Is atheism the disbelief in God or the absence of the belief in God?

Question

There are two different definitions of atheism floating around. Call me crazy, but I like to think when we are born we are not atheists or theists so the latter definition should be tossed out for not being specific. Animals do not believe in God, plants do not believe in God so are they atheist?

♪ music girl ♪ that's a different definition of atheism though and not a very good one. Calling a fertilized egg atheist just seems like your pushing atheist awareness or something.

Answer 1

But which "God" are you referring to? Jehovah? Allah? Osiris? Zeus? The Cosmos? Not believing in a biblical god does not make a person an atheist.

Answer 2

To me, disbelief and absence of belief are the same. An atheist does not believe in the supernatural, that's all.
You say that plants and animals do not believe in God. We have not yet been able to enter or understand the thinking process of animals. It could be that they're very religious, or not at all. who knows ?
I personally don't know why there are so many questions asked about the beliefs of Atheists. Religious people do not all think exactly alike. Atheists are not all stamped out with one cookie cutter. Each has his own mind and beliefs, the same as any other group.

Answer 3

It really depends on whom you talk to. There is no one set definition for atheist, just as there is no one set definition for Christian.

To put it simply, atheism is the opposite of theism. Going by how I define the two terms personally, they are both active beliefs pertaining to the existence of one or more deities. Theists actively believe that there is at least one deity; atheists actively believe that there are no deities at all.

Agnosticism can define these further. Agnostics believe that there is no way to prove the existence of any deity, but may or may not actively believe in one (or more) at the same time. Someone who is not agnostic in their beliefs believes that the existence of deities CAN be proven true or false.

As an example, I am an agnostic theist. I believe that all deities exist (Abrahamic, Hindu, Norse, Celtic, etc. - ALL of them), but I do not believe anyone can prove it.

To put it in your terms, an atheist (who is not agnostic) has a disbelief in God, and an agnostic atheist has an absence of belief in God.

I also believe that (other) animals and plants, who do not have the ability for abstract thought that humans do (which is necessary for belief in that which cannot be observed - like what religion pertains to) cannot be defined by religious terms. (Other) animals and plants are not atheist or theist - they are nonreligious. Atheism is still a religious belief, because it is a term defining a religious viewpoint.

Answer 4

I think these two theories are one in the same.
If you have the "absence of a belief of God" then you also "disbelieve in God". Right?
You only have 2 different ways of declaring the same thing.
How do you know what Animals and Plants believe??? I have yet to hear either express an opinion about anything. If you have heard from the flora &/or fona of the earth you have far finer ears than any of the rest of us. Plants open their pedals to the sun, turn their leaves over for rain, etc. Animals know in advance of a storm or drought etc and will gather in places of safe haven. How do they get such an instinct?? From GOD??? Huh?? I don't hear anything now!!!
Are you a so called atheist?? If the atheist's are so sure there is no God then why are they so concerned about Him?????

Answer 5

I think there is more than one "type" of atheism. We commonly speak of weak atheism and strong atheism; to me, strong atheism is the disbelief in a deity (I believe that no god exists) and weak atheism is the absense of belief in a deity (I do not believe a god exists). It may seem that these are splitting hairs, but the difference between the two is important one.

I think that we are all born (along with animals and plants) as nontheists. The concept isn't innate, it is taught. We are also nonSanta-ists and nonfairy-ists!

Answer 6

My atheism is primarily a matter of believing in those things for which I have evidence and remaining skeptical about everything else.

Everyone agrees that there is no evidence that Zeus was ever anything more than a mythical god. I believe the same thing is true of Yahweh, i.e. I believe the evidence is more consistent with the claim that the Hebrew Bible is myth than with the claim that it is the "word of God".

Answer 7

It's the absence of a belief in God, no matter how you get to that position.

There are several subtlely different definitions. Doesn't matter if you assert, "There is no god", or if you simply lack belief without evidence.

If you don't believe, no matter how you further qualify that, you are an atheist. That simple.

Answer 8

Animals and plants do not believe because they remain in a state of understanding. It is the human mind that does not want to part with itself, and clings to darkness for security. Atheism does not exist in God.

Answer 9

It's a lack of belief. But, if everyone around you believes, that becomes a more active disbelief. It's like this. You don't ACTIVELY disbelieve there's a monkey in your dishwasher until people start TELLING you there's a monkey in your dishwasher.

Weak atheism and strong atheism, respectively.

Answer 10

i think of the excellence you're making is being passive and lively atheism. somebody who's considered the proposition that there is a few thing we are in a position to legitimately call a god and rejected that's actively atheist. somebody who's on no account heard of the belief is passively atheist. those are 2 distinctive situations. yet many lively atheists prefer to declare primacy for their ideals by using seeing passive atheism because of the fact the organic, pre-social situation of humanity and conflating this with their very own lively stance. traditionally, the term 'atheist' arose in a cultural wherein perception in gods became into the traditional default. purely before the 5th century BCE, 'atheos' meant somebody who have been abandoned by using the gods. The gods existed, the unfavorable 'atheos' believed in them, they had purely became their backs on him for regardless of reason. (Greek non secular narrative must be incredibly brutal.) It became into basically interior the 5th century BCE that 'atheos' took on the form of meaning that we are used to on the instant. yet even then it became into used to show that somebody actively denied a god. much less oftentimes it meant somebody who denied all gods. Why much less oftentimes? because of the fact denying all gods became into very uncommon. lots greater person-friendly have been situations like Roman polytheists calling Christians 'atheists' and Christians calling Roman polytheists the same element. :-) If modern-day atheists choose yet another be conscious to describe their place, they are loose to coin one.