Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[greenberg]

So the question might be could you personally experience anything that would convince you God existed?

I cannot envision such an experience.
I think that in order to have such an experience, I would have to consider myself to have/be a self, eternal and independent. I don't consider myself such, nor the opposite.

This is why I am looking at the issue of belief in God from a different perspectve: What good can believing in God do to save me from suffering? Is it necessary to believe in God if I want to be happy and free from suffering?

 

[greenberg]

At this point, God would have to appear before me and prove it's reported qualities, omnipotence- it should be able to do anything, and omniscience- it should know everything even the future.

And how would you test, know that?

You would have to be omnipotent and omnscient yourself in order to test whether some else is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[sniffy]

Circles are endless.
They go around and around
pointlessly.

God is or god isn't.
Either way;
What, pray, is the difference?

 

[Pete]

Atheism is lacking a belief in God. Not an actual disbelief in God.

Hi Michael,
I'm don't think that is quite right. Here's a post I made a couple of years ago in a thread called [post=1168116]Weak Atheism. What a joke.[/post].

---

Etymologically:
"atheism" is derived from "atheos".
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism", in this context, means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

EvilBible.com:

...some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.​

In practice, there are some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.

Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

 

[greenberg]

Circles are endless.
They go around and around
pointlessly.

So you are omniscient?
You've "seen it all"?

God is or god isn't.
Either way;
What, pray, is the difference?

You don't think it makes a difference whether there is God as this or that religion claims or whether there isn't?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi Michael,
I'm don't think that is quite right. Here's a post I made a couple of years ago in a thread called [post=1168116]Weak Atheism. What a joke.[/post].

---

Etymologically:
"atheism" is derived from "atheos".
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism", in this context, means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

EvilBible.com:

...some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.​

In practice, there are some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.

Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

Good to see you can rise above the BS.

Love that link by the way

The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."



This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)



However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:



A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.



B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.



C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.



D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

Clearly some one with a grammar teacher to rival Miss Addie :bravo:

 

[geeser]

Hi Michael,
I'm don't think that is quite right. Here's a post I made a couple of years ago in a thread called [post=1168116]Weak Atheism. What a joke.[/post].

---

Etymologically:
"atheism" is derived from "atheos".
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism", in this context, means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

EvilBible.com:

In practice, there are some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.

Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

Pete! I beg to differ Michael had it right, the word atheism is a label to describe atheist as a group, which we are not, so you can disregard the "ism" bit. We are simply atheists, we do have a similar mind set, but we don't follow any doctrine, or beliefs, we are atheists, not a group of people who go to a church to follow atheism, It is the natural state of being, it is just a word to describe us, as you would a herd of cattle a flock of sheep etc... Atheism is not something you are. it's a word coined to mean the opposite to theism, it's that simple. the fact it ends in an ism, is irrelevant, it is just to show it as the yang, to theisms ying.
an atheist has no belief I repeat that no believe in god/gods, he also has no belief in fairies and elves etc.., thats not to say that any of those things couldn't exist, it is just simply unreasonable to have a belief in such things. atheist, simply lack belief.
atheists do not invoke any concept of god to explain any phenomenon or solve any philosophical conundrum, and they see no compelling reason to.
atheist do not profess to have the truth, it is simply that it is unreasonable, without further qualifying evidence.
an atheist is simply someone who does not posit a god-concept to explain anything or solve any problem, it is not mutually exclusive with agnostic. You can be agnostic with respect to some god-concepts while maintaining an atheistic nature toward them all.
It would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist

below are few famous atheist names, read there descriptions of what an atheist is.
I've also puts some links at the bottom for your perusal

Dan Barker:
A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought.
It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

B.C. Johnson:
The author of The Atheist Debater's Handbook, Johnson explains why the theist has the initial burden of proof in any argument by explaining that, "The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist's explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position."

Antony G. N. Flew:
An atheist philosopher from Britain, Flew has written quite a lot on the nature of atheism and theism. In his 1984 book God, Freedom and Immortality, he said that

The word 'atheism,' however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

Valerii A. Kuvakin:
Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:

Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a — a negative prefix, theos — god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.

The concept "atheist" partially coincides with such notions as "skeptic," "agnostic," and "rationalist" and it borders with such notions as "anticlerical," "God fighter" (theomachist), and "God abuser" (blasphemer).

It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the "verbal" murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. ... I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of." For example, "apathy" means "absence of passion." Thus, the concept "atheist" does not necessarily mean nihilism.

