Vic2Ree:

Very interesting. Do you believe in a god, or you know there is a god. Also please provide a description of this god. Thanks

XXXXTENTACION:
Is Jesus a whiteman ...

Vic2Ree:

Hmmm. In most cases, this proposition is a response to the theist claim that god(s) exist. At least, speaking for myself, my active disbelief in god is as a result of lack of evidence for god(s) as described by multiple religions. As a result of this lack of evidence, I choose to withhold belief. So I don't see how I could be making any claims myself but please enlighten me.

Edited

jamesid29:

Okay, so let's read through the entire section where you got that extract from

Please what do you think that portion is trying to say again?

jamesid29:

Technically (at least from a philosopher's point of view) to withhold or suspend belief for whatever reason does not make one an atheist (at least not under the standard definition).
The problem statement is, Does God exist? Theism give a positive answer of yes.
The "a" in a-theism should be considered as a negation, so if theism is construed as the proposition that God does exist, then atheism is an answer to the question by stating that No, God(s) do not exist.
And if theism is to be broadened to a set of religious beliefs then atheism is more broadly a rejection of all forms of religious beliefs, regardless of their position about the divine ( this was what the extract reed was trying to point out).
The answer "lack of belief" is just a claim about the state of mind of the person, not a claim about existence/inexistence of God. It is not an answer to the question itself.

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

LordReed:


It makes it clear that the meaning of atheism has to be broader than merely saying it is a claim that gods do not exist.

LordReed:


Just like it is unsettling to some Christians that other Christians exist under that label who do not hold beliefs they consider core to being considered Christian yet the definition is broad enough to accommodate those differing beliefs.

jamesid29:


With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

jamesid29:

This in no way negates anything I wrote. There are many christians who choose to say that Christianity is not a religion (but just a relationship). That doesn't change the fact that Christianity is in fact a religion and if one was to study it, one would study it as a religion.

We live in a world where people choose to define terms on their own for one reason or another, which is fine(as I stated in my piece),but doesn't make their "definition" authoritative.

Pls read what I wrote again in it's entirety. I've pasted the most relevant part IMO below
Point is, you can choose to subscribe with the "lack of belief" definition. That is within your proragative.
What is outside of your prorogative is to say that atheism should not be defined as " the proposition that God(s) do not exist" ; Especially when that is the standard definition within the field that studies it itself.

You can not say I'm wrong with the standard definition the same way I cannot disregard the big bang theory as purely an educated guess because I choose to define theory using it's colloquial understanding of being something that is a "an idea or opinion". That might be true for an everyday conversation but that is not true for the field of science itself or a scientific theory. Of course within science itself, there can be majority and minority views but that's a separate conversation on its own and should be weighed on each views merit.

jamesid29:

And what it does is cast a wider the definition to
include all rejection of religious beliefs if theism is defined as a set of religious beliefs.
Nowhere in that section does it propose that atheism includes a "lack of belief".

Pls read the section in full again to understand it's claim

Also read my read my reply to vic2ree for further expansion of thoughts.

MaxInDHouse:

Whether white, yellow or black the truth is that a divinely gifted man lived with Jew in the first century. So his skin color is of no benefits to me but his teachings that is uniting people from all races making them LOVE one another more than blood relations and infusing in their brains the idea that killing people because of racism or politics is not right.
That's the importance of Jesus Christ not his skin color, you bunch of FOOLS!

XXXXTENTACION:
Is jesus a jew...

MaxInDHouse:

He was born bread and raised amongst the Jews by a Jewish couple, i don't bloody care about that just as i don't care about the skin colour or nationality of the man who invented telephone before i began using it!

jamesid29:

Technically (at least from a philosopher's point of view) to withhold or suspend belief for whatever reason does not make one an atheist (at least not under the standard definition).
The problem statement is, Does God exist? Theism give a positive answer of yes.
The "a" in a-theism should be considered as a negation, so if theism is construed as the proposition that God does exist, then atheism is an answer to the question by stating that No, God(s) do not exist.
And if theism is to be broadened to a set of religious beliefs then atheism is more broadly a rejection of all forms of religious beliefs, regardless of their position about the divine ( this was what the extract reed was trying to point out).
The answer "lack of belief" is just a claim about the state of mind of the person, not a claim about existence/inexistence of God. It is not an answer to the question itself.

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

jamesid29:

Yeah. So if the the question of the existence/inexistence of the divine falls under the field of philosophy, would you agree that the adequate definition of atheism should come from from the field of philosophy itself?

jamesid29:

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

ismbook.com/ism-list/

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

jamesid29:

Technically (at least from a philosopher's point of view) to withhold or suspend belief for whatever reason does not make one an atheist (at least not under the standard definition).
The problem statement is, Does God exist? Theism give a positive answer of yes.
The "a" in a-theism should be considered as a negation, so if theism is construed as the proposition that God does exist, then atheism is an answer to the question by stating that No, God(s) do not exist.
And if theism is to be broadened to a set of religious beliefs then atheism is more broadly a rejection of all forms of religious beliefs, regardless of their position about the divine ( this was what the extract reed was trying to point out).
The answer "lack of belief" is just a claim about the state of mind of the person, not a claim about existence/inexistence of God. It is not an answer to the question itself.

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

jamesid29:

And it's [worth] noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

XXXXTENTACION:
The devil invented the internet and you use the internet do you know you are already going to hell... ..

jamesid29:

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

ismbook.com/ism-list/

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

jamesid29:

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.

jamesid29:

And it's what worth noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

jamesid29:

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry, will set the stage for discussing an important distinction between global atheism and local atheism, which in turn will be helpful for distinguishing different forms of agnosticism.

Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods

jamesid29:

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

Near1:


These four references from your list did not support your assertion:

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/
"The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism...of-atheism
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):" etc.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10....&result=11
"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence."
(Both Oxford references led to the same place.)

I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).

In the meantime, it appears such philosophical references do not present any consistent definition for atheism between them and perhaps within them.

jamesid29:

Okayy. How is that contradictory to what I stated?


Firstly sir,The link you pasted is incorrect and I did a word search on britannica's topic on atheism, but your exert didn't come up. Below is Britannica's reference on athiesm under the subject of philosophy. I'll also paste a picture of it's entry if you'd like.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism


Again here sir, your link does not pan out.

Oxford references is not the same as "The oxford companion to philosophy" or "oxford dictionary of philosophy". This two are specific dictionaries, while oxford references is an all purpose site with references from a wide variety of oxford publication.

Below is the reference by "The oxford companion to philosophy" and link
atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.... ...
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-e-166?rskey=3OGKCc&result=166

And a quick Google search for a definition from Oxford References itself gives the below definition:

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.
below are the links:
https:///3EqCtjp or you can go directly to the google link.: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374#:~:text=The%20theory%20or%20belief%20that,'%20%2B%20theos%20'god'.

Although I should also mention that the oxford dictionary of philosophy(Simon Blackburn) in it's 3rd edition does include "lack of belief" alongside the standard definition as a it's entry.
https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=Mno8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false [ page 36]



I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).

I'm not sure we're looking at the same references sir.
And also I'm not sure how you missed the first entry on my post(Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). since it's one of the most fully fledged piece on the subject with lots of references. And also one of the most cited online encyclopedias of philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/


In the meantime, it appears such philosophical references do not present any consistent definition for atheism between them and perhaps within them.

Kindly read my replies to vic2ree a fuller expansion of thought on the matter.

Vic2Ree:

I get your point but you seem to be ignoring the fact that not all atheists are part of academia. Most people who disbelieve in god(s) don't have any knowledge of philosophy or care to have said knowledge. At the end of the day, I think our perspectives are ultimately subjective and only you can understand your own beliefs

jamesid29:

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine.

LordReed:

Wrong. Once again atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is not the proposition that gods do not exist. Try again.

LordReed:


Read this section and digest it.

LordReed:


It's almost as if you only read a few lines and stop. The following is from the Stanford page:

jamesid29:

I have. Again can you kindly point out where it deviates from the standard position?

Also, it seems you are even missing the point of the conversation. Pls see my reply to vic2rer

LordReed:


You are proposing we adhere to a strict philosophical definition of atheism are you not?

jamesid29:

Near1:

These four references from your list did not support your assertion:

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/
"The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

Okayy. How is that contradictory to what I stated?

It turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

jamesid29:

Near1:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism...of-atheism
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):" etc.

Firstly sir,The link you pasted is incorrect and I did a word search on britannica's topic on atheism, but your exert didn't come up. Below is Britannica's reference on athiesm under the subject of philosophy. I'll also paste a picture of it's entry if you'd like.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways.

jamesid29:

Near1:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10....&result=11
"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence."
(Both Oxford references led to the same place.)

Again here sir, your link does not pan out.

Oxford references is not the same as "The oxford companion to philosophy" or "oxford dictionary of philosophy". This two are specific dictionaries, while oxford references is an all purpose site with references from a wide variety of oxford publication.

jamesid29:

Below is the reference by "The oxford companion to philosophy" and link
atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.... ...
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-e-166?rskey=3OGKCc&result=166

jamesid29:

And a quick Google search for a definition from Oxford References itself gives the below definition:

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.
below are the links:
https:///3EqCtjp or you can go directly to the google link.: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374#:~:text=The%20theory%20or%20belief%20that,'%20%2B%20theos%20'god'.

jamesid29:

Although I should also mention that the oxford dictionary of philosophy(Simon Blackburn) in it's 3rd edition does include "lack of belief" alongside the standard definition as a it's entry.
https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=Mno8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false [ page 36]

jamesid29:

Near1:
I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).

I'm not sure we're looking at the same references sir.
And also I'm not sure how you missed the first entry on my post(Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). since it's one of the most fully fledged piece on the subject with lots of references. And also one of the most cited online encyclopedias of philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

jamesid29:

It is within each person's propagative

The conversation only started when reed(like most people tend to do online) tend to disregard standard definitions and only make their own prefered definition the legitimate/authoritive one.

jamesid29:

I also get your point and if you go through what my earlier posts, I personally in no way have a problem how people choose to self identify.
It is within each person's propagative to choose what to believe without even needing to justify it as long as they are not trampling on the right of others or causing societal or self harm.
Below is an exert:

I'm also not a philosopher by any stretch of the word
The conversation only started when reed(like most people tend to do online) tend to disregard standard definitions and only make their own prefered definition the legitimate/authoritive one.


If the answer has simply being something along the lines of, " I acknowledge the other definition(s) but I only subscribe to this particular definition cos it better articulates what I hold to be true".
That would have been a different conversation and in my opinion a legitimate answer.

I hope you get where I'm coming from sir.

jamesid29:
[size=8pt][/size]
There's a lot to unpack here but I think you missed the central points of my claims.

Pls refer to some of my other post to Reed and vic2ree (especially the last one), to get the core of what I was pointing out. Thanks