atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Who says that is what the word means?

Yourdictionary.com defines atheism as 'wickedness'. Should I just accept that one as well?

I didn't give a definition for atheism, I merely pointed out that Kelly didn't mention atheists, but rather atheism. I'm not claiming his point was valid in any way, it's just he was accusing a belief system rather than individuals.

I also argue that someone who claims to be an atheist should be believed (subject to them not going to church etc.) and someone who claims to be an agnostic shouldn't be told they're really an atheist. After all if someone claimed to be a Christian we wouldn't turn round and tell them they were really a Muslim. Within reasonable parameters self-identification is the only sane way of assigning people to categories.

If Yourdictionary.com defines atheism that way I'd find a different on-line dictionary. I'd avoid ones that define theists as credulous fools as well, or for that matter one that can't distinguish between agnostics, new born babies and atheists.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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 t ...[text shortened]... "first they came for the communists...". That's why i stand with the moderate Christians.

And this is the true reason you object to the definition, and not because of some 400 year old etymology or 'true definition' you think you have proven.
The problem is that you think a definition can win an argument. This is blatantly false.
If for example, you persuaded me to use the word atheist the way you want it used, I could just as easily make up a new word lets say 'grooble' which means 'anyone who is not theist'. So now when I say 'grooble' does it magically win the argument you are so terrified of losing? If not, why not?
Sets don't need to be labelled to exist. You are in the binary set whether you label it or not, and whether or not anyone tries to label it.

People don't self identify by what they lack, they identify by what they believe.
This is obviously untrue. Asexual, agnostic, atheist, foreigner, anarchist, apathist, anonymous, bald, deaf, blind, etc.
When I call myself atheist it is specifically to identify that I do not have a religion, and not because of something I believe.

What is the name for someone who is not a capitalist (rhetorical).
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-capitalist

Originally posted by twhitehead
And this is the true reason you object to the definition, and not because of some 400 year old etymology or 'true definition' you think you have proven.
The problem is that you think a definition can win an argument. This is blatantly false.
If for example, you persuaded me to use the word atheist the way you want it used, I could just as easily make u ...[text shortened]... o is not a capitalist (rhetorical).
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-capitalist[/b]

I say you call yourself an atheist because you BELIEVE you are an atheist. 😏

The Instructor

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Laughable, but true.

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 la ...[text shortened]... clude him, or actively exclude him. Which again shows how limited you view of human nature is.

Why not answer my questions?
Will someone who does not believe in God or gods every look for God or
gods in anything, or instead always look for some natural answer in their
opinion?
It was very simple question, please answer then laugh all you want.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
And this is the true reason you object to the definition, and not because of some 400 year old etymology or 'true definition' you think you have proven.
The problem is that you think a definition can win an argument. This is blatantly false.
If for example, you persuaded me to use the word atheist the way you want it used, I could just as easily make u o is not a capitalist (rhetorical).
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-capitalist[/b]

Apathist?

Can you provide evidence for the usage of atheist as a dichotomy, outside the atheist activist community? I would accept that.

Seems to me that the argument that atheist/theist is a dichotomy can't really work without pre-suppostion.

Your argument is based on personal opinion and group self identification, while mine is based on actual proof/definition usage. If i come across as sarcastic, i would suggest that you've maybe come across a little sarcastic yourself. I apologise for any offence taken.

Intresting fact. if we use the "Etymology of atheist" argument and transfer it to other words, Vanilla would mean Vagina, Orchid would mean Testes (still used in the medical field), and Fundamental would mean Buttocks.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Apathist?

Someone who lacks concern, excitement, motivation and passion.

Can you provide evidence for the usage of atheist as a dichotomy, outside the atheist activist community? I would accept that.
Why?
I am sure such evidence can be provided, but I don't see why you should only accept a definition on those grounds.

Your argument is based on personal opinion and group self identification, while mine is based on actual proof/definition usage.
You cannot prove a definition, how many times must I remind you of this. And if you admit that I have a personal opinion and there is a group that self identifies that way, surely that is 'usage'?

If i come across as sarcastic, i would suggest that you've maybe come across a little sarcastic yourself. I apologise for any offence taken.
My point is that sarcasm was all you had to offer as an argument. If you have an actual argument, then present it. Explain why 400 years of etymology makes one definition superior over another.

Intresting fact. if we use the "Etymology of atheist" argument and transfer it to other words, Vanilla would mean Vagina, Orchid would mean Testes (still used in the medical field), and Fundamental would mean Buttocks.
Surely you are arguing against yourself?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why not answer my questions?
Will someone who does not believe in God or gods every look for God or
gods in anything, or instead always look for some natural answer in their
opinion?
It was very simple question, please answer then laugh all you want.
Kelly

Well, then at least let me answer what you said, not what you have just posted.

You said:

Atheism must find a natural explanation to explain away everything that would or could include God or gods.

My answer to this was, and is, that atheism does not require this.

Clearly, if you are an atheist that firmly believes that God does not, and cannot, exist, then you are going to look for explanations which do not invoke the need for a god.

But, if you are an atheist that:

1 Has seen no evidence to suggest that any god exists

2 Simply does not care whether a god exists or not

3 Believes that the answer to this question is essentially irrelevant to their everyday life

then that person is still an atheist but has no need to try and explain everything either by reference to, or not to, a god.

I don't think you can say I didn't answer your question.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, then at least let me answer what you said, not what you have just posted.

You said:

Atheism must find a natural explanation to explain away everything that would or could include God or gods.

My answer to this was, and is, that atheism does not require this.

