Atheism is a belief.

I know how to use a dictionary.

  • Yes, and I incorporate its info.

    Votes: 28 57.1%

  • Yes, but I still like to make up definitions as I go along.

    Votes: 10 20.4%

  • No, I believe in "Truthiness"

    Votes: 17 34.7%
  • Total voters
    49
Enmos said:
I think I know where the confusion lies.
What I meant was that I reject that the concept (that I know of) pertains to reality. Not that I reject the reality of the concept itself..
Click to expand...

:eek::crazy:

Can you even hear yourself?
 
Yeah, you're explaining atheism to me. That is my definition of it. That atheists do not "lack belief" they reject the theistic notion of God.
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, you're explaining atheism to me. That is my definition of it. That atheists do not "lack belief" they reject the theistic notion of God.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between rejecting that a concept pertains to reality and lack of belief in the 'reality' that concept describes ?
 
The same between denying what a unicorn is and denying there is a unicorn.

In any case, you deny a concept that is already defined.
 
S.A.M. said:
The same between denying what a unicorn is and denying there is a unicorn.

In any case, you deny a concept that is already defined.
Click to expand...

I am not denying any concepts.

I accept the definition of "unicorn", but I reject that unicorns really exist.
 
Yeah, for example if I showed you this:

world_cow.jpg


as proof that unicorns exist, what would you say?
 
Exactly, which means that you cannot lack a belief in an undefined concept. So when you say you lack belief, you are actually rejecting a defined belief.
 
SAM, would you say that your arguments for being a theist carries more weight that my arguments for being an atheist ?
 
S.A.M. said:
Exactly, which means that you cannot lack a belief in an undefined concept. So when you say you lack belief, you are actually rejecting a belief.
Click to expand...

Huh ? It IS defined... :shrug:

u·ni·corn
–noun
1. a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.
 
Enmos said:
SAM, would you say that your arguments for being a theist carries more weight that my arguments for being an atheist ?
Click to expand...

Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.:shrug:
 
S.A.M. said:
Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.:shrug:
Click to expand...

So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than my arguments for atheism ?

Let me rephrase: "So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than any argument for atheism ?"
 
Enmos said:
So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than my arguments for atheism ?

Let me rephrase: "So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than any argument for atheism ?"
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, otherwise, it would make very little sense to be a theist. :p

Good night. :)
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Atheists, and their "Our Lady of the Scientific Method", refuse to see their position as one of faith!
Not one dictionary supports "soft atheism" or whatever it called.

If I propose a position based on the definition of a word, and every dictionary in which I look the word up gives a definition other than mine, and they are ALL consistent with each other, tell me, is it sane or rational to continue to assert that the dictionaries are wrong?

I looked in five major dictionaries and two encyclopedias, and they all said basically the same thing: Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

They (the dictionaries) do not refer to it as simply a 'Lack Of Belief' in god, that's called agnosticism.

Show me two or three Reference Books that support Soft Atheism or what ever you call it.
In english.
This does not include books by "some guy/gal" or wiki waki pidea.

Just as a point of reference I'm Wiccan/pantheist:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70409
for more on my point of view. If you care that is.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a religion: the prefix "a" means "no" and the root "the" means "God" therefore, atheism is the exact opposite of religion, if religion is defined as a belief in God or the supernatural. For this reason, atheism should not be groupped in the "religion" category. As a good friend of mine once said, "If there was an 'elephants' category, you wouldn't include 'not an elephant' in the category, would you?"
 
Apparently according to some atheists, theism != religion, since communism is an atheist religion.
 
tim840 said:
Atheism is not a religion: the prefix "a" means "no" and the root "the" means "God" therefore, atheism is the exact opposite of religion, if religion is defined as a belief in God or the supernatural. For this reason, atheism should not be groupped in the "religion" category. As a good friend of mine once said, "If there was an 'elephants' category, you wouldn't include 'not an elephant' in the category, would you?"
Click to expand...
This is a bad example. A religion is a complicated cognitive/emotional process. It is a dynamic, ongoing way of relating to reality. If a person manages to have that kind of cognitive/emotional dynamic while also having in their head 'I do not believe in God' we don't need to pretend the vast majority of that process is NOT continuing to function.

There used to be a marsupial wolf. We could walk around saying it was 'not a wolf' until we are blue in the face because it was not a mammal or a canid, but as far as how it functioned in the world........
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top