Atheism is a belief.

[jpappl]

Simon,

Let me try again.

"I don't live this way"

In no way were any of my comments derogatory to you. I simply responded to the implication that I/we were robots of some sort.

Swarm,

"Actually that is not true. You can't empirically prove god doesn't exist because impirical proof doesn't work that way. But you can prove that categorically god as defined is impossible."

Which is exactly why you want to move on to religion and the basis for said god as soon as possible.

Previously I asked,

Exactly, so why would you want to argue endlessly about a question you can not answer nor can be convinced of.

Your answer: "Its fun."

I see, you like to toy with them beforehand. Wicked. Wicked I say.

 

[swarm]

jpappl
Which is exactly why you want to move on to religion and the basis for said god as soon as possible.

Alas categorical proofs about things of which neither side has the least idea are neither satisfying nor definitive. All you can do is prove the current "definition" is wrong since actuality trumps definition and isn't bound by it. Aka the pesky black swan problem. If you define swans as "white birds" and then claim categorically that black swans can't exist based on that definition it all goes down the tubes when some jerk discovers black swans in the orient.

So no matter how air tight your categorical disproof seems, th theist just turns his magic blind faith into magic blind hope and starts chanting "I don't care about truth!"

I see, you like to toy with them beforehand. Wicked. Wicked I say.

My cat taught me.

 

[Balerion]

Jdawg,

"There are shades of gray, but they exist on either side of the border, not between the border. "

I agree with that almost completely. I don't know any agnostics that hold firmly to a middle position of somekind. In fact I don't know any theist/agnostics because that side tends to be believers.

So for the most part to a high degree, people either believe or they don't. The only problem comes with trying to prove that gods do or don't exist. Nobody can and that is why the gnostic part comes in, to essentially avoid the impossible question because it is futile.

As I tried to explain before, not taking that position gets to the real meat of the issue which is religion which is full of nonsense and is a subject that can be addressed with a logical end.

So again I think we agree for the most part.

Thanks again.

I think so, too. I think on a subject like god--at least the Abrahamic god, which I would assume all of us have been exposed to as if it were a reality--we can't take strictly an "I don't know" stance. You may not entirely know, but at the end of the day, if you don't know, it mean you, by default, don't believe, doesn't it?

 

[Balerion]

By Definition, God Is Not Possible And Cannot Exist.

Well, that's a little strong, doncha think? I'm pretty sure the best answer there is that we don't know if he could possibly exist. We don't know the rules when it comes to that stuff.

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon,

Let me try again.

"I don't live this way"

In no way were any of my comments derogatory to you. I simply responded to the implication that I/we were robots of some sort.

Ah, in that context I understand your post better. No, I never assumed you were robots, quite the opposite, and my slapdash, intended to be ironic post was meant to be a reminder of that.

We can imagine shaking hands and begin fresh in future contacts.

 

[jpappl]

Jdawg,

" I think on a subject like god--at least the Abrahamic god, which I would assume all of us have been exposed to as if it were a reality"

Which drives me nuts.

"we can't take strictly an "I don't know" stance. You may not entirely know, but at the end of the day, if you don't know, it mean you, by default, don't believe, doesn't it?

It does because they aren't saying they believe. Anyone who hasn't come to a either or opinion has somehow not even considered the subject, which would be very rare indeed. To say I don't know leaves the door open though and you would be a preachers dream case, stating I don't believe but can't prove it is different.

"I think so, too."

Glad we largely agree. It's been a pleasure Jdawg.

Simon,

"We can imagine shaking hands and begin fresh in future contacts."

Of course.

 

[Simon Anders]

WHERE in all that is anyone excluding either those who do not believe in God or those who believe there is no God???????????????

What!? are you serious?

Well, first a smoking gun.....

Originally Posted by Simon Anders
It is not a misconception. We use the word atheist to describe people who simply lack a belief in God and we use it to refer to people who believe there is no God.

”Phlog,
And when you use it in the latter manner you use the term incorrectly. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, and no more.

which you can find here....
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1059

From there I can't believe you couldn't see it in the quotes I provided.

1) JDawg in response to me saying it means both says

“ Originally Posted by JDawg
No, it isn't. How many times must it be told to you that atheism is the lack of belief in god? It's not "there is no god", but "I don't believe in god". ”

2) Phlog, telling me my usage is wrong, and the OED's and philosophers' and theologians

Like I have said, if you want a word for someone who holds the view that god does not exist, use 'anti-theist', as that is more correct.

3)

Originally Posted by Simon Anders
No. I'm sorry, but common usage includes both uses.

”Phlog
Common usage is incorrect.

You on the other hand acknowledged that both meanings were included in the definition. Phlog and I however went several pages and he refused to admit it could ALSO mean someone who believed there was no God, but asserted that the word only recently changed to have or include this meaning. This latter idea is false and I made a specific trip to check his theory and it is directly contradicted by historical use which has always included both meanings.

