1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou like to win arguments.
Look KJ... We know you think that.
We can read and you have said the same thing over and over and over again.
But while you have repeated yourself ad nauseum, your arguments/points have
been rebutted.
People have presented counter arguments that rebut (or even refute) yours.
What should happen is you read peoples rebuttals and then respond ...[text shortened]... ree
with them, coming up with counter arguments that address the points that they were making.
I just like to be right.
So the truth is atheism is a belief system and that covers it.
I am right and you are wrong.
The Instructor
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks for the discussion KJ. I would guess we are probably at impasse.
Everyone alive builds a belief system, their own personal world view of
how and why things are the way they are. God and gods are major parts of
many people's beliefs, not having God or gods removes them from all
things. The system of beliefs that all Atheists have they use to build up
their reasons for everything without God or gods, resting in just a ...[text shortened]... eir lives by, and
those things they used to describe things in a godless point of view.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsThat only works when you are actually right.
You like to win arguments.
I just like to be right.
So the truth is atheism is a belief system and that covers it.
I am right and you are wrong.
The Instructor
You are not.
Atheism is in general the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Which can't be a belief system as there are precisely zero beliefs required.
However even if we wrongly said that atheism required disbelief in the existence
of gods it would still not be a belief system as it only has ONE belief.
That gods don't exist.
A single belief a 'belief system' does not make.
And you are right, I do like winning arguments.
But I like being right more, and if losing an argument will improve the accuracy of my
beliefs then I would rather lose the argument than remain wrong.
You cannot say the same (and mean it).
Originally posted by googlefudgeOne of the best definitions of an atheist is one that denies the existence of God regardless of his actual belief.
That only works when you are actually right.
You are not.
Atheism is in general the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Which can't be a belief system as there are precisely zero beliefs required.
However even if we wrongly said that atheism required disbelief in the existence
of gods it would still not be a belief system as it only has ...[text shortened]... would rather lose the argument than remain wrong.
You cannot say the same (and mean it).
The Instructor
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat is atheism? By D. E Krueger, copyright 1998.
Here.
Have a expletive ton of evidence proving you wrong.
[b]http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
[quote]What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconce ...[text shortened]... tp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
[/b][/b]
Atheism may be defined as the view that there are no gods.
Broad version: (that of not assenting to the theistic view)
Narrow version: (the claim that the theistic view is false)
Googlefudge, your view says that atheists are dumb as rocks. Thankfully, it happens that actual atheism requires a bit more thought than your quoted sites would admit to. The definitions you advocate do not appear in modern discourse. They are of no use nor value. Hell, your definitions allow rocks to be atheists. Epitome of stupide.
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistOne thing's for sure - some of the posters in this thread just can't admit when they are wrong.
Atheism is a resistence against the gods meme, and it is at least a part of a belief system. The same system that resists santa, elves, and the tooth fairy.
Babies are not atheists. Grow up, googlefudge.
Another sure thing: claiming to own a definition is highly unproductive.
It seems apathist and RJHinds want 'atheism' to mean one thing and googlefudge, myself and others want it to mean something else.
Why can't we come up with two new words for the two meanings then we will all be happy? Oh, wait, there is already a way to make a distinction, just use 'strong atheism' for the meaning RJ and apathist want!
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy can't the word 'agnostic' get some love? That's what we used to call people who are uncommitted on the god question.
One thing's for sure - some of the posters in this thread just can't admit when they are wrong.
Another sure thing: claiming to own a definition is highly unproductive.
It seems apathist and RJHinds want 'atheism' to mean one thing and googlefudge, myself and others want it to mean something else.
Why can't we come up with two new words for the two m ...[text shortened]... ay to make a distinction, just use 'strong atheism' for the meaning RJ and apathist want!
Originally posted by SwissGambitI have no problem with agnostic fitting in too. Should it only mean someone who knows about the God meme and is undecided, or should it include people who haven't heard of the God meme?
Why can't the word 'agnostic' get some love? That's what we used to call people who are uncommitted on the god question.
I see Wikipedia suggests that Agnosticism could be stronger than either of the above ie a claim that one cannot know whether God exists. (when applied to God: 'agnostic' can be used for any belief). Although it does allow for being undecided, it says nothing about the case of ignorance.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's say we find someone who has managed to never learn of the concept of a god. Someone tells them about it, and to them it seems sensible based on their state of mind - experiences, reasoning, intuition, etc. and they become a theist.
I have no problem with agnostic fitting in too. Should it only mean someone who knows about the God meme and is undecided, or should it include people who haven't heard of the God meme?
I see Wikipedia suggests that Agnosticism could be stronger than either of the above ie a claim that one cannot know whether God exists. (when applied to God: 'agnostic' ...[text shortened]... ef). Although it does allow for being undecided, it says nothing about the case of ignorance.
What were they before they became a theist? They had a state of mind that was ready-made for theism; all they needed was to hear about the concept of a god.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI started out as an atheist but kept running into a wall when my How do you know God exists? question was always countered with How do you know he doesn't exist?. So I switched to agnosticism. But I was not an agnostic, because all I had really done was to become an atheist who doesn't know.
Why can't the word 'agnostic' get some love? That's what we used to call people who are uncommitted on the god question.
Believing something to be factual and knowing it are two completely different things. iMnShO atheists who eschew the word faith and believe it has nothing to do with them and how they think are kidding themselves. If anyone wants to see himself as a rational realist then the place to start is with themselves, otherwise they are wasting a limited resource*.
*a mind is a terrible thing to waste
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou clearly state they 'became theist'. Therefore they were not theist before they became theist. Atheist means 'without theism'. So I think it would fit.
What were they before they became a theist? They had a state of mind that was ready-made for theism; all they needed was to hear about the concept of a god.
Agnostic, means 'without knowledge', so maybe it would fit too. What do you think?
Originally posted by lemon limeI agree. I think atheist remains a reasonable description as long as you are not explicitly theist.
But I was not an agnostic, because all I had really done was to become an atheist who doesn't know.
Believing something to be factual and knowing it are two completely different things. iMnShO atheists who eschew the word faith and believe it has nothing to do with them and how they think are kidding themselves.
I know that the God described in the Bible does not exist. I do not consider that to be faith. I believe that no God/god exists, I see that as a belief (faith is the wrong word).
If anyone wants to see himself as a rational realist then the place to start is with themselves, otherwise they are wasting a limited resource*.
And you are yet to show that any atheist is not rational, instead you seem to keep using the strawman that some atheists refuse to all their belief that no god exists a belief.
What is your opinion of Santa? Are you an asantarist? Do you believe he doesn't exist, or do you reserve your opinion? Do you see yourself as someone who doesn't know whether Santa exists?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not really sure what to label the person before they are a theist. We don't deal with this type of person much in practice.
You clearly state they 'became theist'. Therefore they were not theist before they became theist. Atheist means 'without theism'. So I think it would fit.
Agnostic, means 'without knowledge', so maybe it would fit too. What do you think?
Words often become something more than just their root meaning. "Hydrophobia", for example, still means 'fear of water', but it's also defined as the Rabies virus. So you must clarify your use of the term or risk ambiguity.
Perhaps a label like Innocent or Ignorant (depends on how charitable we're feeling) might better describe such a person.