Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

[Dywyddyr]

Atheism is not a lack of belief.

Wrong.

It is a belief.

Wrong.

To define atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect.

It includes the lack.

This has already been discussed comprehensively many many many many times.

It has. And the main problem is that you won't accept any definition other than your own.

People who lack the belief in God or about God are not atheists unless they also believe there is no God.

Wrong.

Those who lack the belief do not, by necessity, consider the universe as Godless.

So what do they think?
How CAN they consider there is a god if they lack belief?

It is nonsensical and completely pointless to define them as atheists or Godless.

That's 100% true. If we agree with your personal definition and yours only.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is a belief. To define atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect. This has already been discussed comprehensively many many many many times.

indeed it has - and the comprehensive discussions demonstrate with absolute clarity, and without any margin for error, that atheism can only be classed as a belief if the definition of the word belief - and/or the definition of the word atheism - and/or the definition of the prefix "A" - and/or its suffix (not to mention the word in its own right) "Theism" - are all changed from their accepted dictionary definitions to the definitions that you desperately want them to be instead.

Try as you might to change those definitions and surplant them with those other definitions that you have pulled out of your arse in order to support your predjudices, you have not succeeded.

you were wrong

you remain wrong

you will continue to be wrong until you open a dictionary (assuming you can read and have basic skills in comprehension of the english language)

it's that simple

no further discussion required

 

[lixluke]

I believe I understand what the confusion is.

If we frame 'belief' as a statement of probability on a binary question of God's existence:

• lixluke is of the opinion that an agnostic has assigned even odds on the existence of god.
• Contrary positions (drawing apon James R and Raithere, who voiced their opinions here most concisely) seem to agree that people who do not assign odds are agnostic.

Agnosticism is also a belief. Both atheism and agnosticism are beliefs. Not lack of belief.

indeed it has - and the comprehensive discussions demonstrate with absolute clarity, and without any margin for error, that atheism can only be classed as a belief if the definition of the word belief - and/or the definition of the word atheism - and/or the definition of the prefix "A" - and/or its suffix (not to mention the word in its own right) "Theism" - are all changed from their accepted dictionary definitions to the definitions that you desperately want them to be instead.

Try as you might to change those definitions and surplant them with those other definitions that you have pulled out of your arse in order to support your predjudices, you have not succeeded.

you were wrong

you remain wrong

you will continue to be wrong until you open a dictionary (assuming you can read and have basic skills in comprehension of the english language)

it's that simple

no further discussion required

What are you talking about? I am refering to the dictionary definition. Atheism is not a lack of belief. And there is nothing you can do to change the original definition and proper use of the term. All you are trying to do is classify those who lack any belief under atheism. It is not going to happen and will not happen because it cannot happen. Atheism has always been and will always be a belief. At least in standard use. Nobody cares about what justifications a few deviants want to make for your ideas of how you want the word to be used.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I am refering to the dictionary definition.

quote and cite

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

quote and cite

Here are two from the Linguistics Moderator.

Atheism:
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Here are two from the Linguistics Moderator.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

I am refering to the dictionary definition. Atheism is not a lack of belief. And there is nothing you can do to change the original definition and proper use of the term.

disbelief definition
dis·be·lief (dis′bə lēf′, dis′bə lēf′)
noun
refusal to believe; absence of belief

Webster's

Absence = lack.
Now shut up 'luke.

 

[iceaura]

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary
Atheism:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

In my edition, the third, those are both aspects - a and b - of one definition.

The other separate definition is "Godlessness. Immorality".

It doesn't make sense, to me, to establish belief in a deity - having a God of one's own - as the default state of human existence; so that active and secure disbelief is required to take on the other state. It seems to be the other way around: All the deities I know of require extensive exposure or serious effort for their inculcation.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Having once again been comprehensively proved wrong, one wonders if Lixluke will prove himself categorically to be a Dingbat in accordance with the Sciforums Encyclopedia definition.

A dingbat is a term used by scientists to define humans (typically female) who exhibit a permanently affixed lack of common sense. This condition is usually the result from a combination of sluggish thinking, naivety, and poor reasoning skills. It is sometimes a side-effect to emotive reasoning (IE - when presented with a complex task, bursting into tears and sobbing instead of committing themselves to learn).
Dingbats are also notorious for committing blatant logical fallacies, then stubbornly sticking to them despite being proven wrong.

To date, it is undetermined if these individuals are truly hopeless, or if they can eventually be coached out of their own idiocy.

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Dingbat

 

[lixluke]

Webster's

Stop making up your own definitions and quoting out of fake webster dictionaries.

WEBSTER:
Disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

In my edition, the third, those are both aspects - a and b - of one definition.

The other separate definition is "Godlessness. Immorality".

It doesn't make sense, to me, to establish belief in a deity - having a God of one's own - as the default state of human existence; so that active and secure disbelief is required to take on the other state. It seems to be the other way around: All the deities I know of require extensive exposure or serious effort for their inculcation.

The default is neither. A belief cannot be a default. Atheism/Godlessness is not default. You can try to contest the standard definition of atheism on the appropriate thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98754

Atheism or any 'ism' has nothing to do with any lack or absence of belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Stop making up your own definitions and quoting out of fake webster dictionaries.

