Happy Atheist Forum

Hey fellow atheists.......I think?

A bit about myself.
Up until I was in year 8 of high school, the thought of god had never entered my mind. I would have been about 12 or 13 when all the students in the school were divided up, placed into rooms with total strangers, who then started questioning us about god. When the question of "where we came from" was asked, I put my hand up and said "my parents had sex and my dads sperm entered my mums egg I came out a baby" Everybody laughed, including the Christians. The Christian said that is not what he meant. One then asked: where did the first man and woman come from. I had little knowledge of evolution also but at that time I thought we came from monkeys, so I said "we come from monkeys", everybody laughed louder. And so did the Christians.

They asked everybody to settle down and listen, because they had a story to tell us. And so the indoctrination began.

For me, after about 365 x 12 = 4380 days of having zero contemplation of god to suddenly have been ask to believe these stories was unbelievable. After the class, one of my friends asked me if I believed in god. I said no, and what the Christians said was the biggest load of B*LL SH*T I had ever heard in my life. My friend then told me I was an Atheist. I asked what an Atheist was and he explained it to me. He said an atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in god. I asked him if he believed in god. He said "yes". He then said "There is a god but you just don't believe in him". I found this insulting. I looked up the word Atheist in the dictionary and found that it came from Greek. 'A' meaning no. 'theist' meaning god. I agreed NO GOD. For me atheism has always meant 'NO GOD'. It had nothing to do with belief. It was a fact.

Recently while surfing the net, I found an atheist web site and thought I'd enter for a bit of fun to see what was happening. But I was shocked by the stance they took. Their position was not absolute. They had blended 'science' with atheism and said there is no credible evidence for the existence of god. They did not believe in god but they also did not deny gods existence. Suddenly I was thrust back to that day at school. And I fought them over the meaning of the word Atheist. They mockingly asked me if I knew what a dictionary was and they told me to look the word up. At first I didn't, but later I did. And yes, the dictionary mentioned the word "believe", much to my regret. I have since been banned from their web site.

Rather than cause any more disturbances on the internet I have decided not discuss the topic but rather ask a question:
What does atheism mean? I want to poll the question. for example:

What does atheism mean?
1.I don't believe in god because there is no credible evidence for his existence.
2.There is no god, there never has been, there never will be.
3.....

I'm not looking for a right or wrong answer, I'm just wondering what does atheism mean to you. If you have any answers that are different from the above please tell me. But I want to limit the number of answers to about 3 to 5 maximum. But more if necessary.

Please add an answer if you think it necessary.

Thanks for listening.

Atheism is being unconvinced of the existence of god or gods. It's simply a default position, the way we are born.

Atheism, what does it mean?

It means nothing to me, really. It's the word that is used to categorize me because of how I think and that's pretty much it. So I am an atheist in the same way that I am a human being. That's just the word for "what I am."

The previous replies were correct.

Please avoid giving atheism meanings it doesn't have - it is, after all, not a religion or a political doctrine.

Welcome Leveni
I don't recall anyone having a problem with Dawkins formulation
Very few 7s are thought to exist in the wild.
I would put myself in the 6+ range

Quote

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
   2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
   3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
   4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
   5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
   6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
   7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o ... robability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)

I am a "7"

Quote from: "notself"I am a "7"

But that infers belief and unravels your tightly bundled disbelief  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "notself"I am a "7"

But that infers belief and unravels your tightly bundled disbelief  :D

Quote from: "Tank"I'm 6 in my head and 7 in my heart  

Bob bless the "I'm 6 in my head and 7 in my heart"

I'm a 6, I do not believe in a supreme being of any kind.

I've posted this elsewhere. It's a screen capture from the Richard Dawkins Forum that was from a poll about the demographic there. It is interesting in this context as it shows the split between 'de-facto' atheist (6) and the 'strong' atheist (7).

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg594.imageshack.us%2Fimg594%2F2415%2Fatheistpoll.th.jpg&hash=6d4805a515c786ab8022f8eb6bfb0ca014f21aaf) (http://img594.imageshack.us/i/atheistpoll.jpg/)

I guess I'm on a sliding scale, being ignostic and all.

Can I be a 6.5?

