Arrogance.
Is there a definition of atheism that everyone can simply agree on?
It's a simple question. There are two responses. Yes or no. There are implications for this rediculous debate depending on the answer.
Atheism is a belief.
- Thread starter Tht1Gy!
- Start date
Is there a definition of atheism that everyone can simply agree on?
It's a simple question. There are two responses. Yes or no. There are implications for this rediculous debate depending on the answer.
Whats wrong with godless? Or are you asking for a definition that covers the absence of religion as well?
Nothing. But is godless enough? Does it cover other "godless" religions like buddhism?
I think it fails as an acceptable universal definition of those that do not believe in gods or any supernatural "events" (like reincarnation).
a buddhist is godless
a person who does not believe in the supernatural is also godless
I don't see the problems with both of them being categorized as atheist
in fact there is even analysis of buddha incarnating especially for the sake of introducing sub religious principles (like compassion) to the atheistic class
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking, is there a universally acceptable definition of a person who does not believe in gods or supernatural phenomena of any kind? If it's atheist, then fine. If it's secular humanist, then fine.
What I'm getting at here, in case you haven't guessed, is some word that I may call myself that conveys exactly that I do not believe in gods or supernatural phenomena of any kind.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Not that I believe there are no gods or supernatural phenomena. That's an active statement of belief, which is silly.
No. The word must mean, unambiguously, that I simply do not believe in gods or supernatural phenomena of any kind. I don't deny gods. I don't deny the supernatural. I have an utterly neutral lack of belief such that if I was never taught the words, the concepts would be meaningless to me.
'K?
The indoctrinated cultist spews forth streams of propagandized rhetoric only to turn to a position of arrogance and condescension when questioned, once again, not of their own accord, but as a result of their abused childhood.
if you are in a position where notions of the god/the supernatural bear absolutely no sway in your daily affairs it is "atheism" - and if you want to get into more details "ontological naturalism" (time and space are the final word in truth)
.... although I think if I kicked you hard enough i could get you to whine like a representational naturalist (basically as above except with the added ingredient of human intentionality)
Is not the word you are looking for,"Agnostic" or "Agnostic materialist" or such; given the following position:
"I do not believe in gods or supernatural phenomena of any kind. I have an utterly neutral lack of belief such that if I was never taught the words, the concepts would be meaningless to me."?
BTW at the risk of being redundant; I have no problem with your position, I have no attachment to what you or anyone else holds to be true, as far as "the Beliefs/non-beliefs issue" is concerned
When I was about 17-18 years old, one day while ridding the bus I got into a discussion with some guy on the subject of belief. At one point he asked me what word would I use to describe my position. I didn't have a word ready as it were, but I gave the answer of "take everything, put it all together, and synergistically, that's god." He said "Oh, that's 'pantheism' ".
Well, due to my misunderstanding of what that word meant, my immediate response was I didn't like the word so I said "No, I'm not" He continued to tell me that based on what I was telling him, the word that describes it is 'pantheism' and that I should go look it up.
So I did. And he was right. I'm a pantheist.
My point is I did not assert the the dictionary was wrong, biased, and christo-centric. I was wrong and realized/decided the word pantheism is a cool word.
As I have said: the above is the beginning and end of my point.
The middle of my point is my frustration with many "atheists", in that, when it comes to what you (the 'second person' you) hold to be true, your arrogance and conceit often rivals that of the smuggest of christians.
See, while the christian's position is "Well you're wrong and you're gonna burn in hell"
The atheist's position is "Well I don't care what you believe, you are just stupid and wrong. And since I don't hold those ideas, obviously I'm right."
All that is obvious is that person is a prick.
How do you define supernatural phenomena? Do you deny EVERYTHING in the absence of evidence?
how about unbeliever? Kafir fits the bill.
But "the cause of atheism" is not the point of the thread, at least it's not the reason I started it.