So first I have him saying it does not have both meanings, and doing this repeatedly.
And now I have you telling me he never said that.

 

[VossistArts]

Jdawg,

" I think on a subject like god--at least the Abrahamic god, which I would assume all of us have been exposed to as if it were a reality"

Which drives me nuts.

"we can't take strictly an "I don't know" stance. You may not entirely know, but at the end of the day, if you don't know, it mean you, by default, don't believe, doesn't it?

It does because they aren't saying they believe. Anyone who hasn't come to a either or opinion has somehow not even considered the subject, which would be very rare indeed. To say I don't know leaves the door open though and you would be a preachers dream case, stating I don't believe but can't prove it is different.

I definitely dont get what you guys are saying about having to either believe or not. Not having an opinion one way or the other doesnt mean you dont have thoughts about it. I dont know if there is a god. Im remaining open to the idea. It means I'll suspend my opinion for now. Maybe there is maybe there isnt. Whats really rare if you want to talk about rare, is finding someone who doesnt feel the need to grasp desperately for answers to questions that are presently beyond them. Its ok not to know. there is a middle ground.

Also, Im pretty sure beliefs are replaced by knowledge. You believe something or not, until you know whether your belief was justified or not. If you know something, its improper to say you believe its true.

 

[jpappl]

Vossist,

"Its ok not to know. there is a middle ground."

For some there is a middle ground and it is such a personal opinion that of course it's open to the individual.

But even while we "grasp desperately for answers to questions that are presently beyond them"

We still tend to have a strong sway to a belief or lack of when it comes to the gods of Christian, Muslim or other religions. With agnosticism, you are not claiming knowledge, you can not prove it. However, to claim I don't know is to say I haven't thought about it much, a preachers dream because they have a blank canvas. If you truly don't know what you believe I would hope you ponder it deeply so you can logically justify it in your mind whatever the decision.

But if I asked you right now, do you believe there is an almighty power (god) over our daily lives you would answer ?

If no, can you prove there is no god ? If yes why do you believe ?

Generally people have an answer to that, many like me would say no, but I can not prove there is no god. I could add to that but the conversation needs to move on to religion to be able to apply more scrutiny to the question.

"Also, Im pretty sure beliefs are replaced by knowledge. You believe something or not, until you know whether your belief was justified or not. If you know something, its improper to say you believe its true."

True, but you better be sure when you claim knowledge. It is also perfectly acceptable to change ones mind based upon greater evidence, I would say it is expected of us to do so although that would be asking too much.

My answer is I do not believe in god but can not prove there is no god.

Do you have a problem with that statement ? If so.

Can you prove there is a god ?

Of course not.

 

[VossistArts]

Well what I believe, or rather, what I know is, I dont know. Why should I make myself seem to have a strong idea one way or the other? So people wont mistake my honesty for ignorance? I personally think its a bit of an insecurity issue to feel the need to decide on the reality of anything suggested based on the suggestion alone, based on what we already already know about everything were aware of. Especially when the idea we're considering is so profoundly unlike anything else known to us.

Look I realize that the idea of there actually being a god out there somewhere is a long shot heh. At the same time I also feel that some or many of the things we will eventually discover to be realities will be astonishingly hard to believe even when were face to face with them, the kinds of things we have no way of predicting or even imagining to be true at this early stage of human knowledge and awareness. I guess ultimately I acknowledge the vast potential for the unknown to manifest itself before us and I feel somewhat humbled by this. So I can abide with some things as long as is necessary.

 

[phlogistician]

2) Phlog, telling me my usage is wrong, and the OED's and philosophers' and theologians.

I'm an atheist, and you, and the OED, and theologians are telling me what I think?

I do not know any atheist who uses the word to mean 'anti-theist', it is only used by theists in that context, do you not understand this?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Simon
1 aspect of this I'm not continuing now because it's obviously useless. The rest I will comment no further on after this post for the same reason.
You & I went round&round on this with me sometimes saying an atheist simply means no belief in gods & sometimes saying that obviously includes those who say there are no gods. While you insisted an atheist is by definition believing there are no gods. Not what you are saying now. Until I finally managed to stop trying to convince people of a truth they refuse to see. I definitely don't need to check previous posts for that.
Then I thought I could make a good point by looking at whether theists actually believe what they claim. I started with THE GOD DESCRIBED IN THE KJV. You couldn't stick to that but babbled nonsense claiming I'm saying something which I'm not. Maybe down the line you would have had me on a theist who doesn't claim to believe the entire bible but now we'll never know.

Phlog
I believe he's actually agreeing with us now.

 

[Simon Anders]

I'm an atheist, and you, and the OED, and theologians are telling me what I think?

