"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Curious you would search for the meaning of the prefix a, stop when it appeared to support this new definition and yet failed to look at the most readily-available definitions for the word itself. I suppose you had your reasons.

[b]And this is also the meaning understood by the majority of people who use it and that RWingett, GoogleFudge, et al ...[text shortened]... tion on man's mind.
Quite simply, they simply want to answer 'no' before the question is posed.

Well ok then. I have just done a Google on "define atheism" and every single link includes our definition. (Many of them also use 'deny' and 'reject' but that is within the broader term of 'lacking' and 'without'😉.

My own dictionary also has 'lacking' and 'without' and only applies 'deny' and 'reject' to the concept and again within the broader term of lacking and without. I don't think any of us would deny that some atheists reject the concept of a deity. We would call them explicit strong atheists and they are a subset of explicit atheists, which in tern is a subset of all atheists.

Maybe you could point to the actual dictionary page you use?

Yes, when the word was first coined, they could have used 'un' but 'a' also means 'not', 'lacking' and 'without' and so conveys the meaning just as well.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Since you obviously won't take my word for it, I encourage you to spend some time at Wikipedia's article on atheism.
Good God, you guys are incredible.
It's literally like shooting fish in a barrel with a double-barrel shotgun.
Here's your source--- at the very opening of the page:
[quote]
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief i ...[text shortened]... eism... and the rest of the world lets forth a disinterested yawn.

It ain't necessarily so...[/b]

Do you even read the stuff you post?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

"atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Right there in the opening paragraph.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you even read the stuff you post?

[quote]Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [b]Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most genera ...[text shortened]... theism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Right there in the opening paragraph.[/b]

Do you even read the stuff you post?
Often.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

"Atheism is contrasted with theism..."

Right there in the opening paragraph.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you even read the stuff you post?
Often.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in it ...[text shortened]... exists.

"Atheism is contrasted with theism..."

Right there in the opening paragraph.[/b]

And?

That doesn't in any way contradict what we are saying.

Given that we are defining atheism as the absence of theism, that in fact
confirms what we are saying...

So again, point to us.

Originally posted by Penguin
Well ok then. I have just done a Google on "define atheism" and every single link includes our definition. (Many of them also use 'deny' and 'reject' but that is within the broader term of 'lacking' and 'without'😉.

My own dictionary also has 'lacking' and 'without' and only applies 'deny' and 'reject' to the concept and again within the broader te ...[text shortened]... so means 'not', 'lacking' and 'without' and so conveys the meaning just as well.

--- Penguin.

Maybe you could point to the actual dictionary page you use?
You want me to provide them again?
Or can you just go back within this thread and see where I already provided them?

I use DuckDuckGo for my search engine, mostly because Google is often redundant. Top entry is from wordnik has it:
n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
n. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Next is an ignored sponsored link.

Third is the already quoted Wiki.

Fourth is another link already provided, from dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Fifth link is on About.com, from secular humanist Austin Cline--- who "has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 15 years."
Not likely a great source for objectivity.

Sixth link is from Merriam-Webster, which provides the archaic definition first (ungodliness, wickedness), and then:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And so on and so forth.
The pattern is evident: in the dictionary links, atheism is described/defined as has been asserted, namely, a rejection/disbelief in the divine.
In those sites which lack objectivity (atheists self-describing), the claim is the generic 'lack of belief.'

And despite Google's redundancy, the pattern is the same.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And?

That doesn't in any way contradict what we are saying.

Given that we are defining atheism as the absence of theism, that in fact
confirms what we are saying...

So again, point to us.

If atheism is contrasted with theism... you what?
You do understand what contrast means.



Right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If atheism is contrasted with theism... you what?
You do understand what contrast means.



Right?

I understand what it means, you clearly don't.

Atheism is defined by not being theism, it stands in contrast to it, it is it's negation.

It's the lack of a belief in god/s.

You understand that... Right?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I understand what it means, you clearly don't.

Atheism is defined by not being theism, it stands in contrast to it, it is it's negation.

It's the lack of a belief in god/s.

You understand that... Right?

Here's a little nugget for you, googlefudge..
See if you can figure this out, since you are clearly struggling against the norms of the word usage.
Which came first: atheism or theism?

EDIT: by that, I'm referring not to concept but to actual word usage.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's a little nugget for you, googlefudge..
See if you can figure this out, since you are clearly struggling against the norms of the word usage.
Which came first: atheism or theism?

EDIT: by that, I'm referring not to concept but to actual word usage.

Theism, as a word, necessarily precedes atheism. While it is true that everyone who lived before the advent of theism was an implicit atheist, there would have been no need for the term until theism was established.