Quote from: "Cite134"Can I be a 6.5?

This was continually debated at Richard Dawkins site. The consensus reached was 'no'. The scale is not analogue, but discrete, so you can's go for a 6.5  
If you wish to maintain a non-Faith based position with regard to your atheism 6 is far as you can go and maintain intellectual integrity.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Cite134"Can I be a 6.5?

This was continually debated at Richard Dawkins site. The consensus reached was 'no'. The scale is not analogue, but discrete, so you can's go for a 6.5  :/

And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "notself"I am a "7"

But that infers belief and unravels your tightly bundled disbelief  

No, it means I am convinced based on my experience, thoughts and understanding of how things are.  For one thing after having cancer and two biopsies where I thought each time that I was having a recurrence, I know I am mortal and when I die there will be and end to me.

I'm an anti-1 6  

Quote from: "PoopShoot"And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

And if the chisel was flawed?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

And if the chisel was flawed?

That's not quite the analogy as I would see it. What would be possible are different types of chisels for different jobs. If the Dawkins scale doesn't suit what you/one wants to say then don't use it, find another tool that suits what you want to say better. As you are an ignostic the Dawkins' scale probably isn't the right tool for you to express your position anyway because, if I understand ignostisism, it's already gone a step to far in placing belief in God on a scale where an ignostic would first say 'define God'. But for people that do wish to define themselves in context of the Dawkins' scale they should use it properly and possibly add their own personal caveats as needed. I did for a while say I was a 6.9 until the discrete nature of the scale was pointed out to me. That's why I say I am rationally a 6, while emotionally a 7. In general terms trying to force a tool to do something it is not designed to do is not a good idea. And a good carpenter/engineer will have a range of tools/techniques and will deploy and use them as an when they are suited to the task at hand. So simply consider the Dawkins scale as one tool in a whole range.

You are correct in that I wouldn't be able to even use the scale without first defining who we were talking about, as I see different iterations of "god" as more or less probable.  That said, there is an inherent flaw in a scale that denies transitional measurements and to me it undersores a fatal flaw in Dawkins thinking processes: he imagines that imaginary borders are real.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You are correct in that I wouldn't be able to even use the scale without first defining who we were talking about, as I see different iterations of "god" as more or less probable.  That said, there is an inherent flaw in a scale that denies transitional measurements and to me it undersores a fatal flaw in Dawkins thinking processes: he imagines that imaginary borders are real.

We're slitting hairs here. Dawkins' scale is what is is. He created it as a thought experiment in the context of the chapter of his book. It is 'fit for purpose' in that context and as an illustrative tool, a very blunt tool.

How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

Quote from: "Tank"How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

The same way most scales go: define what the whole numbers mean and don't get pedantic over decimals.

Most scales go up when you stand on them...that much I know.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

The same way most scales go: define what the whole numbers mean and don't get pedantic over decimals.

Sorry, that does not cut it. Some data is discrete while some is analogue. If you count the number of cars passing a particular point on the road you wont get 0.5 of a car passing, you will get discrete whole values. If you measure length it has an analogue value, which you can measure with varying degrees of accuracy and the nature on the units you use may allow you to express that measurement as a decimal fraction. As the Dawkins scale is designed as a discrete set of options that is all you can have, it's in the nature of the scale as designed. If one wishes to abuse the terminology of the scale as designed one can, but it will not be using the measure as designed. The Dawkins scale is a set of discrete choices it is not an analogue quantity in the first place.

I have no belief in gods, therefore, I am an atheist.
I have no belief in smurfs, therfore I am an asmurfist.

Quote from: "Tank"Sorry, that does not cut it. Some data is discrete while some is analogue. If you count the number of cars passing a particular point on the road you wont get 0.5 of a car passing, you will get discrete whole values. If you measure length it has an analogue value, which you can measure with varying degrees of accuracy and the nature on the units you use may allow you to express that measurement as a decimal fraction. As the Dawkins scale is designed as a discrete set of options that is all you can have, it's in the nature of the scale as designed. If one wishes to abuse the terminology of the scale as designed one can, but it will not be using the measure as designed. The Dawkins scale is a set of discrete choices it is not an analogue quantity in the first place.