Below is the thrust of the thread. Or at least it should be-
The semantic of the word 'atheism'
semantics:
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Yes, yes, I realize that this is a public forum and folks will take a discussion where they want. Just trying to keep the digressions to a minimum. :itold:
Last edited:
How do you define supernatural phenomena? Do you deny EVERYTHING in the absence of evidence?
how about unbeliever? Kafir fits the bill.
How about "Thomas Covenant"?
You just can't get past your own conditioning. I don't "deny" any of it. I just don't believe it.
This seems like a sublety a first grader could grasp, especially after being told as often as the people here.
No. I gave you my dictionary definitions in a previous post. I looked up agnostic (as if I had to - again), and a common thread in the definitions is one of "uncertainty". I have no uncertainty regarding god(s) since I don't believe in them at all. Just as there logically might be cephalopod aliens on arcturus, I don't believe it. It's not that I'm unsure or "not quite convinced". I have a zero or null position on it. Speculate all you want about arcturian squid. I'm an arcturian a-squid-iest. Per my atheist definition above.
Holding ideas is fine. I also have no problem with people beleiving whatever they want. It's when they assert the truth of their ideas at the same level of truth that quantifies measurable phenomena that I get really pricky.
DON'T fucking tell me that, as a theist, your ideas are in the same realm of objective reality as the rest of the measurable universe. And the vast majority of rational theists won't. The know full well that they depend on what catholics proclaim as the "mystery of faith". I like those theists. They're honest and don't try to pit their religion against science. Georges Lemaitre was a great example.
Then we are back to square one with you being certian that god does not exist.
And that's a belief.
And all I'm fucking telling you is you appear to be blind of your conceit.
I am happy for you that there are some theists you like.
I, too have looked the dictionary, in many dictionaries; one had the definition you gave. Listed second or third. The others only had the belief thing.
And why have you started to denigrate ideas I haven't offered as though they were mine? :bugeye:
I have no trouble with the ideas science offers, as to the workings of the universe. I incorporate most of them in my paradigm, from the big bang, and evolution to quantum physics.
The thing I'd say I have trouble with science is the mechanistic point of view.
And as science and research has consistently shown us: the researcher is an intrinsic part of the equation; and researchers tend to find what they are looking for.
Did atoms exist before we had a way to detect their presence? (the question is rhetorical in cheek)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqIedO6LrKI
Last edited:
You are dangerously close to outright lying here. Please post the exact sentence where I said that.
Or, conversely, you can post the numerous sentences where I said I do not believe in god(s).
If you actually can't see the difference between the two statements, and suffer from some kind of mental impairment, then I apologize. No offense meant.
And you appear to be blind to simple english sentence structure. Again, if this is a congenital or accident induced issue for you, I apologize with no ill intentions.
The only problem with "godless", "atheist", "non-theist", etc, is that the large majority of the users of the words will be religious monotheists of various kinds, who will use them as pejoratives and attach a variety of implications to them which will not apply to most of the pejoratives' targets.
SAM's continual assertions of the mindset and motives behind people's replies to her provide an observation in support of your belief/faith in atheism nonsense, for example.
Not that SAM is the worst offender, in this regard - more the local one with the biggest gap between potential and accomplishment, in the realm of comprehending what is apparently a very, very foreign concept to many people.
So no word will do, in actual use, for all the various kinds of godless people. But this is something to which those godless who live among the godded are well accustomed, and in time can learn to greet with understanding amid the myriad provocations and casual insults. The godded will be labeled according to their own choice of systemization, and the godless put into one box with all the other godless.
SAM's continual assertions of the mindset and motives behind people's replies to her provide an observation in support of your belief/faith in atheism nonsense, for example.
Not that SAM is the worst offender, in this regard - more the local one with the biggest gap between potential and accomplishment, in the realm of comprehending what is apparently a very, very foreign concept to many people.
So no word will do, in actual use, for all the various kinds of godless people. But this is something to which those godless who live among the godded are well accustomed, and in time can learn to greet with understanding amid the myriad provocations and casual insults. The godded will be labeled according to their own choice of systemization, and the godless put into one box with all the other godless.
Neither.