Support NeoGAF

[Mister Apoc]

Hey guys, just wanted to get your thoughts on this As you all know, Einstein was certaintly not a theist, but he also wasn't (I would argue) a strict materialist, he certaintly talked many times about a general "cosmic religious" feeling that he had about the nature of reality and he of course subscribed to "Spinoza's God"



some of what he has said

"The very fact that the totality of our sense experiences is such that by means of thinking (operations with concepts, and the creation and use of definite functional relations between them, and the coordination of sense experiences to these concepts) it can be put in order, this fact is one which leaves us in awe, but which we shall never understand. One may say 'the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.' It is one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that the postulation of a real external world would be senseless without this comprehensibility.

"In speaking here of "comprehensibility," the expression is used in its most modest sense. It implies: the production of some sort of order among sense impressions, this order being produced by the creation of general concepts, relations between these concepts, and by definite relations of some kind between the concepts and sense experience. It is in this sense that the world of our sense experiences is comprehensible. The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[

He wrote this in a letter

"The fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' – cannot hear the music of the spheres."

"A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels."

Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because

"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook

He defintelly doesn't hold back, but is his perception here misleading? One thing that I have noticed just studying the early pioneers of quantum mechanics is how many of them would not fit under the typical "strict materialist" label that one would assume. Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli etc. were certaintly not Christian theists but they had an almost spiritual and religious fervor to their outlook of reality. Dirac is probably the closest to being the hardcore atheist of that group.

seems like Einstein though Atheism as an identity or "ideology/movement" i.e professional atheists was cringe and stupid

 

[O-N-E]

Yes, he was a deist, believing in a creator but not one who dotes on his creations.

God does not play dice.

Surprised we're getting a non-troll M Mister Apoc thread. Feeling philosophical?

 

[buizel]

Einstein would be described as a nazi but he actually disliked nazis

 

[INC]

Its all relative tbh

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Product of the times. He had to play ball to do the things he wanted. He's also not wrong, a full blown atheist can be an asshole and is the utopian version without religion. The agnostic is a better real world solution in practice.

 

[bitbydeath]

IMO Atheism just a term made up by the religious to include non religious folk in their circle of insanity.

 

[showernota]

I think most atheists nowadays are actually antitheists.

 

[Taxexemption]

IMO Atheism just a term made up by the religious to include non religious folk in their circle of insanity.

Oh Boy...

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNo4F3mz70-UqRbKwjRmRWg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Wu9X3zS1YKVJh1Hx-73JQ

Those are some rabbit holes you should go down. There is a huge atheist community in Austin, and I used to like them but over time they've gotten more political and onboard with social justice stuff, which is the general direction the atheist communities that exist have been headed in.


Also my favorite video about the atheist community,





For those that don't know, Dave Silverman is one of the most famous atheists in the US. I mean after Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. He slept with Matt Dillahunty's wife, Matt is one of the hosts of the atheist experience. There was a ton of drama around it, and the way Dave tells the story is hilarious.

 

[Rentahamster]

Hey guys, just wanted to get your thoughts on this

First you need to state your definitions. Einstein liked to call himself an "agnostic" instead of an "atheist". In the most common definition of "atheism" those are nearly the same thing. However, it looks like Einstein took "atheism" to mean a positive belief in the non-existence of God (non-standard definition), which is why he preferred the label "agnostic".

When Einstein says, "God", that is a completely different God than what an average Christian or Jewish person's concept of "God" is. "Spinoza's God" is not the God of the Bible.

Therefore, with those definitions in mind, Einstein is an atheist with respect to the Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc, because he doesn't believe in any of their gods or a concept of god that remotely resembles any of theirs.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. [...] For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. [...] I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]."

From his own perspective, however, you could call him a deist, theist, pantheist, agnostic or whatever, because he did believe in something greater, and in the laws of the universe, but at that point you might as well call it "nature" as those two words end up having the same meaning. It's Einstein's god.

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza). "

 

[Tesseract]

he disliked anything that was spooky action at a distance

nonlocal phenomena separated by space / time

 

[DESTROYA]

Hey OP will you engage in the thread or abandon it like you do in all your other threads ?

 

[eot]

Einstein writes of 'childish superstition'

Little-known letter from famous scientist to sell for up to £8,000 and provoke further controversy

www.theguardian.com

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

Yes, he was a deist, believing in a creator but not one who dotes on his creations.
Surprised we're getting a non-troll M Mister Apoc thread. Feeling philosophical?

