@thucy *shrug* yeah your description of yourself as an agnostic is pretty much exactly my description of atheism, however I disagree that the typical atheist assumes God does not exist. There is no assumption in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of a single claim.

See the table I linked when the conversation first turned this way to see why I feel your use of "agnostic" to describe your beliefs is improper (apologies if you already touched on this).

Haha yeah evangelical atheist. I don't like that term, but I admit it does describe me pretty well if you remove the religious connotation and use it only to describe the desire to share one's views.

I'm always pissing in everybody's cheerios and trying to get them to think about things.

"Atheism is the rejection of a single claim"

See, now you just changed the definition of atheist. You went from disbelief in a deity (or specifically God) to rejection of the existence. For disbelief in the existence to outright rejection of the possibility.

I'm not sure what you mean, Draugnar.

Disbelief in Draugnar is the exact same thing as disbelief in the existence of Draugnar, is it not?

I don't remember rejecting the possibility that a God exists, only the assertion that a God exists. Can you tell me where I did this?

Oh, Draug. Don't get him going. His definition of rejecting is "not accepting". So he's claiming that you can reject something without saying that it's not true, and instead just saying that you're not convinced. (qv this thread, pg 15).

In other words, you can reject something and say not that it's untrue, but only that it's not not not true. See?

That's not just *my* definition, that's logic 101, and it's important for the exact same subtle reason that disbelief doesn't imply belief in the opposite.

Okay, do what word can I use to be more precise in saying what I always meant when I said "reject". You know, like if I want to say that not only is what you're saying untrue, it's also false.

You say it just like that. I don't know if there is a word for it when you simultaneously reject the assertion and also assert the inverse.

OK, so you are rejecting the claim that a god absolutely must exist but not rejecting the claim that a god may exist. I can actually accept that. The "rejection of the claim" in the thread I quoted didn't say which claim and I assumed it was a rejection of a possibility of a god. Clarification accepted.

Got it... "gainsay". I gainsay your claim that there is a god. Boom.

You got it. I'm very unlikely to assert that ANYTHING may not exist, and am even very hesitant to assert whether something is likely to not exist. These claims are almost impossible to provide evidence for, and this is why I belabor so hard the difference between me and the minority of "strong" atheists that fasces originally took issue with.

@Hecks "yeah, it's my position that disbelief is active assertion of the opposite. "

But i can specifically not believe in any deities (other than the christian God) while not knowing what deities i'm actually talking about. I don't need to be able to list them all; so i'm not specifically NOT believing in Krishna, or Boddha Vistaor any other thing, i just happen to lack of belief (or perhaps even knowledge of) hundreds of other gods.

I am an atheist towards these whether i know about them or not. But the ones i don't know about i am merely rejecting by category without specifically rejecting the ideas...

I guess that's the difference, specific rejection of a proposal, versus categorical rejection. (am i even making sense?)

@ora: not really. Besides, hecks already recanted that statement.

In a sense, atheism is the default position.

For example, Draugnar is an atheist about ~100 Gods he knows a bit about, and about hundreds of Gods he has never heard of. He rejects the claim (actively or implicitly) that they exist. This is true whether he likes the name "atheist" or not.

I just go one God further.

It really is tricky because, technically, atheism is anti-theism and theism is generally a belief in one God as creator (doesn't have to be Christian and is sometimes called monotheism) so not believing in the Greek or Roman gods is not atheism so much as a... I don't know what to call it. :-)

What is interesting is agnosticism versus gnosticism (the belief that the material world is evil and the source of much of Christianity's shunning of the world).

Of course, this feels like a study in pedantry.

but i think Atheism could mean, not having any belief in things you don't know about (because you can't)
or Believing specifically that a particular idea is wrong.

Oddly, i'm not sure where i stand on agnostics, surely if your position is that you don't know, then you don't believe in God, but you also don't specifically believe the atheistic position. (while the strong agnostic position is that you can't know, and thus, perhaps, anyone who takes either a theistic/atheistic position is wrong)

But i agree it is pedantry - the qualities of the position may be of interest, but the labeling is not (except for political reasons)

1) So here we are at the bottom of a hill scattered around the circumference. We all look to the top and we each can take a different path to get to that summit. As with the paths so with the different religions, doesn't sound much like atheism to me.

2) Can I ask the true atheists here whether they believe in anything at and, if so, why?

Draugnar that definition of gnosticism is archaic and outdated, almost nobody means that whey they say gnostic anymore. These days gnosticism/agnosticism just means what you think you know or what you think can be known.

Atheism is not anti-theism, technically or otherwise. I don't know much about it, but my understanding anti-theism is that a person actively opposes theism, (thinks it is bad or harmful), or anti-theism can be used to describe a person who asserts that God does not exist - "strong" atheism," as opposed to the "weak" atheism that merely rejects the assertion that he does exist.

A position of theism says absolutely nothing about how many gods one believes in, and though I agree that most theists have picked one to settle on, I do not accept your implication that theism implies monotheism.

The reason you "don't know what to call it," is because it has a name, you just don't like it applied to yourself. It isn't pedantry because you (and millions of others) have a fundamental lack of understanding as to what atheism actually means to those who ascribe to it, and many of you allow yourselves to be swayed by strawman arguments like the one fasces first made.

These details are extremely important, and your reasons for not believing in polytheistic Gods and your reasons for not believing in monotheistic Gods that aren't Christ are likely to be exactly the same reasons that I don't believe in your God.

@fulhamish

I look down, I see the carpet. I believe in the carpet. I believe in its existence. There is a preponderance of evidence by which I can justify this belief. Why must I believe in God in order to make that connection? Why is that a logical requirement?

@ fulhamish

I don't understand your question.

Yeah I think I misunderstood it too.

@Fulhamish
"Can I ask the true atheists here whether they believe in anything at and, if so, why?"

I consider myself a "true atheist" in that I believe there is no god. I identify myself as a Secular Humanist in that I believe strongly in the ability of people to change the world for the better. I believe that by employing peace, logic, education, understanding, and philanthropy, humanity can be its own best hope for improvement in its condition. Why do I believe this? History is full of examples of humanity's innovation, ingenuity, intelligence, and hard work. Yes, it's true that humanity has often employed these things to make life *worse* for one another, but on the balance, we've accomplished some great things. Quite simply put, I believe in humanity's power to change the world because it's the only thing that ever has.

I think we need to understand what fulhamish means by "true" atheist.

Because fulhamish, if you want to know the ONE thing that ALL atheists agree on, it is only that we reject the claim that a God exists.

Everything else various atheists say they believe in you will find disagreement on, and none of these things are required to be an atheist.

Yellow jacket, with respects carpets, doors etc. are easy - leaving aside QM of course(!). How about love, courage, humanity or, come to that hate, cowardice or evil? Where does an atheist such as you stand on these intangibles?

I assumed that's what he was asking. I assume he wanted to know that, if what unifies us is rejection of ideas, what disparate ideas to we affirm.

I believe that it is possible for a person to feel love towards another person, yes. It's possible for me to feel courageous, or cowardly, yes. What of it?

As a human being I have my own feelings about each. As an atheist I don't stand anywhere. None of these concepts requires a belief in God, so atheism doesn't help me address any of them.

That being said, by any testable means you can come up with to measure any of them, you'll find that atheists perform as well (or as badly) as believers.

At Hecks in your world view what exactly sets humanity apart from all of the other species that exist/have existed. Please be aware of anthropocentrism when you give your answer.