Atheism is a belief.

[phlogistician]

What is your definition of "God", the thing you are 'without faith'?

I don't have one. Why would I?

I just don't believe what other people have told be about their god. I do not have a definition of my own, how would I arrive at one?

If you have a definition, run that past me, and I'll tell you what I think.

 

[phlogistician]

I'm saying that claiming a lack of belief is only true when there is no knowledge,

I have no knowledge of god. I have rumour, and 3rd party claims, but no knowledge.

when there's nothing to believe.

There are so man things to believe, so many deities, so this point is clearly wrong.

Ignorance is the only way you can lack belief,

No, I came to atheism through investigation, not ignorance. I just posed a few questions to those trying to sell me God, to which I have never had a satisfactory answer, so I don't believe what they were selling me.

otherwise claiming you "don't believe" something, requires the same knowledge (of the something), that a claim you "do believe" it exists, or is true or false, requires. Is that logical, or not?

No it doesn't, that's absurd, if there was 'knowledge' there's be no faith! I guess being a believer, you are incapable of understanding those that lack belief. I guess you need something we don't, and can't understand our independence.

 

[MarcAC]

I have no knowledge of god. I have rumour, and 3rd party claims, but no knowledge.

You therefore possess concepts of gods. Concepts which were presented to you, they were proposed. Concepts which you reject - i.e. you lack belief in the veracity of the concepts or you disbelieve the veracity of the concepts. Same as saying you believe the concepts are no true to reality.

There are so man things to believe, so many deities, so this point is clearly wrong.

But you have unwittingly proven the point. They are all proposed, so you have formed a concept of them, such that you can fit them neatly into the phrase "so many deities." What you lack belief in is something that you have no concept of. In other words, the only thing you lack belief in is something you don't know about, some concept you've never been exposed to.

No, I came to atheism through investigation, not ignorance. I just posed a few questions to those trying to sell me God, to which I have never had a satisfactory answer, so I don't believe what they were selling me.

There you go again, proving the point. You are not in a null position, you have rejected what you're being sold. You believe it is not a good product. The only way you can be in a null position is to claim ignorance.

you are incapable of understanding those that lack belief. I guess you need something we don't, and can't understand our independence.

I for one fully understand the "independence," but I think a better applicable term is 'detachment.'

 

[phlogistician]

You therefore possess concepts of gods.

Not in any great degree. I am aware of the major claims people make, but I do not have a complete idea. There are too many contradictory claims for me to have a clear picture.

But you have unwittingly proven the point. They are all proposed, so you have formed a concept of them,

Are you such an arrogant prig you dare tell me what I know? I do not have a concept of God. I have been told a lot of contradictory things, none of which adds up to a coherent concept. I do not have a personal concept of someone else's god, and for you to assert so is utterly ludicrous!

What you lack belief in is something that you have no concept of.

Here we agree, but then you lose the subtlety;

In other words, the only thing you lack belief in is something you don't know about, some concept you've never been exposed to.

No. Here's where you lose it. I can lack faith in something I have heard about, but it doesn't stretch to believing it doesn't exist, it's just that I don't have faith that it does. It's subtle, but there you have it.

There you go again, proving the point. You are not in a null position, you have rejected what you're being sold. You believe it is not a good product. The only way you can be in a null position is to claim ignorance.

No, clearly you just can't get your head around this, and can't understand the mindset of an atheist. It's just your lack of empathy, I guess.

 

[electrafixtion]

Common usage is incorrect.

The word, etymologically, means 'without faith'.

It is widely used incorrectly, and dictionaries record this misconception. There is a move amongst atheists to correct this. Soon, hopefully, once the public have been educated, and the correct usage is commonly used, dictionaries will record a more accurate usage.

It seems the only obstacle to this correction are theists, oddly.

em, how about the science of linguistics. More specifically, ENGLISH!

What utter egotistical lunacy. I asked some questions that I didn't get an answer to, to my humble satisfaction I might add, so that means I investigated further and came to a logical conclusion. ROTFLMAO!

If you had one shred of unbiased opinion you would KNOW that anything that incorporates the suffix "ism" is an action that, to in effect execute, REQUIRES BELIEF.

 

[phlogistician]

em, how about the science of linguistics. More specifically, ENGLISH!

What utter egotistical lunacy. I asked some questions that I didn't get an answer to, to my humble satisfaction I might add, so that means I investigated further and came to a logical conclusion. ROTFLMAO!

