods" throughout the mythology of mankind that are not inherently good.

The OED allows either your definition or mine: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

Dictionary.com leans toward my definition: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

The Cambridge dictionary uses mine as well, "someone who believes that God does not exist"

Wikipedia is broadest in its definition, but distinguishes between your definition and mine. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

So there's precedent for either of our definitions, but my narrower definition seems favored in this small-sample survey.

@Draug,
I'll get super-semantic on you... infinitely good is part of the definition of God, but not of god.

OK, then we would be gods. I'll clarify my former statement because I did not intend for it to refer to Jehovah specifically (the god that is supposedly infinitely good although that could be argued against as well).

If you like. Although to be a god, I think you need to convince somebody to worship you. Get on that.

Really? What if a god exists who just doesn't give a fuck about us and doens't care if we worship it or not? Woudl lack of worship alter it from being a god?

Atheism is properly understood to mean "one who affirms the belief in the non-existence of a god." However the crucial modifier that's missing is agnostic, namely "one who affirms belief in the inability to know whether or not a god exists." Most atheists are properly understood to be agnostic atheists. We often leave off the "agnostic" modifier because in day-to-day life one cannot merely be "agnostic." One either acts according to a religious creed or one does not. Life doesn't stop for you to figure out where you stand, and it is impossible to be neutral.

This is what I'll call "practical atheism." It's technically described as an affirmation of belief that a god doesn't exist, but that's not really a fair description, because there's certainly a difference between the person who absolutely takes on faith that there is no god, and the person who simply concludes that there is not enough evidence to support there being a god, and thereby rejecting the hypothesis.

And for the record, I haven't met a single person who actually falls into the former category. Literally every single atheist I know simply does not feel the evidence is sufficient to support a god hypothesis; I have never met or even heard of a single person who simply has a gut feeling that gods don't exist.

You must be looking at different dictionaries than me for "atheism."



Webster:

a: a disbelief in the existence of a deity (me)
b : the doctrine that there is no deity (you)

--

OED: "disbelieves/lacks belief." This is *exactly* what I'm saying. I don't see how you can say that supports your view.

--

dictionary.com puts your definition first, but you neglected to mention that mine follows immediately:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

--

Cambridge: I got nothing.

----------------

In other words, in all of these cases, barring Cambridge, the MOST BROAD definition (and usually the top definition) is my definition, as well as the definition atheists generally apply to themselves. Even those atheists who assert that there is no God acknowledge that those who do not are still atheists.

You can also check the etymology of the prefix "a-" for further convincing. (I'll save you some time, it means "not.")

For example, if I am not moral, my behavior is a-moral, does that also make it im-moral? No, it does not. You could think of a million different similar examples.

Likewise, If I am not theist (a-theist), that doesn't mean I MUST assert that there is no God.

@President Eden,
I'm a secular humanist, raised Baptist. As a young man, I always felt guilty about my lack of faith, my failure to really trust, and my inability to be a good Christian. It took me about 22 years to fully realize why I was like that.

I simply have a gut feeling that gods don't exist. Nice to meet you.

Thank you, PE. Concise as always. I would, however disagree with your claim regarding what atheism is understood to mean. Must I also affirm the belief in the non-existence of a pink unicorn? No. It is not a belief. I have a lack of belief in pink unicorns, I don't actively disbelieve in them. Atheism also refers only to the lack of a belief.

The rest of your point is absolutely spot on, and perhaps what you say about "crucial modifier" also addresses what I just said.

@YJ,
Ugh. Now we're chasing a definition chain. I'd define "disbelief" as the opposite of "belief". ie, actively believing the opposite, ie, disbelief in god would be actively believing that there is not god. I suppose you'd define "disbelief" as a lack of affirmative belief rather than an affirmative lack of belief?

We're getting super-semantic here. How about if we just leave it where it is? I think we've said all either of us can say about it, and is seems we have a disagreement of definitions, though a relatively subtle one. I'm comfortable leaving that as a conclusion if you are.

@YJ,
You don't actively disbelieve in pink unicorns? I do...

hecks, we're stuck in the same place, actually.

disbelief is not the opposite of belief. If I disbelieve something it does not mean I actively belief in the opposite claim. Disbelief is only the lack of belief. My disbelief in God does not mean I assert that there is no God.

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually define disbelief in the way you are trying to.

re: pink unicorns.

Really? Why? I haven't seen any evidence that pink unicorns don't exist. Do you have proof?

I, for one, am merely content to disbelieve in them.

No, I haven't seen any proof that pink unicorns don't exist, nor would I try to convince you that they don't exist. Nor have I seen any proof that there's not a pink unicorn in my boss's office right now, but I strongly believe that there's not a pink unicorn in my boss's office right now. I'll admit there's a possibility that I'm wrong. I've been wrong about things I believe before. But this belief is nonetheless fairly strong.

I am aroseusunicornicusic.

@Heck, "@YJ,
You don't actively disbelieve in pink unicorns? I do... "

i suspect you're missing the point, do you believe in all the deities which countless civilizations have come up with but you've never heard of? I mentioned one earlier in the thread (which i had just found on wikipedia, that was this thread, right?) Do you 'disbelieve' or do you simple not think about things you've never heard of?