So what did Einstein really mean by the word ‘God’ in his statement? Einstein of course believed in mathematical laws of nature, so his idea of a God was at best someone who formulated the laws and then left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws. He saw the hand of God in the precise nature of physical laws, in their mathematical beauty and elegance, and in their simplicity. To him, the very fact that there were natural laws that the human mind could discover was evidence of a God, not a God who superseded these laws but one who created them. Thus his use of the word God is to be interpreted as the existence of natural laws of great mathematical beauty, whatever form they might take.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.1656.pdf

 

[M1chl]

As far as I know he was pretty heavily religious.

 

[Mohonky]

Not sure what your point is.

Isaac Newton wrote about and observed motion and force, described gravity and its effects.

But as far as why gravity existed his answer was basically 'because God'.

 

[Coolwhhip]

Science is a bitch sometimes.

Agnostic is the only thing that makes sense anyway so Im siding with my man Einstein.

 

[T8SC]

The universe is made of, 12 particles of matter, 4 forces of nature.


That's a wonderful & significant story.

 

[Illo]

I prefer to say atheist. Because I feel like that avoids opening the floor to conversation with theists on belief systems and religions. I want to shut down any conversation on that.

I don't believe in some God or God's. But I do think there is some form of higher thing, but it may not even be sentient or cognitive in anyway. But rather just a existing catalyst that was responsible for creation.

Any question or people's ideas on existence is equally crazy. But I think religion is crazier, at least to me.

 

[diffusionx]

Nobody likes atheists

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Being an atheist is all fun and laughter until you met the black void demon in DMT hyperspace.

Einstein is right, agnostic is where it's at.

 

[Unknown Quantity]

I thought Agnostic is a lazy man's Atheist.

Spirituality is an internal matter for me, its between you & your God/deity or whoever or whatever you believe in. You can tell people about it or share, but don't let them shape your beliefs or redirect them.

From my understanding most scientists who are atheist/agnostic hit a point where Science or the instruments at the time can't help. Thus they become more spiritual, open & reflective. Evidence & data are vitally important, so is a mind open to other possibilities.

Einsteins contribution is appreciated & it helped humanity move forward. His spirituality was his own.

There were other great scientists at the time. One I didn't know but others appreciated his work in the early 20th century was Moses Schonfinkel (Logic/computing). Thanks Tesseract for passing the knowledge along.

Where Did Combinators Come From? Hunting the Story of Moses Schönfinkel—Stephen Wolfram Writings

A dive into the unknown personal and academic history of the mathematician who developed combinators, Moses Schönfinkel.

writings.stephenwolfram.com

 

[JimmyRustler]

If you boil it down you can says that he believed in a god that neither made us, looks like us or influences our lifes in any way.

So if you ain't a Bhuddist you may as well call him an atheist.

 

[Clear]

I thought Agnostic is a lazy man's Atheist.

I've never understood how agnosticism is lazier than atheism. It seems to me just like any sort of rational centrism, where one can see the faults in the two polar opposite extreme doctrines and navigates a path taking the best of both into consideration and discarding their most dogmatic parts.

I think theologically this makes more sense than politically because these things are by definition, absolutes.

 

[Airola]

I've never understood how agnosticism is lazier than atheism.

Probably because either atheism or theism is the truth. Agnosticism can't be the truth. Either there is a god or there isn't. Agnostics don't want to take the leap of faith to either direction. That's why it's lazy. Now agnosticism might be the most honest position, but it's also the laziest.

 

[Relativ9]

I'm definitely something of an Atheist (I don't believe there is need for the ambiguity of declaring myself agnostic, when it's a 99.99% in one direction and 00.01% in the other). But regardless of what most "militant" atheists think, or what Einstein thought, I don't think atheism precludes you form having any supernatural/mystical/spiritual leanings what so ever, it just precludes you from subscribing to organized/documented theist belief structures. Dark energy is pretty fucking mysterious atm, we know it's there because we can see it's effects on the the fabric of space around it, but we don't know much else about it...you could chose to assign some sort of mystical belief to this but it still wouldn't make you a theist and so you would be an atheist.

 

[Rentahamster]

I've never understood how agnosticism is lazier than atheism. It seems to me just like any sort of rational centrism, where one can see the faults in the two polar opposite extreme doctrines and navigates a path taking the best of both into consideration and discarding their most dogmatic parts.

