Originally posted by Rank outsiderIn fairness to Kelly he said atheism not atheists. Besides, this is a debate in an internet forum, the only people required to defend their positions are those who choose to take part.
I know many atheists who feel no such need to find such an explanation. They don't care and aren't interested in such matters. So that claim is patently false.
Having trawled the web, almost every reputable definition of atheism I found included those who, for whatever reason, do not have a belief in God.
For you to claim that all the people who vely believe that Gods don't exist or will you accept that this is simply not the case.
I'd have said that whether someone who is a non-theist out of apathy counts as an atheist depends on how they describe themselves, which could be as an atheist, but could also be as an agnostic. If they give an answer on the lines of "Don't know, don't care." then that's normally classified as apathetic agnostic.
If you're trying to class all non-theists including new born babies as atheists, then that isn't what the word means. For one thing an animist may not believe in a God per say, but would believe in spirits, so atheist is a bad description.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThey don't look for natural reasons for all things? You are saying that
I know many atheists who feel no such need to find such an explanation. They don't care and aren't interested in such matters. So that claim is patently false.
Having trawled the web, almost every reputable definition of atheism I found included those who, for whatever reason, do not have a belief in God.
For you to claim that all the people who vely believe that Gods don't exist or will you accept that this is simply not the case.
Atheist are not going out of their ways to describe all things without God or
gods input? You think they include God or gods in their thinking when
looking for causes?
I would like you to tell me what they are doing, if they are not trying to
come with ways to describe ALL things without God or gods!
If you read what I wrote I said that was all they are doing is looking at all
things without God or gods, not matter what, that is what they do!
For you to claim what I said is false, is laughable.
Do not know or care how old you are, and when I look at the world around
me your age isn't part of the process, and it would not change anything even
if I knew how old you are, while an Atheist when they look at the universe
will look at all things without God or gods in it, and if they knew there was
one would change everything.
I admit my bias, we all have it one way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWho says that is what the word means?
In fairness to Kelly he said atheism not atheists. Besides, this is a debate in an internet forum, the only people required to defend their positions are those who choose to take part.
I'd have said that whether someone who is a non-theist out of apathy counts as an atheist depends on how they describe themselves, which could be as an atheist, but co ...[text shortened]... believe in a God per say, but would believe in spirits, so atheist is a bad description.
Yourdictionary.com defines atheism as 'wickedness'. Should I just accept that one as well?
Originally posted by KellyJayLaughable, but true.
They don't look for natural reasons for all things? You are saying that
Atheist are not going out of their ways to describe all things without God or
gods input? You think they include God or gods in their thinking when
looking for causes?
I would like you to tell me what they are doing, if they are not trying to
come with ways to describe ALL things ...[text shortened]... as
one would change everything.
I admit my bias, we all have it one way or another.
Kelly
Just because you cannot conceive of someone who is simply indifferent to the question of whether a god exists, does not mean that they do not exist.
It makes little or no practical difference to them what the answer to this question is.
Again, you probably won't understand why this is the case, but again that reflects a lack of imagination on your part.
Just as you think the only choice about a god is to either actively include him, or actively exclude him. Which again shows how limited you view of human nature is.
Hi there guys. I posted this in another thread, so i will post it here too.
It is proof that Atheist does not mean "not a theist", with added comment from Thomas Huxley to show that the Atheist line that "Agnosticism is of Knowledge, Atheism is of belief" is false...I hope this helps the discussion.
.....
Here's why the "proper" definition of atheism, can not be "Not +someone who believes in God"
"In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine."
Theist - 1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation.
........................
When Atheism was first used, Theism didn't exist as a word, it was comprised of atheos - no god, and ieste - french, one who believes...there fore, one who believes in no God. Theist only came to mean one who believes in God 100 years later (actually late 18the centuary, so closer to 200 years, this was a slight mistake in the original post).
Now i will give the last word to Thomas Huxley. To prove both that Agnosticism pertains to both knowledge and belief, and to show how it is a contrary position to Atheism (the belief there is no God).