Originally posted by rwingett
Theism, as a word, necessarily precedes atheism. While it is true that everyone who lived before the advent of theism was an implicit atheist, there would have been no need for the term until theism was established.

One would think so.
But one would be wrong.

Theism (conceptually) had been the default position for so long, it was unthinkable to consider a person in denial of the divine.
Atheism (as a word) was used in ancient Greece first as a way of censuring a person's ungodliness, or impiousness.
It later evolved (5th century B.C.E.) to reference an intentional severing from relations with the gods, denying them.

From there, it came to mean anyone who disrespected or denied the local gods... even if they accepted others.
One common thread throughout the use of the word: its use in a pejorative sense, always meant to color the person so ascribed as deficient spiritually.

More recently (1571), the Greek-to-Latin-to-French athéisme popped up, even before the English equivalent which is found as early as 1587.
It was used to denote "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God."
Again, always polemic, always an insult.

Sometime after the translation found traction in modern language use, came the use of deist (1621), theist (1662), theism (1678), deism (1682), both of which were fairly interchangeable until around 1700 when deism shot off in a complete and separate direction from theism.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Total Presumption to ever tell God what to do or how to do it or when. He's already aware of your need and of the role the landslide is designed to play in His Perfect Plan.

Suppose for the sake of argument that there are 8 septillion planets in the universe that have had landslides. Suppose further that only one of them, our Earth, has had living, breathing, thinking organisms crawling around on it and sometimes getting buried by landslides.

Would you claim that your God deliberately induces landslides on our planet to selectively kill living beings in a way He sees fit, but all those many other landslides happening elsewhere in the universe have no purpose? They just happen because of natural causes? Or do you see some sort of divine plan in landslides happening on some distant, sterile planet that will never be seen up close by any living creature?

As a variation on that question, here is another question. If nobody had been camping along the Madison River the night of August 17, 1959, would God have postponed the landslide there to some other time when He could use it to kill humans?

Originally posted by Soothfast
You were faking it for the attention. It's why you're here, too: ya wanna be noticed.

Unlike Lucy in Peanuts, I won't even charge you the nickel.

Dying Grace = Tranquility of Soul.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Suppose for the sake of argument that there are 8 septillion planets in the universe that have had landslides. Suppose further that only one of them, our Earth, has had living, breathing, thinking organisms crawling around on it and sometimes getting buried by landslides.

Would you claim that your God deliberately induces landslides on our planet to ...[text shortened]... d God have postponed the landslide there to some other time when He could use it to kill humans?

Paul, though I respect your considerable scientific knowledge, it's fruitless to engage
in further speculations in my view. Thanks for our sidebar conversation. Bob

Originally posted by googlefudge
I understand what it means, you clearly don't.

Atheism is defined by not being theism, it stands in contrast to it, it is it's negation.

It's the lack of a belief in god/s.

You understand that... Right?

The nuances you attempt are futile.

"contrast:
1. to compare in order to show unlikeness or differences; note the opposite natures, purposes, etc.,
2. to exhibit unlikeness on comparison with something else..."

Thus, theism (a belief in the divine) is contrasted with its opposing position, atheism (disbelief in the divine).

But here's the kicker, the really ironic thing.
The labor of a few herein is all for naught.
The attempt to color atheism as nothing more than 'a lack of a belief in the divine' is a veiled effort to say the concept (the divine) has no meaning to them.
It begs the question, in that it asserts something as factual (the non-existence of the divine) without requiring a consideration of the topic (can't consider what has no meaning).
How does one become an atheist if the topic has no meaning?
How is that even possible?

The FSM, Santa Claus, et al, have literally millions of people who have considered the question of their existence (conceptually or otherwise) and concluded their existence is not true (excepting certain under age children in the case of Santa Claus, of course).
These folks don't say they lack a belief.
They say they disbelieve; they reject the notion of these creatures.
Difference with a distinction--- otherwise why the growing movement among some atheists to insist they don't reject God, they simply lack a belief in Him?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Paul, though I respect your considerable scientific knowledge, it's fruitless to engage in further speculations in my view. Thanks for our sidebar conversation. Bob

I concur that we are spinning our wheels. I will end my part in your thread by pointing out the obvious: I look at all the carnage on living organisms that has happened over the history our planet and conclude that clearly there is no Being Filled With Lovingkindness in sovereign control of our planet. You look at the same evidence and say it is obvious to you that a Palestinian carpenter’s son is and always has been in complete control of things and is doing the most thoughtful, virtuous job that could conceivably be done in administering our world.