I think theologically this makes more sense than politically because these things are by definition, absolutes.

Atheism is not a doctrine. Nor is it dogmatic, or an absolute. Definitionally, it can't be.

Probably because either atheism or theism is the truth. Agnosticism can't be the truth. Either there is a god or there isn't. Agnostics don't want to take the leap of faith to either direction. That's why it's lazy. Now agnosticism might be the most honest position, but it's also the laziest.

Same problem. That's not the definition of "atheism". Atheism doesn't mean "there is no god". It merely means "I don't believe there is a god." Big difference. One makes a claim and has a burden of proof. The other does not.

 

[Airola]

Same problem. That's not the definition of "atheism". Atheism doesn't mean "there is no god". It merely means "I don't believe there is a god." Big difference. One makes a claim and has a burden of proof. The other does not.

Either there is a god or there isn't a god.
Someone believes there is a god.
Someone believes there is no god.
Only one of them can be right in their beliefs.

It's that simple.

An agnostic does not want to take the leap of faith to make either one of those belief claims, even though one of those beliefs is the truth. That's why it is lazy. It's honest because the fact is that we don't know, but it's still lazy because of the lack of will to take a stand.

 

[Coolwhhip]

Either there is a god or there isn't a god.
Someone believes there is a god.
Someone believes there is no god.
Only one of them can be right in their beliefs.

It's that simple.

An agnostic does not want to take the leap of faith to make either one of those belief claims, even though one of those beliefs is the truth. That's why it is lazy. It's honest because the fact is that we don't know, but it's still lazy because of the lack of will to take a stand.

Taking a stand on something where you have no clue what is the truth sounds like stupidity to me.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

People who talk about their atheism and people who talk about their abstinence-pledge rings are both coming from the same headspace.

 

[Airola]

Taking a stand on something where you have no clue what is the truth sounds like stupidity to me.

Sure if you have no clue. There are enough things written and studied about the subject that you certainly can have at least some clue and take a stand based on them.

 

[teezzy]

I'm a buddhist

 

[Coolwhhip]

Sure if you have no clue. There are enough things written and studied about the subject that you certainly can have at least some clue and take a stand based on them.

Oh, could you link to a scientific study on the existence of a god?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Oh, could you link to a scientific study on the existence of a god?

Could you link a scientific study on the preeminence of the scientific method?

(logical positivism was dead in the cradle but ppl forget. Blessed Wittgenstein)

 

[Rentahamster]

Either there is a god or there isn't a god.

Yup, so far so good.

Someone believes there is a god.

These people exist.

Someone believes there is no god.

These people also exist.

Only one of them can be right in their beliefs.

It's that simple.

Not quite.

Person A says, "God exists", making a claim. Person A is a theist.

Person B says, "I don't believe you", a response to Person A's claim. Person B is an atheist.

Person C says, "I believe God does not exist". Person C is also an atheist, but a narrower subset due to the nature of their belief.

What B and C share in common is that they don't believe A. That is what atheism is. There is no claim.

C takes it a step further, adds a claim, and thus adds on their own burden of proof.

An agnostic does not want to take the leap of faith to make either one of those belief claims, even though one of those beliefs is the truth. That's why it is lazy. It's honest because the fact is that we don't know, but it's still lazy because of the lack of will to take a stand.

What does taking a leap of faith or taking a stand have to do with laziness? The time to believe something is when you have evidence for it. Saying, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response when one has insufficient information.

Pretending to know the answer when you don't have enough information to justify that answer is not good logic.

 

[FreedomOfSpeech]

To me, atheism means not being convinced that any hitherto posited god is real.

Doesn't mean we should throw babies out with the bathwater. A society's stability depends upon its people behaving in certain ways.

 

[Unknown Quantity]

I've never understood how agnosticism is lazier than atheism. It seems to me just like any sort of rational centrism, where one can see the faults in the two polar opposite extreme doctrines and navigates a path taking the best of both into consideration and discarding their most dogmatic parts.

I think theologically this makes more sense than politically because these things are by definition, absolutes.

It was a joke from the community team (Harmon & Chase could've been involved). That I felt was apt. The rest of my comment reflects me.

Discussion, ideas & knowledge are more important to me. Spirituality is internal.

