Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
you got nothing at all. You want to make us think that atheism is a believe in lack of God. Meanwhile we are telling you that atheism is belief different of a belief of God in its own. A belief in a place were a belief of God would have been.
It is like a computer memory block which stores "1111111" as a code...well our memory block has "00000000" and not "111111111", period. Meanwhile what you are saying here is that our memory block contains "not 111111111"
which is stupid.
Actually atheism is a godless belief atheos = godless -ism = doctrine
Or the doctrine of a godless universe.
Are you asking for my beleif or what the state of atheism is?
Once again, for the record, atheism is NOT a belief.
Go back to the sentence:
What was SAM's state of mind in regards to Xenu before she heard of Scientology? Did she believe in or lack a belief in Xenu? Answer: She lacked a belief in Xenu. She was atheist.
The logic is crystal clear.
Yeah well...atheism would exist even if there was no belief of others in God.
huh? I'm pretty sure that Xenu is not a God - more like a highly advanced intergalactic warlord.
yes
Yes you can.
I'd think so. How about this. Does a newborn child lack a belief in newly discovered star 1563D563? Yes. Does a newborn child lack a beleif in Allah? Yes. Does a newborn child lack a beleif in Xenu? Yes.
I'm sorry, you make no sense grammatically or logically.
This rediculous semantic debate again? Does anyone know what OCD stands for?
Sheesh!
Sheesh!
Hi Geeser! Love your post. Very eloquent and well supported.
First, let me reiterate that this argument really doesn't matter - it's just a label. The label doesn't define anyone.
Anyone who says "You're an [insert label here], so you must be [insert stereotypical attribute here]" is either ignorant, or in too much of a hurry to engage in debate anyway. (SAM, take note!)
First up, I disagree with some key points in your summary.
I'm not sure why you say that "atheism" is a label for a group. Who uses it in that way? It's a label for a belief, attitude, or philosophy.
Atheism wasn't coined to mean "not a theist", it was coined by the French to mean someone who maintained that there is no God:
Athéisme
)
I note that three of your quotes are from people who are specifically trying to redefine atheism (ie they implicitly acknowledge that common and historical usage implies an active belief in the absence of God), and that some use a questionable etymological argument (a-theist vs atheos-ist).
I accept that the meaning of the word may be changing as a result of this activism.
Consider carefully the etymology of atheist - Online Etymology Dictionary:
It's pretty clear to me that both historical and current common usage imply that atheism means an active belief that there is no God. If someone gave the existence of God any more credibility than the existence of faerie folk, then I think that most people would not give them the label of atheist. When someone whoholds a more liberal view applies the label "atheist" to themself, they only confuse those who understand the term in the traditional way.
The question now is why do people want to redefine the term?
Clearly, there are people who self-identify as atheists who want to stress that they don't hold a specific belief in the absence of God. You've quoted some of them. So why do they feel they need do this?
This is really a backlash against criticism that "atheism" is a faith-based position. A common theist argument is to say "But believeing there is no God is just as much faith-based as believing there is a God." I do not think that redefining "atheism" is the best response to that criticism. A better response is to focus on the burden of proof - see Bertrand Russell's teapot argument, which is what Johnson is getting at in one of your quotes.
It might also be necessary to distinguish between a faithful certainty and a rational belief. I believe that there are no faerie folk, but if they all came out of hiding tomorrow I would change my mind without feeling upset that I was wrong. That's not how people feel about faith-based beliefs.
To quote Dawkins:
I'm agnostic about God to the same extent that I'm agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
...and that's what atheism is.
Not that it matters.
First, let me reiterate that this argument really doesn't matter - it's just a label. The label doesn't define anyone.
Anyone who says "You're an [insert label here], so you must be [insert stereotypical attribute here]" is either ignorant, or in too much of a hurry to engage in debate anyway. (SAM, take note!)
First up, I disagree with some key points in your summary.
I'm not sure why you say that "atheism" is a label for a group. Who uses it in that way? It's a label for a belief, attitude, or philosophy.
Atheism wasn't coined to mean "not a theist", it was coined by the French to mean someone who maintained that there is no God:
Athéisme
L'athéisme est une attitude ou une doctrine philosophique qui affirme l'inexistence ou ne conçoit pas l'existence de quelque dieu, divinité ou entité surnaturelle que ce soit, contrairement par exemple au déisme et au théisme qui soutiennent cette existence, et à l'agnosticisme qui la considère comme indécidable.
(Try http://babelfish.altavista.com. I don't speak French either )I note that three of your quotes are from people who are specifically trying to redefine atheism (ie they implicitly acknowledge that common and historical usage implies an active belief in the absence of God), and that some use a questionable etymological argument (a-theist vs atheos-ist).
I accept that the meaning of the word may be changing as a result of this activism.
Consider carefully the etymology of atheist - Online Etymology Dictionary:
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
It's pretty clear to me that both historical and current common usage imply that atheism means an active belief that there is no God. If someone gave the existence of God any more credibility than the existence of faerie folk, then I think that most people would not give them the label of atheist. When someone whoholds a more liberal view applies the label "atheist" to themself, they only confuse those who understand the term in the traditional way.
The question now is why do people want to redefine the term?
Clearly, there are people who self-identify as atheists who want to stress that they don't hold a specific belief in the absence of God. You've quoted some of them. So why do they feel they need do this?
This is really a backlash against criticism that "atheism" is a faith-based position. A common theist argument is to say "But believeing there is no God is just as much faith-based as believing there is a God." I do not think that redefining "atheism" is the best response to that criticism. A better response is to focus on the burden of proof - see Bertrand Russell's teapot argument, which is what Johnson is getting at in one of your quotes.
It might also be necessary to distinguish between a faithful certainty and a rational belief. I believe that there are no faerie folk, but if they all came out of hiding tomorrow I would change my mind without feeling upset that I was wrong. That's not how people feel about faith-based beliefs.
To quote Dawkins:
I'm agnostic about God to the same extent that I'm agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
...and that's what atheism is.
Not that it matters.
It makes clear sense. You just refuse to admit complete and total defeat of you own illogic when it's clear you've lost.
Na,na,na,na!
I believe in a lack of semantics.I lack belief in semantics.
That's a pretty stupid site.
"Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god"