Clearly, if you are an atheist that firmly believes that God d ...[text shortened]... by reference to, or not to, a god.

I don't think you can say I didn't answer your question.

An atheist is one that will not acknowledge the existence of God regardless of the evidence.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
An atheist is one that will not acknowledge the existence of God regardless of the evidence.

The Instructor

And one such atheist is a person who hasn't even bothered to consider the evidence either way and doesn't care what the answer is. He has neither belief in a god, nor belief that a god does not exist.

I can't really see what the problem is.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, then at least let me answer what you said, not what you have just posted.

You said:

Atheism must find a natural explanation to explain away everything that would or could include God or gods.

My answer to this was, and is, that atheism does not require this.

Clearly, if you are an atheist that firmly believes that God d ...[text shortened]... reference to, or not to, a god.

I don't think you can say I didn't answer your question.Yo

"My answer to this was, and is, that atheism does not require this."

Oh really, but by default that is all they do how can you say Atheism does
not require it? You are telling me that Atheism will include God or gods in its
search for answers? It is one way or the other, they either do or do not.

I do not care and neither does it matter that they do it out of their beliefs
about God or gods, or their lack of beliefs about God or gods, if it is the
only way they do it, than it is the only way they do it. If they do look for
God or gods than are they really Atheist?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"My answer to this was, and is, that atheism does not require this."

Oh really, but by default that is all they do how can you say Atheism does
not require it? You are telling me that Atheism will include God or gods in its
search for answers? It is one way or the other, they either do or do not.

I do not care and neither does it matter that they do ...[text shortened]... the only way they do it. If they do look for
God or gods than are they really Atheist?
Kelly

You seem to think that you have to choose to either look to include a god into your world view or look to exclude him. You don't.

In fact, most people I know tend to the view a god does not exist, simply on the basis that there is no evidence for one, but also can't see what relevance it is whether one does or does not.

So they see no need to establish whether or not they can actually make the positive claim that 'no gods exist.' As the answer would have no impact on how they live their lives, they feel no need to to proceed any further. And the questions for which a god might be an answer for are similarly questions that they are not interested in or considered relevant to their lives.

So they are not looking for a god to explain things, nor they are looking for natural explanations for these things.

These people are still atheists, and therefore part of atheism, but you seem to want to bracket them in with people who take a completely different view of the world and think it is important, and are willing to say that they actually believe that gods do not exist.

Indeed, what makes you think we are all looking for answers?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You seem to think that you have to choose to either look to include a god into your world view or look to exclude him. You don't.

In fact, most people I know tend to the view a god does not exist, simply on the basis that there is no evidence for one, but also can't see what relevance it is whether one does or does not.

So they see no need to ...[text shortened]... ieve that gods do not exist.

Indeed, what makes you think we are all looking for answers?

So we are in agreement, they do not look for God or gods in anything, and
they do it by your admission due to not being interested or consider it
relevant to their lives. Not sure why you think that is somehow different
than anything I said, I was simply stating that was all they do, they look for
any way to make things work without God or gods. You want to make that
out to be something other than what it is. That mindset will avoid all things
that can point to God or gods no matter how in their face it is, all that is
required is simply any explanation what so ever no matter the odds they
can use to fill in the blanks.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So we are in agreement, they do not look for God or gods in anything, and
they do it by your admission due to not being interested or consider it
relevant to their lives. Not sure why you think that is somehow different
than anything I said, I was simply stating that was all they do, they look for
any way to make things work without God or gods. You wan ...[text shortened]... mply any explanation what so ever no matter the odds they
can use to fill in the blanks.
Kelly

Part of the argument that has run through this thread is that it is an error to use the word “they” with regard to atheists, as if they were all the same. I would say that the same error is there with the assumption that all theists are somehow the same.

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of the argument that has run through this thread is that it is an error to use the word “they” with regard to atheists, as if they were all the same. I would say that the same error is there with the assumption that all theists are somehow the same.

Atheism is the topic, it is without God for one reason or another, but it is
without God. Atheist I would assume simply by default carry at least one
of the many reasons they are without God or gods, I don't care and it does
not matter if it is due to a rejection of God or gods, that they ignore and
find useless God or gods, or any other reason they can paint themselves
with. Bottom line is that for whatever the reason they behave in one way
which is that they will come up with some reason no matter that the odds
are against them to give cause. This will reject all reasons to change their
thinking, and has set them up to always assume some Godless or gods less
reason has to be there.

I believe that Theist will include God or gods in their thinking, they will not
reject out of hand, they may disagree on details, but since they include
God they will not reject out of hand God or gods.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Atheism is the topic, it is without God for one reason or another, but it is
without God. Atheist I would assume simply by default carry at least one
of the many reasons they are without God or gods, I don't care and it does
not matter if it is due to a rejection of God or gods, that they ignore and
find useless God or gods, or any other reason they can ...[text shortened]... ee on details, but since they include
God they will not reject out of hand God or gods.
Kelly

This will reject all reasons to change their thinking, and has set them up to always assume some Godless or gods less reason has to be there.

This is the part that is just inaccurate (while it may describe a subset of atheists). It assumes (as a generality—which is what I am objecting to) that no atheist will ever become a theist. Does it also assume that no theist will ever become an atheist? People cross these “belief lines” for a multitude of reasons.

Not all theists are dogmatic theists (in the more pejorative sense), nor are all atheists dogmatic atheists (in the same pejorative sense)—no matter how much that some on the “other side” might wish it were the case.

The “no True atheist™” argument is no more valid than “no True theist™” arguments.