Didn't mean to waylay anyone but I'm happy with the discussion.

Edit:

 

[Decontamination Silo]

Well yeah, he was a Zionist Jew. That's not a secret.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Discussions on atheism commonly retreat to "show me the science". I think this is an unintended result of the arguments that rose up between christian creationists and scientists studying evolution, and this robs the argument of most of its meat.

I'm not as interested in that side of the argument because I reject materialism, the belief that the material world and our tools in the material world are sufficient for determining reality. My evidence for this belief is my consciousness, my a priori knowledge of certain concepts, and my observation of information in the material universe.

Atheists enjoy the dodge "I'm not making a claim, I'm merely refusing to accept the religious claim" so I will utilize the same dodge here: in my paradigm, I'm not rejecting materialism based on a competing ideology like deism. I'm simply asking materialism to prove itself, to "show me the science".

And here is where logical positivism comes in like a sledge. It was originally distilled as a philosophy to end all philosophies. Much like atheists do now, the great minds of logical positivism like Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and AJ Ayer wanted to do away with wishy-washy claims in metaphysics and philosophy, silly claims that were nothing but wordplay and vapid navel gazing. The core of their idea is that any statement should be backed up with sound logic and clear definitions that connected back to something real, some observable fact. But these materialists logical positivists ran aground of their own rules as they dug deeper. The dwarves uncovered a balrog: how can we verify our claim about "true meaning" only coming from verifiable things? Or to put it another way, how can our Ultimate Law of verifiability be verified?

They were stumped, and remain so. Logical positivism is the farthest that logic and materialism ever got, and there it remains. People keep circling back and forgetting and laying it aside, but it's a repeat of old arguments already solved 100 years ago. We "proved" that an unprovable meta layer is always necessary. Belief in the unprovable is a fact of our reality and is a fact of the human's ability to think.

Godel figured that out too around the same time with his incompleteness theorems.

The existence of this principle -- the necessity of a metalayer always existing above any closed system -- has yet to be explained by materialists in a satisfactory way.

The existence of information is another tricky little one they can't solve, and I don't expect them to any time soon.

Atheism based on the idea of a cruel god, or unfairness, or things like that... I can respect that. Existential arguments and nihilistic arguments are genuine atheism, because they attempt to grapple directly with the claims of religion and philosophy on their own terms. Modern atheism is mostly "lol you believe in Noahs ark? haha another win for atheism"

All of these arguments were around in Einstein's time and shaped his thinking as well. He rejected religion but very much believed in an ultimate Mind that designed the universe.

 

[Relativ9]

Taking a stand on something where you have no clue what is the truth sounds like stupidity to me.

I'm sure you have the same opinion about Lizardmen, UFO's, Big Foot, Atlantis, Santa Clause, The Greek Pantheon, The Norse Pantheon, The Egyptian Pantheon, ect ect. If you say you don't believe in any of those, are you then taking a stand on them without evidence? I don't remember who said it, but the vast majority of people on earth are agnostics about 99.9% of every faith based claim ever made, atheists just include the .1% that's leftover.

 

[Relativ9]

They were stumped, and remain so. Logical positivism is the farthest that logic and materialism ever got, and there it remains. People keep circling back and forgetting and laying it aside, but it's a repeat of old arguments already solved 100 years ago. We "proved" that an unprovable meta layer is always necessary. Belief in the unprovable is a fact of our reality and is a fact of the human's ability to think.

You're slightly strawmanning it here, though you make a valid point; logical positivism indeed ran up against that issue, mostly due to how strictly "verification" of everything was at its core.

But materialism isn't the same thing. It isn't banging up against the wall of "the origin of origins" in some existential crisis that defeats the entire philosophy, being a materialist (usually) doesn't mean you refute the concept of something being unprovable "the unprovable meta layer" as you called it, it's perfectly fine to accept it as being unprovable and move on to the things that are...all faiths and philosophies run up against the same issue, it is as you say an unavoidable fact of reality. A theist saying "we cannot know the mystery of the will of God" is no more or less significant than a materialist saying "we do not yet know, and we might never"...it is an admission of the limits of our thinking, perspective on the universe, and current as well as potential discoveries, not a defeat of the ideology. Materialism for example makes the claim that everything in existence can be described by and are the result of physical processes, including consciousness, but it does not make the claim that we know that description, or that we will ever know it.

