Has "atheism" become too large of a blanket term?

Question

I'm an Agnostic (or as some atheists would call a "weak atheist"). I've gotten into an argument recently with an atheist. He stated that Christians were all ignorant. I said it may be true that believing for a fact that God "definitely" exists is ignorant, but told him that so is believing that God "definitely does not" exist.

He replied that Atheism is a "lack of" faith in theism and that it didn't reject anything. He continued to state that a false thesis statement can't have a false antithesis statement.

After reading in Wikipedia I became aware very quickly that he was talking about "weak atheism," and not "strong atheism." Strong atheism is what most people stereotype atheists as being (rejection of God).

Before replying please check out this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

With our argument and the Wikipedia article in mind - do you think atheism has become a blanket term for all nontheism? If so, is that good or bad?

Answer 1

I think it has. Throughout history, anybody who doesn't fit in with the Official Religion (TM), tends to be labeled an atheist. The Roman polytheists accused the early Christians of being atheists for believing in only one god, and Buddhists have often been accused of atheism for not having a god.

Agnostics, Free Thinkers, Wiccans, New Agers, non-religious, Unitarians, theists, pantheists, and a whole bunch of 'none of the above' folks tend to get thrown into the same heap in America.

I think it's bad we all get thrown into the same pot together. There's been a propaganda campaign since the start of the Cold War to portray all atheists as Communist satanist child molesters who hate America, even though only a tiny percentage fit that image. It's just part of the Religious Corporate Military Industrial Complex's way of creating an imaginary boogeyman to distract people while they plunder the economy.

But I digress...

Answer 2

Eh...maybe. I know of many people who didn't know what an agnostic was, but they certainly knew what an atheist was (and hissed and spit as it was spoken). But I've never considered agnostics to be atheists at all. However, I have heard the terms weak and strong atheism and how sometimes, a weak atheist describes the agnostic. I just never use those terms.

Personally, I don't completely reject the possibility of there being a God. I find it very unlikely...but seeing as there is no proof and no possibility of there ever being proof, I do leave the door open a little bit. But I do consider myself an atheist more than an agnostic, mostly because I have more reason for believing there's NO God than I do for believing there IS a God...if you get what I mean.

Answer 3

If some people call you a weak atheist, that just means you're an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism is not separate from theism and atheism. (Keep in mind there's also gnosticism - in all truth, there are very few gnostic atheists.)

No one BELIEVES there is no God. It's simply the default state. But if some gnostic atheist says that even evidence for a god won't change his mind - Then... he's ignorant.

I don't know what blanket term means... Could you be more specific?

I am logically gnostic atheist, for example, towards the Christian God because this God CANNOT exist with all three properties: Omnicience, Omnipotence, Benevolence. Also, he cannot be omniscient and yet humans have free will.

Answer 4

Very interesting article and discussion. I have never heard of "weak atheism" or "strong atheism." Those terms make atheism sound like a religion with different sects. Many Christians, such as myself, are not ignorant by the way. We are quite capable of defending our faith through logic and reason, in addition to faith. Yet we are subjected to blanket stereotypes from atheists and agnostics. It appears now that the shoe is "on the other foot" so to speak... most fascinating!

Answer 5

If you misuse a word long enough, of course it loses its original meaning. Weak atheism is just another way of being agnostic. It sounds better than saying you are a weak agnostic.

I suppose it's also another way of saying you are not a god-hater, which could be the basis of rabid atheism.

But even with re-defining or qualifying the terms, you still would have a need, or to be prepared, to explain why you fit into any of these categories.

So why not just prepare the explanation and stick with the traditional terms?

Answer 6

Theism is claiming something is true until proven false.
a) "I can prove there is a 'god'!"
b) In a court of law, this would be "guilty until proven innocent".

Atheism is claiming something is false until proven true.
a) "No one has proven a 'god' exists, ergo there are none."
b) In a court of law, innocent until proven guilty.

Agnosticism, is claiming uncertainty.
a) "Maybe there is a 'god', maybe there isn't".
b) In a court of law, the defendant could be innocent _or_ guilty.

Agnosticism is all well and good when you're dealing with the metaphysical, but if you were on trial, would you want them to keep trying you over and over again until you're proven innocent or guilty? Or do you want a different burden of proof depending on the situation?

To be ethically consistent, you need to accept the same conditions and burdens of proof in ALL situations, not pick and choose the ones you like or don't like. Thus to be an agnostic about "god" means you must give up the benefit of presumed innocence in court (repetitive trials until one side is proven). Are you _really_ willing to do that?

As well, the atheistic point of view does _not_ preclude the possibility of a "god", it only addresses the reality that, without evidence, you presume the negative position.


.

Answer 7

Yes, I agree with you. As an agnostic, I get tired of seeing either atheist OR Christianity-centered questions. To Christians, if you don't believe in God then you're atheist, without any consideration for any other belief system.

I also think that it's a bad thing to categorize every non-Christian as atheist, because it attempts to take away the individuality that ALL non-Christians have, and fosters a stronger "Them vs. Us" attitude.

Answer 8

I think its most common use is that, yes. I think that's a bad thing, because it causes a lot of overgeneralization and assumptions that turn out to be simply untrue. For example, I am an atheist, strong atheist, because I don't believe in the existence of deities. I believe them only to be symbols or metaphors. However, I do have a lot of spiritual views - I'm a pagan and a Taoist.

However I get lumped in a lot with atheists who don't have spiritual views, and weak atheists. I tend to side with them, mind you, because I certainly have more in common with you than with those who belong to organized religion, but it doesn't mean we see things the same way.

The problem for me is that this lends itself to highly polarized thinking. This is oversimplified and stunted. I don't understand why everything must be black or white when there are so many colors to see. It's a bad habit of simple minds. I wish people would allow themselves to think in more complex ways.

Answer 9

I think most people do not comprehend the difference between weak and strong atheism, and while it would be helpful to further break down the group, most people would not understand why the distinction was being made. We would spend more time attempting to clarify and educate than anything else. (Which in and of itself might not be a bad thing, but is one *more* thing to have to continually post about on here.)

.

Answer 10

I see your point. I generally assert "there is no god" however, I am open to the posibility though I believe it to be extremely unlikely. We agree that gravity is true but there could be that single event that disproves the theory, that is a real possibility however people generally don't entertain it. That's the way I see the whole "god" thing.