"1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."
PDF of "atheism and Christianity (Thomas Huxley) -http://ia700204.us.archive.org/19/items/agnosticism00variuoft/agnosticism00variuoft.pdf
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theist&allowed_in_frame=0
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThere is no such thing as a 'proper' definition. All your attempts are thus futile.
Here's why the "proper" definition of atheism, can not be "Not +someone who believes in God"
All we can say is:
1. What is the words history ie what did the first users of the word intend, and how has it been used since.
2. What is its etymology ie what do its components mean or what did it mean in the language it was taken from.
3. How is it generally used today.
4. How is it used in certain contexts or certain fields of discussion.
Whether you like it or not, I generally use the word 'atheist' to mean 'not a theist'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgreed.
There is no such thing as a 'proper' definition. All your attempts are thus futile.
All we can say is:
1. What is the words history ie what did the first users of the word intend, and how has it been used since.
2. What is its etymology ie what do its components mean or what did it mean in the language it was taken from.
3. How is it generally used to ...[text shortened]...
Whether you like it or not, I generally use the word 'atheist' to mean 'not a theist'.
After all, do we today use the word 'nice' in the way Shakespeare does?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHa ha. "I'm right because i say i am"...can't argue with logic like that. Why let 400 years of etymological history get in the way of a good opinion.
There is no such thing as a 'proper' definition. All your attempts are thus futile.
All we can say is:
1. What is the words history ie what did the first users of the word intend, and how has it been used since.
2. What is its etymology ie what do its components mean or what did it mean in the language it was taken from.
3. How is it generally used to ...[text shortened]...
Whether you like it or not, I generally use the word 'atheist' to mean 'not a theist'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundHim, me, and every major atheist organisation on the planet...
Ha ha. "I'm right because i say i am"...can't argue with logic like that. Why let 400 years of etymological history get in the way of a good opinion.
That's quite a lot of opinion.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI have justified my stance throughout. You on the other hand seem to think that if you just keep repeating your claim it will become true.
Ha ha. "I'm right because i say i am"...can't argue with logic like that.
Why let 400 years of etymological history get in the way of a good opinion.
If you think 400 years of etymological history trumps me choosing the meaning for myself, then you have to justify it. Sarcasm doesn't constitute an argument.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe only etymology that counts is the last 5 minutes!
Ha ha. "I'm right because i say i am"...can't argue with logic like that. Why let 400 years of etymological history get in the way of a good opinion.
Many, many words have changed meaning over the years, you cannot
seriously believe a 400 year-old definition is set in stone.
Originally posted by wolfgang59By my new etymology, you just told me you had no pants on, and you were dancing a Tango...well done...well done.
The only etymology that counts is the last 5 minutes!
Many, many words have changed meaning over the years, you cannot
seriously believe a 400 year-old definition is set in stone.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe atheists are good at changing the meanings of words in their arguments. This is why I usually refer to evilution instead of evolution, because its meaning keeps changing. It now means "change over time" and who can disagree with the fact that there are changes over time.
By my new etymology, you just told me you had no pants on, and you were dancing a Tango...well done...well done.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsThere i got something about a candy store, and Botulism in a Burrito.
The atheists are good at changing the meanings of words in their arguments. This is why I usually refer to evilution instead of evolution, because its meaning keeps changing. It now means "change over time" and who can disagree with the fact that there are changes over time.
The Instructor
No seriously. I get that Atheists have Pow wow'd a way to self identify, but when they take it outside the group they better have their ducks in a row. Binary set atheists are hiding from the burden of proof, behind the shelter of Agnosticism. I have many true atheist friends, and they sure as poo don't try to label me in their binary set. People don't self identify by what they lack, they identify by what they believe. What is the name for someone who is not a capitalist (rhetorical).
I knew this was coming down the tracks when i saw atheists railing against Fundamentalists, then Muslims. It's like the old saying "first they came for the communists...". That's why i stand with the moderate Christians.