 

[Airola]

Oh, could you link to a scientific study on the existence of a god?

I can link plenty of philosophic works on the existence of a god but I doubt you'll accept them.

 

[SaturnSaturn]

Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that militant atheism is a straight pathway to nihilism and a shitty spitefull life.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You're slightly strawmanning it here, though you make a valid point; logical positivism indeed ran up against that issue, mostly due to how strictly "verification" of everything was at its core.

But materialism isn't the same thing. It isn't banging up against the wall of "the origin of origins" in some existential crisis that defeats the entire philosophy, being a materialist (usually) doesn't mean you refute the concept of something being unprovable "the unprovable meta layer" as you called it, it's perfectly fine to accept it as being unprovable and move on to the things that are...all faiths and philosophies run up against the same issue, it is as you say an unavoidable fact of reality. A theist saying "we cannot know the mystery of the will of God" is no more or less significant than a materialist saying "we do not yet know, and we might never"...it is an admission of the limits of our thinking, perspective on the universe, and current as well as potential discoveries, not a defeat of the ideology. Materialism for example makes the claim that everything in existence can be described by and are the result of physical processes, including consciousness, but it does not make the claim that we know that description, or that we will ever know it.

Materialists can't even agree if knowledge can truly be known. Our interaction on this internet forum could be categorized as nothing more than binary signals sent over wires and airwaves, displayed across an arrangement of miniature bulbs, received by a fleshy tissue at the back of our eyes, initiating a series of chemical reactions in a larger chemical sack inside the skull. And this chain reaction goes back and forth.

I am not dogging on materialism because it fails to answer unprovable questions. Plenty of ideologies have unprovable questions. The core premise of materialism implies that questions don't exist in the first place. Materialism denies incompleteness. Materialism flies in the face of metaphysics. In materialism, your thoughts and my thoughts are merely the sloshing chemical reactions of two organisms. There's nothing empirical or material you could show me which would prove -- in the material sense -- that two people are even talking or communicating. Can you prove you exist to me?

We can only say it appears that we both exist, and to take such a leap of faith and proceed forward is an absolute betrayal of materialism itself.

You and I instinctually know we really are talking, we really are moving keys on a board, we really are processing and considering thoughts and coming up with our own. The mechanisms in the brain that take place during this phenomenon can be observed and perhaps explained better over time, but it does not explain the cause of such a phenomenon in the first place.

We can say materialism is true, wink wink, but even our saying so is taking a shortcut. We can only say it appears that materialism is true, and once again such a statement is an absolute betrayal of materialism itself.

 

[GAMETA]

It's the most logical approach, isn't it? The understanding of not knowing.

We can't confirm or deny the existence of but we understand that life and the universe have traces of that intertwine with everything. Are said traces the result of creation? Yes, in a certain way. Everything comes from something, and that something that created or lead to our creation is, probably, outside the scope and our comprehension of our own reality...

There is transcendence in it, religious ou natural, it doesn't matter, there is. It's non-materialistic.

So what is ?

Is it a God? We don't know. Is it Nature? We don't know. Is it a computer program? We don't know.

 

[Relativ9]

Materialists can't even agree if knowledge can truly be known. Our interaction on this internet forum could be categorized as nothing more than binary signals sent over wires and airwaves, displayed across an arrangement of miniature bulbs, received by a fleshy tissue at the back of our eyes, initiating a series of chemical reactions in a larger chemical sack inside the skull. And this chain reaction goes back and forth.

I am not dogging on materialism because it fails to answer unprovable questions. Plenty of ideologies have unprovable questions. The core premise of materialism implies that questions don't exist in the first place. Materialism denies incompleteness. Materialism flies in the face of metaphysics. In materialism, your thoughts and my thoughts are merely the sloshing chemical reactions of two organisms. There's nothing empirical or material you could show me which would prove -- in the material sense -- that two people are even talking or communicating. Can you prove you exist to me?

We can only say it appears that we both exist, and to take such a leap of faith and proceed forward is an absolute betrayal of materialism itself.

You and I instinctually know we really are talking, we really are moving keys on a board, we really are processing and considering thoughts and coming up with our own. The mechanisms in the brain that take place during this phenomenon can be observed and perhaps explained better over time, but it does not explain the cause of such a phenomenon in the first place.

We can say materialism is true, wink wink, but even our saying so is taking a shortcut. We can only say it appears that materialism is true, and once again such a statement is an absolute betrayal of materialism itself.

