Atheism is a belief.

[ashura]

I keep hoping for the day the two groups of atheists will hash this issue out. Those who believe they know there is no God and those who say their atheism is a lack of belief. Theists can watch this discussion and use it as a kind of role modeling of rational discourse and integrity.

I thought the issue has been hased out already, which is why you have strong atheists and weak atheists. Strong atheists follow Yorda's statement, making an active negative claim. According to them, gods don't exist period and they state it as fact.

Weak atheists make no such claim, and merely point out that there is nothing available to convince them to believe in gods. However, to them, that doesn't change the possibility that gods can exist.

Strong atheist: "Gods don't exist."
Weak atheist: "As far as I know, gods don't exist."

 

[Simon Anders]

I thought the issue has been hased out already, which is why you have strong atheists and weak atheists. Strong atheists follow Yorda's statement, making an active negative claim. According to them, gods don't exist period and they state it as fact.

Weak atheists make no such claim, and merely point out that there is nothing available to convince them to believe in gods. However, to them, that doesn't change the possibility that gods can exist.

Strong atheist: "Gods don't exist."
Weak atheist: "As far as I know, gods don't exist."

yes, I am familiar with these terms. I just notice a dearth of argument between these kinds of atheists. It seems like epistemological concerns raised by weak atheists might also be brought to bear on strong atheists' beliefs. See, I am coming at this from a more psychological/sociological standpoint. I think that that argument between the two kinds of atheists could actually modify the debate as a whole in a good way.

(and actually Yorda's post, upon second reading, seems like a weak atheist one, until that last little bit. And then it shifts to strong)

 

[Cannon]

The only god I believe in is the one that is gray or green with black eyes flying around this world making everyone freak out, its because of you the ones who freak out why they never land. Were always like OMG SOOT IT! NUKE IT! BLOW IT UP!

For gods sake we even figured out how to blow up water...

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Atheism is not a belief. To say that it's a belief is like saying that NOT believing in Santa Claus is a belief. It's not a belief, it's knowledge.

Well, does santa exist?
Is that the level you want?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

I have decided not to argue anymore about how atheism is or should be defined.
I do not believe in God.. call me whatever you want.

It's not about what you should be called. It's understanding that your position is one where "Belief" is at the the core. It is not one of "Knowing".
This is my point.
Well, along with, "Hey Atheists, get over yourselves."oke:
To be fair to you Enmos, you don't get all "Puppy Intellectual"* and arrogant about it.



*Puppy Intellectual is a personal slang term referring to Intellectuals who use their intelligence as a bludgeon of dominance, rather than a tool for understanding.

 

[lixluke]

Contrary to what you seem to believe, the "ism" suffix does not simply denote positive beliefs about things. It is also a generic suffix for turning states or qualities into nouns. "Heroism" is not a belief in being a hero or the belief that heroes exist, but rather the noun for the state of being heroic. Similarly, atheism is the noun for the state of being without theism. “Atheist” literally simply means “without a belief in gods,” from the Greek word "theos" (god) the suffix "ist" (meaning one who believes, practices, or associates with) and the prefix "a" meaning "without"). Atheism, then, is the state of being without theism.

The "a" prefix has a definite meaning of "lacking" or "without". Just like someone who is amoral lacks morals, someone who is apolitical lacks politics, and someone who is asexual lacks a sex, someone who is atheist lacks theism. There are plenty of other prefixes that denote active opposition, like "anti" or "contra," but those aren't the ones that are used to construct the word.

Wrong.
The "ism" in heroism is completely different from the "ism" in theism, atheism, and other "isms" in terms of

(meaning one who believes, practices, or associates with)

Even you associated the "ist" in "atheist" in a sense that complies with the "ism" in terms of belief not in terms of something like "heroism". There is no such thing as a heroist because the ism in heroism is not used in the same sense as the ism in atheism, theism, objectivism, skepticism, or other isms.

The "a" in atheism does not and never has been used in the sense of without the belief in God. The "a" prefix in any ism has always meant to signify the antithesis of the particular "ism". Theism is the beleif that there is a God. Atheism is the belief that there is not a God. The "A" signifies "without" in terms of the antithesis of the existence of God. Not "without" in terms of without the belief in God.

Atheism is meant to signify those who believe there is no God. Those other rediculous ideas about the purpose of the "a" was concocted by morons from a site called Infidels. It has no validity.

The dillema is in that they neglected to realize the following:
FACT 1: "I don't believe in God." = "I believe there is no God." (Theis logic is that those who don't believe in God don't necessarily believe there is no God. Retarded. They have this active/passive weak/strong ideas in this scenario.)

FACT 2: "I believe man cannot know whether or not God exists.": DOES NOT EQUAL "I don't believe in God or I lack the belief in God."