Ignorance in action (again) I see.
Note I stated Webster's NOT Merriam-Webster's.
The link is to YourDictionary: which, as it says on the page, IS Webster's.

Atheism/Godlessness is not default.

Wrong.

Atheism or any 'ism' has nothing to do with any lack or absence of belief.

Also wrong.

 

[lixluke]

Ignorance in action (again) I see.
Note I stated Webster's NOT Merriam-Webster's.

Note nobody cares what any of the myriad of fake webster dictionaries say. Same goes for definitions that you make up out of nowhere. Or anything else that you find on non-reputable websites.

Disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Merriam-Webster

There is nothing you can do to change this. It's set in stone. So is the proper definition of atheism. All you are trying to do is make atheism apply to those who lack belief. It will never work considering nobody with actual sense will accept it. Those with actual sense are aware that atheism is an active mental rejection of something as untrue. Not a lack of anything.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Note nobody cares what any of the myriad of fake webster dictionaries say.

Fake?

Same goes for definitions that you make up out of nowhere. Or anything else that you find on non-reputable websites.

Stop talking out of your arse.

Disbelief:[/B] the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrueMerriam-Webster

So what?
You've been given MANY definitions that ALSO state: lack of belief.

There is nothing you can do to change this. It's set in stone.

Nothing needs changing.

So is the proper definition of atheism. All you are trying to do is make atheism apply to those who lack belief. It will never work considering nobody with actual sense will accept it. Those with actual sense are aware that atheism is an active mental rejection of something as untrue. Not a lack of anything.[/FONT]

Wrong again.
You were given a quote from a dictionary dating back to the early 40s, among others (which wrecks your ridiculous contention that infidels is spreading incorrect definitions).
Stop trolling.
You've been shown that atheism includes lack of belief and refuse to accept those definitions.

 

[iceaura]

The default is neither. A belief cannot be a default. Atheism/Godlessness is not default

I think godlessness is the default state, based on my observations of who has which gods and who doesn't.

People whose youth does not include serious exposure to deities don't have them, historically or anthropologically or even sociologically, in general.

People who have gods overwhelmingly have the specific one inculcated by their childhood's surrounding society. Those who acquired them later overwhelmingly acquired one from their surrounding society or specific events of inculcation via other people.

People don't seem to come up with gods, properly speaking, on their own. They don't come up with their own gods. (They do come up with their own ghosts, animating spirits, voices of the dead, immaterial beings and presences, etc).

So I think the default state of human nature is godless. And that is with full recognition of the biological tendency of humans, the apparently inherited and inborn property of the human mind, to believe or accept the idea once exposed to it.

Now if "godless" and "atheistic" do not seem equivalent to you, or if "godlessness" and "atheism" seem clearly differentiated in your mind, separate and different, then that is another argument. But the dictionary seems at least reasonably on my side, along with many experiences of people's labeling of themselves - a more reliable indicator than the labels of others, especially opponents in argument, IMHO.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Yup

a Dingbat

 

[glaucon]

Yup

a Dingbat

A dingbat par excellence.
A new bar has been set.

 

[lixluke]

I think godlessness is the default state, based on my observations of who has which gods and who doesn't.

People whose youth does not include serious exposure to deities don't have them, historically or anthropologically or even sociologically, in general.

People who have gods overwhelmingly have the specific one inculcated by their childhood's surrounding society. Those who acquired them later overwhelmingly acquired one from their surrounding society or specific events of inculcation via other people.

People don't seem to come up with gods, properly speaking, on their own. They don't come up with their own gods. (They do come up with their own ghosts, animating spirits, voices of the dead, immaterial beings and presences, etc).

So I think the default state of human nature is godless. And that is with full recognition of the biological tendency of humans, the apparently inherited and inborn property of the human mind, to believe or accept the idea once exposed to it.

Now if "godless" and "atheistic" do not seem equivalent to you, or if "godlessness" and "atheism" seem clearly differentiated in your mind, separate and different, then that is another argument. But the dictionary seems at least reasonably on my side, along with many experiences of people's labeling of themselves - a more reliable indicator than the labels of others, especially opponents in argument, IMHO.

What are you talking about? Atheism is Godlessness. Godlessness is what atheism is about. It's not about trying to apply Godlessness to people who aren't atheists. That's the whole point. People trying to impose Godlessness/atheism upon those who do not believe in it.

 

[iceaura]

That's the whole point. People trying to impose Godlessness/atheism upon those who do not believe in it.

How is anyone here trying to impose godlessness upon those who have no god? Are there people who have no god, but who are not godless, in your opinion?

 

[spidergoat]

 

[lixluke]

How is anyone here trying to impose godlessness upon those who have no god? Are there people who have no god, but who are not godless, in your opinion?

I'm not talking about those who have no God. You're circular. I'm talking about pointless attempts to impose Godlessness on those who aren't Godless. There are people who lack the belief in God that aren't atheist/Godless. Those are the people I'm talking about. The ones who are being incorrectly labled under atheism/Godlessness.

You can use words however you want. You don't have to accept standard terminology. But don't try to impose Godlessness on those who aren't Godless. That's the only reason anybody would want to refer to those who lack the belief as atheists. Because they want to impose Godlessness on them. Atheism is a Godless perspective.

 

[quadraphonics]

There are people who lack the belief in God that aren't atheist/Godless.

Wow.