If you had one shred of unbiased opinion you would KNOW that anything that incorporates the suffix "ism" is an action that, to in effect execute, REQUIRES BELIEF.

No, clearly you are just incapable of getting your mind inside that of an atheist.

I don't wake up each day and think how much I don't believe in God, you see, so I know you are wrong. You cannot know what I think, so cannot prove me wrong!

 

[electrafixtion]

LOL! You are too much. More of the good ol' boy mentality eh?

 

[rjr6]

I don't have one. Why would I?

I just don't believe what other people have told be about their god. I do not have a definition of my own, how would I arrive at one?

If you have a definition, run that past me, and I'll tell you what I think.

Reading further of your posts, it is clear that my question is being discussed. The only problem I have with your definition of "atheism" is that it incorporates a word that you will not define for yourself.

It is strange that you have a definition for yourself for something you don't acknowledge.

I would be more comfortable with your stance if you stated that you only incoporated things in your life, or lifeview, that could be somehow scientifically proven, or by whatever means are "proof" for you. Otherwise, you will cause much confusion for theists, I believe.

Though it is presumptious of me to assume I could tell another how to present their "stance", so my apologies.

 

[MarcAC]

Reading further of your posts, it is clear that my question is being discussed. The only problem I have with your definition of "atheism" is that it incorporates a word that you will not define for yourself.

It is strange that you have a definition for yourself for something you don't acknowledge.

I would be more comfortable with your stance if you stated that you only incoporated things in your life, or lifeview, that could be somehow scientifically proven, or by whatever means are "proof" for you. Otherwise, you will cause much confusion for theists, I believe.

Though it is presumptious of me to assume I could tell another how to present their "stance", so my apologies.

Straaaaaaaaaaange ainit?!

 

[MarcAC]

No. Here's where you lose it. I can lack faith in something I have heard about, but it doesn't stretch to believing it doesn't exist, it's just that I don't have faith that it does. It's subtle, but there you have it.

O.k. we'll agree to disagree, but my opinion is that a lack of faith fosters disbelief - i.e. the negative of belief (to "not believe").

No, clearly you just can't get your head around this, and can't understand the mindset of an atheist. It's just your lack of empathy, I guess.

Actually, I completely understand your reasoning, but I simply disagree with it. I think it is just an attempt to escape the label "faithful" regarding a negative belief.

 

[Balerion]

O.k. we'll agree to disagree, but my opinion is that a lack of faith fosters disbelief - i.e. the negative of belief (to "not believe").

Obviously you just don't get it. You can not believe in something and not have to say "I believe this doesn't exist". Why is it so hard to comprehend for you? Just look...

I don't believe in God.

I believe God does not exist.

Those two statements are not inherently the same. The first statement could come from a person raised by wolves that has never heard of your god before, or it could come from me, who has never had any reason to believe. I do not, however, have any reason to say that a god does not exist, because I obviously don't know.

I know you enjoy believing you can pigeonhole atheists into the same kind of mindless belief that you employ, but it just doesn't work that way. It's not our fault you can't wrap your head around this concept.

 

[electrafixtion]

Obviously you just don't get it. You can not believe in something and not have to say "I believe this doesn't exist". Why is it so hard to comprehend for you? Just look...

I don't believe in God.

I believe God does not exist.

Those two statements are not inherently the same. The first statement could come from a person raised by wolves that has never heard of your god before, or it could come from me, who has never had any reason to believe. I do not, however, have any reason to say that a god does not exist, because I obviously don't know.

I know you enjoy believing you can pigeonhole atheists into the same kind of mindless belief that you employ, but it just doesn't work that way. It's not our fault you can't wrap your head around this concept.

And this is EXACTLY where you are dead wrong. This has NOTHING to do with philosophy, whose right/wrong, varied IQ, whose primitive or advanced, who prefers TV diners to fine restaurant ordered Filet mignon, or whatever. Belief is a key ingrediant in basic cognitive mechanics. You CANNOT "not believe". That is utterly and completely IMPOSSIBLE. What part of that don't you understand? You may hold something in disbelief. But you still must believe that to be the correct choice or logical conclusion to disbelieve whatever you are considering. If you consider yourself a rational human being, ANY accepted view, whether provable or not, MUST BE BELIEVED. That or you don't have a mind with which to think.

It has NOTHING to do with Faith, NOTHING to do with the concept of God & NOTHING to do with Ethics. It is just the way the mind works.