Michael Martin:
The author of one of the most extensive and detailed books on the philosophy of atheism. He states in Atheism: A Philosophical Introduction that,

If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

George Smith:
The author of one of the most popular books about atheism, Atheism: The Case Against God, stated in a speech:

Atheism, properly considered, is simply the absence or lack of theistic belief.
In other words, to the question, "Do you believe in God?", if you answer, "No," for whatever reason, you are an atheist. You will often hear it said that an atheist actually denies the existence of a god or gods. This is true; many atheists do but not all. This kind of overt denial of the existence of a god or gods is a sub-category of a broader kind of approach which should in a general sense be known as atheism. This gets quite complex to go into all of the reasons why some atheists would not wish to deny that any gods exist.

In his aforementioned book, Smith wrote:

Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.


Gordon Stein:
A prolific writer on atheism, humanism, freethought, and philosophy, who described atheism in his An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.


belief or disbelief
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm

dictionary definition of atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm

atheism vs agnosticism
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

what is atheism? strong vs weak
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm

 

[S.A.M.]

^^^hilarious.

 

[Enmos]

Etymologically:
"atheism" is derived from "atheos".
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism", in this context, means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

Who decides on the context ?
I disagree that '-ism' means 'belief' here.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
-ism
a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

 

[S.A.M.]

Who decides on the context ?
I disagree that '-ism' means 'belief' here.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
-ism
a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism

The etymology?

 

[Enmos]

What don't you understand about it ?

 

[S.A.M.]

What don't you understand about it ?

I had an excellent education in English grammar. I have no problems identifying the distinctions.

Perhaps you might care to go through all the "stupid arguments" outlined in the 4 pages linked here

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

 

[Enmos]

I had an excellent education in English grammar. I have no problems identifying the distinctions.

Perhaps you might care to go through all the "stupid arguments" outlined in the 4 pages linked here

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

"Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided."

How does this include babies and the undecided ?
Babies simply do not believe in anything period.

I didn't choose the label 'atheist', theists apply it to me.
I simply do not believe in any God. What's so difficult to understand about that ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps you might care to go through all the "stupid arguments" outlined in the 4 pages linked here

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Or not.:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

Muppet.

 

[sniffy]

Circles are endless.
They go around and around
pointlessly.

So you are omniscient?
You've "seen it all"?

Where do I claim to have seen it all? I allude to the arguments and those arguing. Round and around they go in circles. Like scorpions.

God is or god isn't.
Either way;
What, pray, is the difference?

You don't think it makes a difference whether there is God as this or that religion claims or whether there isn't?

It makes not a jot of difference to me. It may to others but what business of mine is that?

 

[greenberg]

Where do I claim to have seen it all?

Here:

Circles are endless.
They go around and around
pointlessly.

By saying that something is "endless" and "pointless", you imply you are omniscient. Well, or arrogant.

I allude to the arguments and those arguing. Round and around they go in circles. Like scorpions.

Just because something seems endless and pointless to you, does not mean it is endless and pointless to others. Unless, of course, you are omniscient, ie. can see into the future and are able to read other people's thoughts that even they themselves are not aware of.

It makes not a jot of difference to me. It may to others but what business of mine is that?

Apparently it is your business in some way or other - you have come to this thread.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

This is why I am looking at the issue of belief in God from a different perspectve: What good can believing in God do to save me from suffering? Is it necessary to believe in God if I want to be happy and free from suffering?

That I have no answer to. I am not sure we all want or need the same things. I don't think believing in God is enough to free one from suffering, that's for sure. But even if you find out that believing in God is necessary to save you from suffering I am not sure how that would help.

 

[sniffy]

Here:

By saying that something is "endless" and "pointless", you imply you are omniscient. Well, or arrogant.

No I've just been around a while and I can see patterns; but if longevity is the equivalent of arrogance so be it.

Just because something seems endless and pointless to you, does not mean it is endless and pointless to others. Unless, of course, you are omniscient, ie. can see into the future and are able to read other people's thoughts that even they themselves are not aware of.

Yes I see threads such as this as endless and pointless. That is my opinion and I do believe I'm entitled to it. Just because this thread is finite and has a point to you does not mean it has to others and as a token of free speech I claim my right to say it. No conclusion is ever reached aside from each side declaring themselves right. God is or god isn't and never the twain shall meet.

Apparently it is your business in some way or other - you have come to this thread.

It just makes me very sad to observe as I don't think it is at all healthy at an individual level. Life is struggle enough....

So shoot me.

 

[redwards]

I swear. If there was one word I would remove from the dictionary.