 

[lixluke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology

This is exactly what the OP was talking about when mentioning that referencing Wikipedia has no validity in this thread.

The idiotic Wikipedia article for Atheism is completely incorrect. Wikipedia can be edited by any moronic bloke. It has lots of great facts that you can rely on, but there are times when some of the articles are garbage. Atheism is one of them. The whole point of this discussion is disputing the bullcrap definitions for atheism being proliferated around the internet, and being accessed by idiots who know nothing to the point that they reference false definitions as serious articles. I would say this is an insult to any real atheist.

 

[lixluke]

It's really simple though.
If the dictionary says that atheists believe that there is no God, then I am not an atheist.
Maybe then there isn't a term for me.. :shrug:
I don't want to be an atheist.. theists labeled me like one.

If you don't believe there is no God, it means you believe there is a God. Thus, you are proclaiming theism.

I have decided not to argue anymore about how atheism is or should be defined.
I do not believe in God.. call me whatever you want.

If you do not believe in God, it means you believe there is no God.

This is what atheism is and always has been about. A lack of belief in God = The belief there is no God. It always has, and always will. Get over it.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

This is exactly what the OP was talking about when mentioning that referencing Wikipedia has no validity in this thread.

The idiotic Wikipedia article for Atheism is completely incorrect. Wikipedia can be edited by any moronic bloke. It has lots of great facts that you can rely on, but there are times when some of the articles are garbage. Atheism is one of them. The whole point of this discussion is disputing the bullcrap definitions for atheism being proliferated around the internet, and being accessed by idiots who know nothing to the point that they reference false definitions as serious articles. I would say this is an insult to any real atheist.

:thumbsup:

Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
Thank you! Truly.
This is exactly my point on this.

 

[Vkothii]

Here's my 2c:

The prefix "a-" can mean "not" in English, but we also use "non-", and "anti-" to mean the same kinds of things sometimes.
The original meanings have become more stretched over time. The word "non-hero", would be fairly obviously a coward, or at least someone lacking bravery say, but "antiheroism" isn't necessarily cowardice.

We don't talk about or use "aheros", because the "a-" prefix actually means: "against (as in: next to)", or "at". In Latin, there were two prefixes like this: ab and ad, the first means "at", the second means "with". Distinct but very close meanings.
An atheist is one who is against theism, but not in the modern sense we have of the word "against". The older sense means "near, regarding, with respect to", i.e. one who doesn't go in the door, but stays at or against the entrance.

And here's the 10c deal:

Atheism needs God. There can be no denial of a thing that does not exist, only denial of that existence. Which means: to deny the existence of God you must acknowledge there is a God to deny the existence of.

Work that out.

 

[Enmos]

If you don't believe there is no God, it means you believe there is a God. Thus, you are proclaiming theism.


If you do not believe in God, it means you believe there is no God.

This is what atheism is and always has been about. A lack of belief in God = The belief there is no God. It always has, and always will. Get over it.

Well, I am waiting for what I should call myself..

 

[Enmos]

Tht1Gy! you have some beef with LG here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1931344#post1931344

 

[Yorda]

Well, does santa exist?

no, he's just like god.

Is that the level you want?

i don't know what this question means.

 

[phlogistician]

Lixluke, it's obvious you don't understand tha basic terminology in the debate, so please bow out until you do.

Stop telling atheists what they are, eh?

I am an atheist. Simply, I do not believe in god(s).

To rephrase the crap comparison you made;

If you do not believe in God, it means you believe there is no God

"I do not believe I will win the lottery this weekend = I do not believe there is a lottery I can win."

See the difference? It's subtle, and obviously beyond you, but try and see it. Good boy.

 

[(Q)]

This is what atheism is and always has been about. A lack of belief in God = The belief there is no God. It always has, and always will. Get over it.

Atheism is about not accepting the claims of theists, whether it be the existence of their gods, or any other claim they might make and are unable to demonstrate. In this regard, theists are also atheists when they don't accept the claims of other theists.

 

[(Q)]

Wikipedia can be edited by any moronic bloke.

Have you succeeded at editing a Wiki article? Go ahead and try to edit the definition of 'Atheism' if you think you can. The proof is in the putting.

 

[lixluke]

Have you succeeded at editing a Wiki article? Go ahead and try to edit the definition of 'Atheism' if you think you can. The proof is in the putting.

The attempt has been made by many people to correct the nonsense in the Atheism article. Have you tried to correct it? Does it matter? Or are you attempting to insinuate that the amateurs that mod Wikipedia articles are always correct? Thus if they do not allow you to rectify the information, their interpretations are correct? Get real. The atheism article in Wikipedia invalid because of idiots who buy into the kindergarten nonsense doctrine from the Infidels website.