Belief merely equates to your rational choice.

 

[Balerion]

You CANNOT "not believe". That is utterly and completely IMPOSSIBLE.

Says who? I do not believe in God, but I can't say I don't believe there is a creator. So I guess I'm just a freak of nature...?

But you still must believe that to be the correct choice or logical conclusion to disbelieve whatever you are considering. If you consider yourself a rational human being, ANY accepted view, whether provable or not, MUST BE BELIEVED. That or you don't have a mind with which to think.

It has NOTHING to do with Faith, NOTHING to do with the concept of God & NOTHING to do with Ethics. It is just the way the mind works.

Apparently you have no idea how the mind works. I mean, that's all I can assume after reading your post. What you do is you take your situation--the fact that you have faith--and you put your attributes on the population. You assume that because you have faith, that the only other alternative to the faith you have is to "have faith" that you're wrong about God. This isn't true. Like I said, I don't believe, but that does not mean I know one way or the other that even your God isn't real. Because I make no assertion either way, I lack belief, rather than believe your God is or isn't real.

I know you can't seem to comprehend this, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Belief merely equates to your rational choice.

Wrong. There is no rationale involved in faith. That's why it is called a "leap of faith"; you must sacrifice your rationality for the sake of salvation. You will believe God is real no matter what I say to you, and yet if there was some form of evidence for God's existence offered, I would have to believe. That is what separates the believer from the person like me, who simply lacks the faith.

 

[electrafixtion]

Says who? I do not believe in God, but I can't say I don't believe there is a creator. So I guess I'm just a freak of nature...?



Apparently you have no idea how the mind works. I mean, that's all I can assume after reading your post. What you do is you take your situation--the fact that you have faith--and you put your attributes on the population. You assume that because you have faith, that the only other alternative to the faith you have is to "have faith" that you're wrong about God. This isn't true. Like I said, I don't believe, but that does not mean I know one way or the other that even your God isn't real. Because I make no assertion either way, I lack belief, rather than believe your God is or isn't real.

I know you can't seem to comprehend this, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.



Wrong. There is no rationale involved in faith. That's why it is called a "leap of faith"; you must sacrifice your rationality for the sake of salvation. You will believe God is real no matter what I say to you, and yet if there was some form of evidence for God's existence offered, I would have to believe. That is what separates the believer from the person like me, who simply lacks the faith.

Listen, you are completely missing the point. You are just in denial which is typical of youth I guess. This has ZERO to do with religion or "faith". It's you that doesn't have a clue how the mind works.

The way you are expressing yourself here, you "believe" that faith equals belief. That's the dumbest thing I have read today. Whether you know something, or you just imagine it to be the most likely of possibilities, is no determining factor as to whether you are exercising belief.

Dude, you have nothing here that you have put forward to comprehend. You don't know what you are talking about. Just spare me the time and effort and look of the word "believe". K?

I can only HOPE that clarifies the issue. If not, seek help.

 

[Simon Anders]

Common usage is incorrect.

The word, etymologically, means 'without faith'.

It is widely used incorrectly, and dictionaries record this misconception. There is a move amongst atheists to correct this. Soon, hopefully, once the public have been educated, and the correct usage is commonly used, dictionaries will record a more accurate usage.

It seems the only obstacle to this correction are theists, oddly.

You did not respond to my post 1071 in response to your earlier one.

We have common usage, many philosophers, theologians, dictionaries opposing your view. Why should I take you as an expert? What is the authority you think you command to say that people are using the word wrong?

1) Let's take your etymology as correct - which it is not. Without faith. Both the person who lacks a belief in God AND the person who believes there is no God are without faith. So your own etymology does not back up your disagreement with me. There is no reason not to include both kinds of atheist under atheism.

2) It actually means without belief (in God), which also covers both strong and weak atheists.

3) You claimed elsewhere that it was a recent trend started by fundies. Back this up. This belief on your part is not supported by the OED. The reason I went to the library to look at the full edition OED is that it looks at usage over time. It does not support your belief, in fact it directly contradicts it.

4) Atheists do not own the word, neither group of them. If you actually investigate the etymology you will find that originally it was used in greek as an insulting term and is not something one would call themselves. This carries up into the 18th century in Europe. IOW it was a term used to insult others and not a term one used to describe oneself. It is not as if atheists came up with the term and now it has been twisted by fundies. Again, you have no authority to say what the word 'really' means. Further the word has a long history where it covered both strong and weak atheism.