Obviously not. The OED, for example, says that an atheist either believes there is no God OR lacks a belief in God. This does not tell you what to think. You should be ashamed to have an irrational theist point out something this obvious to you. You are absolutely accurate according to the OED when you use the term atheist to describe yourself, a person who lacks a belief in God.

You have however been incorrect about the history of the word.

I do not know any atheist who uses the word to mean 'anti-theist', it is only used by theists in that context, do you not understand this?

Many people who believe there is no God call themselves atheists. Check out other discussion forums on the internet. Some of them have a habit of calling atheists like you pussies. Others are polite but also quite sure of themselves.

 

[phlogistician]

Obviously not. The OED, for example, says that an atheist either believes there is no God OR lacks a belief in God. This does not tell you what to think.

That's the recorded usage, and the recorded usage is incorrect in the aspect of anti-theism. And as I have only ever encountered theists using the term, yes, I am being told what I think.

Many people who believe there is no God call themselves atheists. Check out other discussion forums on the internet. Some of them have a habit of calling atheists like you pussies. Others are polite but also quite sure of themselves.

I've never seen that. Please provide links to where I can see it.

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon
1 aspect of this I'm not continuing now because it's obviously useless. The rest I will comment no further on after this post for the same reason.
You & I went round&round on this with me sometimes saying an atheist simply means no belief in gods & sometimes saying that obviously includes those who say there are no gods. While you insisted an atheist is by definition believing there are no gods. Not what you are saying now. Until I finally managed to stop trying to convince people of a truth they refuse to see. I definitely don't need to check previous posts for that.
Then I thought I could make a good point by looking at whether theists actually believe what they claim. I started with THE GOD DESCRIBED IN THE KJV. You couldn't stick to that but babbled nonsense claiming I'm saying something which I'm not. Maybe down the line you would have had me on a theist who doesn't claim to believe the entire bible but now we'll never know.

Phlog
I believe he's actually agreeing with us now.

It's odd, but no matter how much I read the above I cannot see an admission that I was correct about Phlog and JDawg despite Phlog backing me up yet again.
What is it with you two that makes it so hard to admit you are wrong?

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon
While you insisted an atheist is by definition believing there are no gods. .

Could you link me to this please?

 

[Simon Anders]

I've never seen that. Please provide links to where I can see it.

edit: the posts toward the end are probably stronger. I first went to alt.philosophy where I had seen strong atheists regularly, but then I just started checking out atheist websites and atheist organization websites and I see that they use it, often, the same way the OED does.

You have no authority to say people are using the term incorrectly.

Medicine Woman calls herself an atheist right here and no one has called her on it.

Here's one thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....&q="there+is+no+god"+atheist#85250395d391d56d

elsewhere
Roger Johansson and the atheist referred to in the OP are examples.

And here, scroll down to Pastor Kutchie.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....&q="there+is+no+god"+atheist#85250395d391d56d

He is saying that there is a good reason to be an atheists : God does not exist.
SAM Harris considers himself an atheist, note the title....
“
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha...u-_b_8459.html
”
“
Carl Sagan

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
”
I wonder what Carl Sagan though an atheist was.

“
http://www.flamewarrior.com/
”
from an atheist website
“
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
”
notice what is said NOT to exist.

“
http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspo...is-no-god.html
”
Here is a person who identifies himself as an atheist and his explanation of strong and weak atheism. You can follow links to his self-description where he identifies himself as an atheist.

Also Phlog,
Most of the philosophy professors who use the terms Hard and Soft or Weak and Strong atheism are atheists, at least the ones I met are. Take a moment to think about it. How many monotheists are going to become philosophers these days?

From another atheist website:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/f...m#WHATISPOSATH

Notice the definition of the strong position.

Are you ready to admit that a number of what you are calling anti-theists use the term atheist to include those who believe there is no God?

Jesus fucking Christ!

 

[Balerion]

Vosser,

At the end of the day, you believe or you don't. I understand that you are open to the idea; I am as well. If I got a message from God that I could not deny, I'd be the first to put on my happy face. But the truth is, since I don't know if it exists or not, I can't believe in it, can I?

There is a difference between not believing, and believing it doesn't exist. But there is no "I don't know" stance.

 

[phlogistician]

Medicine Woman calls herself an atheist right here and no one has called her on it.

Does she refer to herself as an atheist, or anti-theist. I'm not certain of her position, I'll go ask.

Here's one thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....&q="there+is+no+god"+atheist#85250395d391d56d

elsewhere
Roger Johansson and the atheist referred to in the OP are examples.

Where does Roger refer to himself as an Atheist? He says he believes there is no God, but nowhere in that passage does he label himself.

 

[Simon Anders]

Phlog,
I updated that post with more links. I went to atheist webpages and found that you are incorrect.