Unfortunately, thoughts aren't cars.  They don't end at the fenders.  The very fact that you have to qualify your own D-scale rating is evidence of its weakness, and shows that the scale tries to make discrete that which is inherently amorphous.

eta:  I'm a 6.

@Tank:
Yes, it is a discreet set of values used to measure an analog reality, hence its flaws.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"@Tank:
Yes, it is a discreet set of values used to measure an analog reality, hence its flaws.

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this point.

It's nominal data, it's inherently "flawed" however a sliding scale suffers the same by merely creating the illusion of measurable data, this method is just as inaccurate and flawed on it's own. The data is subjective and as pedantic as anyone wants to get, the values are still subjective in that our values cannot be accurately compared to each other. However a method for showing a more accurate and useful set of data on subjective terms requires several (20 to 50) questions of ordinal values and of nominal values. Only with those kinds of questionnaires can we even come close to being able to more accurately compare subjective values. Without subjecting everyone you meet to a series of questions, the Dawkins scale at least creates some useful definitions that one can work from.

I'm assuming that Dawkins just wanted a blunt tool for people to be better able to quickly express their views on god, in that way it is effective for most people. Because there are a few outliers doesn't mean it's flawed, when it serves a useful purpose. I'm sure that Dawkins understands that these categories aren't going to match very many people accurately, just as defining a species never accurately defines what a creature is. However using the concept of species we have something defined we can work from, which is what the purpose of his scale appears to be. Considering the utility of such a device, I think it's more effective than just using atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic dichotomies, if nothing more than just gives the classifications more complexity.

I can understand that, but the exercise is subjective by nature.  If someone asks "what are you?" and I say "5.3", it's a valid subjective assessment of what I think.  The other person can't say "well you're doing it wrong".  That's no different than Eddy saying "you're an atheist, so you're a nihilist", it's just to a lesser degree.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"I can understand that, but the exercise is subjective by nature.  If someone asks "what are you?" and I say "5.3", it's a valid subjective assessment of what I think.  The other person can't say "well you're doing it wrong".  That's no different than Eddy saying "you're an atheist, so you're a nihilist", it's just to a lesser degree.

Is that "5.3" with the Dawkins scale or the one you proposed with two values and a sliding scale between them? If it's the latter, then what are the two values on each end?

It was an example, but I was addressing the Dawkins scale.  Here's another scale that neatly packages everyone into neat little boxes, even if they don't really fit: http://christian-cross-talk.blogspot.co ... e-you.html (http://christian-cross-talk.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-what-kind-of-atheist-are-you.html)

I try not to call myself an atheist any more, though it is technically accurate, because I was influenced by a YouTube video by eightfootmanchild.  Let's see if I can figure out the tags:
[youtube:qswx331n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M[/youtube:qswx331n]

QuoteAsmodean
Please avoid giving atheism meanings it doesn't have - it is, after all, not a religion or a political doctrine.

I agree, I think this sums up my feeling up until I entered my first Atheist site. Up until then I gave the subject no real thought. In my mind the meaning was just NO GOD, but there was no thinking or deeper meaning involved.

QuoteThe Magic Pudding,
the 1 to 7 thing by Dawkins

I had to laugh at what tank put down

QuoteI'm 6 in my head and 7 in my heart

but I think I'll stick with what Asmodean said.

http://img594.imageshack.us/i/atheistpoll.jpg/
Thanks tank, I think that is exactly what I was going to do. I kind of that that the response would be something similar to that.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Atheism, what does it mean?

It means nothing to me, really. It's the word that is used to categorize me because of how I think and that's pretty much it. So I am an atheist in the same way that I am a human being. That's just the word for "what I am."

this is the level i reached just a little under a year ago.

I only call myself atheist because it's the short way of saying "i'm too old for fairytales".

but really to me, i'm not an atheist.....

....I'm an uncle
a catering coordinator
a tobacco distributor
a baby sitter
a friend
a brother (i mean like biological)
a boyfriend
a floral hobbyist
a tax payer

when talking to a person and religion comes up I don't actually say the word "Atheist"

I just say, I'm too old for that.

I'm an adult with more interesting things going on than wacky old boys clubs that were made up when humans thought the world was flat.