What you're describing here sounds more like Philosophical skepticism...while it's possible to subscribe to both ideologies at once, materialism really has nothing to do with this. I don't know where you got the idea that it does.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

What you're describing here sounds more like Philosophical skepticism...while it's possible to subscribe to both ideologies at once, materialism really has nothing to do with this. I don't know where you got the idea that it does.

Atheism and materialism have nothing to do with one another? Or have I misunderstood?

 

[FullMetalx117]

I feel like there is something wrong when people debate what atheism actually means or what theists means. Like your defending a word...that apparently means something different...for each person who considers himself/herself part of that group (just look at how many “atheists” are in this thread who are half thinking it’s pretty much “agnostic”, some others claiming spirituality is part of it, others being hard nosed on the strict definition of “atheism”,etc.)
The problem lies in making these factions honestly - theists, atheists, agnostic, etc.

Reality is that most people are in the middle, even people who consider themselves Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. And I bet you most atheists, theists, and agnostics are really not that different in how they view the world. Most theists find comfort in a set religion that many billions of people happen to believe in (quite the remarkable feat btw) but most certainly aren’t ruled by it as most bend the rules.

I feel like most atheists I’ve met in real life come off as edgy hipsters (“atheists” in this thread should try to fix that) - my brother is quite proud to have turned atheist, talks like he is above people who follow a religion. But it’s kind of a funny thing to be proud of and a little weird, it’s not like I consider atheists/agnostic smarter/enlightened or anything. In my eyes both “types” don’t really know anything, they only think they do

to me, if you are really that strongly believing in one thing or the other, without the consideration that no one really knows for certain, then you’re the joker

 

[Rentahamster]

I feel like there is something wrong when people debate what atheism actually means or what theists means.

Standard definitions in language are fundamentally important to a constructive conversation. If two people are using the same word to describe two very different things, they will be talking past each other instead of with each other. Making sure everyone is on the same page before starting a discussion is practical.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Standard definitions in language are fundamentally important to a constructive conversation. If two people are using the same word to describe two very different things, they will be talking past each other instead of with each other. Making sure everyone is on the same page before starting a discussion is practical.

This thread has proven that these words, at least in a practical sense, are very not standard. Unless everyone is willing to follow the literal dictionary definition of it which is not the case. So what does that mean - these words have failed basically, there isn’t really much use for them/reason for existence besides debates on what they mean to each person individually (which again means these have failed/inherently not supposed to be standard) or creation of factions/divisions. Because the reality is that the 3 words (atheists, agnostics, theists), in a practical sense, seem to be very much the same in my eyes. They all contemplate existence and none can be proven to be right/wrong but agree there are the few and loud that truly believe in the strict definition of each

agree there should be a standardized word to describe someone that very strongly believes in something without any regard to humility/open mindedness or even having the proof themselves that supports their own claims - hypocrite/ignorant

 

[Relativ9]

Atheism and materialism have nothing to do with one another? Or have I misunderstood?

I'm saying that materialism isn't the same as philosophical skepticism, and for that matter that yes you don't have to be a materialist to be an atheist (though the other way around would surely have a majority overlap). These are very specific philosophies with documented beliefs:

Philosophical skepticism: denies all possibility of knowledge (what you described materialism as).
Materialism: Asserts that everything owes its existence and workings to physical processes including intangible things like consciousness.
Atheism: Doesn't believe that any and all of the theistic claims made are true.

You are mixing up philosophies. A materialist assuming that something is a fundamental truth is not a "betrayal of materialism", but a Philosophical skeptisist claiming that something is a fundamental truth would be a betrayal of their completely separate philosophy.

 

[Rentahamster]

This thread has proven that these words, at least in a practical sense, are very not standard.

They are very much standard. This thread is not representative of the dictionary, or the world at large. The only thing this thread proved is that some people don't understand what the definitions are, or choose to make up their own. You cannot, however, make sweeping generalizations about the standard usage of certain words by this thread alone.

Unless everyone is willing to follow the literal dictionary definition of it which is not the case.

We should. That's what a dictionary is for. That's what language is for.

So what does that mean - these words have failed basically, there isn’t really much use for them

They have not failed at all. We need maps of meaning to code words to concepts, ideas, and things. That some people ascribe to non-standard definitions merely points out the flexibility and evolving nature of language.