There are some atheists who want the term atheism to simply mean a lack of belief. But these people, including yourself, have no special authority. And your authority is undermined further by making claims like it was fundies who made the word mean other things. This is simply incorrect.

 

[Balerion]

Listen, you are completely missing the point. You are just in denial which is typical of youth I guess. This has ZERO to do with religion or "faith". It's you that doesn't have a clue how the mind works.

Typical of youth? So is this what you do when you are on the short end of a debate? You simply make thinly-veiled insults? Nice. Why don't you show me how I'm wrong?

The way you are expressing yourself here, you "believe" that faith equals belief. That's the dumbest thing I have read today. Whether you know something, or you just imagine it to be the most likely of possibilities, is no determining factor as to whether you are exercising belief.

So according to your logic, I can have faith in God and yet not believe he exists.

That's all I have to say about your little theory.

Dude, you have nothing here that you have put forward to comprehend. You don't know what you are talking about. Just spare me the time and effort and look of the word "believe". K?

Why did you bother responding if you didn't plan on offering anything of substance? All you've said so far that wasn't an insult was that "faith does not equal belief", which is completely incorrect.

I can only HOPE that clarifies the issue. If not, seek help.

Boy, that zinger sure sent them home in stitches. You know, all you've done is demonstrate the weakness of your argument, right?

 

[Balerion]

There are some atheists who want the term atheism to simply mean a lack of belief. But these people, including yourself, have no special authority.

Well, I agree with that, but can't we start a movement, or something? I mean, seriously, the definition needs to change. If you believe that god does not exist, then you should be called an, I dunno, anti-theist. But atheism should not imply that a person believes in anything.

 

[electrafixtion]

Typical of youth? So is this what you do when you are on the short end of a debate? You simply make thinly-veiled insults? Nice. Why don't you show me how I'm wrong?



So according to your logic, I can have faith in God and yet not believe he exists.

That's all I have to say about your little theory.



Why did you bother responding if you didn't plan on offering anything of substance? All you've said so far that wasn't an insult was that "faith does not equal belief", which is completely incorrect.



Boy, that zinger sure sent them home in stitches. You know, all you've done is demonstrate the weakness of your argument, right?

Was I wrong about you being young? Incidentally, that youth gives you a GREAT advantage over myself.

"Substance" as you put it, is not some common commodity that is offered for free like a cheap commercial lure. Substance is something that is up to those with the mental facilities required to contain and appreciate said substance based on their abilities to comprehend real knowledge. Knowledge is never free. Knowledge however, because of it's great value does afford one understanding. So, lets proceed and see whether your great powers of reason and rationale will prove you substantive or not with respect to your understanding of "belief". You have already rejected my attempt to share the most basic of understandings with you via the dictionary. Maybe you prefer word problems.


It's fun talking to those that you recognize as being led by their ego instead of their intellect. OK, lets start with your definition of that which constitutes rational thinking minus belief.

Provide me insight to the following statement with either "correct" or "incorrect"

There is no God or Gods.

Indulge me this please. I don't believe you will be sorry.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Cognitive mechanics. Ah. He was taught something so it must be true.

 

[Balerion]

Was I wrong about you being young? Incidentally, that youth gives you a GREAT advantage over myself.

I'm 27, so I guess I'm right on the borderline...

"Substance" as you put it, is not some common commodity that is offered for free like a cheap commercial lure. Substance is something that is up to those with the mental facilities required to contain and appreciate said substance based on their abilities to comprehend real knowledge. Knowledge is never free. Knowledge however, because of it's great value does afford one understanding. So, lets proceed and see whether your great powers of reason and rationale will prove you substantive or not with respect to your understanding of "belief". You have already rejected my attempt to share the most basic of understandings with you via the dictionary. Maybe you prefer word problems.

OK, thanks for the lecture. Doesn't forward your position in any way, but thanks all the same.

It's fun talking to those that you recognize as being led by their ego instead of their intellect. OK, lets start with your definition of that which constitutes rational thinking minus belief.

How so? Simply put, your position is that faith does not equate to belief, but on the other hand you must believe in something in order to have an opinion on it; ie your position that if I say I do not believe in God, I must believe that there is no God.

Provide me insight to the following statement with either "correct" or "incorrect"

There is no God or Gods.

Indulge me this please. I don't believe you will be sorry.

I would love to indulge you on this, but I have no idea if there is a God or Gods. So I can't answer.