The Infidels website is a nonsense bloated site full of doctrine by fanatical self-righteous atheists for fanatical self-righteous atheists who give real atheists a bad name. With these idiots running around with their "weak/strong passive/active" stupidity in the name of atheism, they give real atheists a bad name. They are a mockery to real atheism which simply does not abide by theism, does not abide by doctrine such as exemplified in the garbage infedels website, does not attempt to impose atheism on others, and does not self-righteously consider themselves more righteous and better than anybody else with any other belief.

Well, I am waiting for what I should call myself.

I'll give an example:
If you were to tell me there was a FSM in the closet.
I would say:
1. If you provide me with proof of the FSM in the closet's existence, I am willing to accept that there is an FSM in the closet.
2. Until then, I don't believe there is a FSM in the closet.
3. I believe there is no FSM in the closet.
4. Unless you can prove me otherwise, I am certain there is no FSM in the closet.


ATHEISM
1. If you provide me with proof of the God's existence, I am willing to accept that God exists.
2. Until then, I don't believe there is God.
3. I believe there is no God.
4. Unless you can prove me otherwise, I am certain there is no God.


I would consider you an atheist. If you are fanatical and self-righteous about atheism, I would consider you to be a religious fanatic. Which is what I consider the jack asses proliforating and imposing the BS doctrine of the Infidels website - a bunch of self-righteous religious fanatics claiming to be legitimate atheists. Don't buy into that bullcrap. There is no such thing as weak/strong atheism. I would suggest you and any legitimate atheist be weary of these loons.

 

[lixluke]

Atheism is about not accepting the claims of theists, whether it be the existence of their gods, or any other claim they might make and are unable to demonstrate. In this regard, theists are also atheists when they don't accept the claims of other theists.

In that regard, theists are atheists. That is why atheism is not defined in that regard. Atheists do not accept theism period. Theists accept theism in one form or another. If they do not accept perspective of other theists, it does not mean they do not accept theism period. In order for theists to be atheists, they must not accpet theism period.

EDIT: This is one of the many dillema's of their misrepresentation of legitimate atheism. The dillema is when you become one of their followers defining atheism as they do, you end up with everybody being atheists. They even use the term "atheist-agnostic". This is so pathetically rediculous. It's as if that website what created by kindergarteners. They go around spreading their word throughout the internet, and morons buy into this infantile inanity to the point even Wikipedia references them as a serious source regarding their article on atheism.

 

[Enmos]

The attempt has been made by many people to correct the nonsense in the Atheism article. Have you tried to correct it? Does it matter? Or are you attempting to insinuate that the amateurs that mod Wikipedia articles are always correct? Thus if they do not allow you to rectify the information, their interpretations are correct? Get real. The atheism article in Wikipedia invalid because of idiots who buy into the kindergarten nonsense doctrine from the Infidels website.

The Infidels website is a nonsense bloated site full of doctrine by fanatical self-righteous atheists for fanatical self-righteous atheists who give real atheists a bad name. With these idiots running around with their "weak/strong passive/active" stupidity in the name of atheism, they give real atheists a bad name. They are a mockery to real atheism which simply does not abide by theism, does not abide by doctrine such as exemplified in the garbage infedels website, does not attempt to impose atheism on others, and does not self-righteously consider themselves more righteous and better than anybody else with any other belief.


I'll give an example:
If you were to tell me there was a FSM in the closet.
I would say:
1. If you provide me with proof of the FSM in the closet's existence, I am willing to accept that there is an FSM in the closet.
2. Until then, I don't believe there is a FSM in the closet.
3. I believe there is no FSM in the closet.
4. Unless you can prove me otherwise, I am certain there is no FSM in the closet.


ATHEISM
1. If you provide me with proof of the God's existence, I am willing to accept that God exists.
2. Until then, I don't believe there is God.
3. I believe there is no God.
4. Unless you can prove me otherwise, I am certain there is no God.

You can take number three out. It's untrue and frankly doesn't add anything. It's perfectly clear without number three.

I would consider you an atheist. If you are fanatical and self-righteous about atheism, I would consider you to be a religious fanatic. Which is what I consider the jack asses proliforating and imposing the BS doctrine of the Infidels website - a bunch of self-righteous religious fanatics claiming to be legitimate atheists. Don't buy into that bullcrap. There is no such thing as weak/strong atheism. I would suggest you and any legitimate atheist be weary of these loons.

Agreed, where there are people there are loons.

 

[lixluke]

There is no doubt that it is perfectly clear without #3. The only reason I included it was to exemplify how fanatical some people truly are.


Yes I do not consider them atheists, but religious fanatical loons. They have converted countless legitimate atheists into fanatical acolytes. These acolytes who buy into it, and go forth to impose their doctrine to those whom they believe don't know any better. Many people in sciforums and all over the internet are fanatical acolytes spreading the word of this BS doctrine claiming to be atheism. What a joke.