Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

[Nasor]

Yet stated in the past 6 posts which you overlooked, atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists "to not believe in; to have no faith in; to not credit" as a definition for "disbelieve." So, according to what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and well-respected dictionary on the English language ever produced, a person who does not believe in any gods, or has no faith in any gods, is an atheist.

On a side note, it has always amused me how people who don't call themselves atheists insist on trying to tell people who do call themselves atheists what the word means.

 

[Dywyddyr]

atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.

Wrong. It's not always, but it can be.

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism.

Practical atheism can take various forms:
* Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
* Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
* Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
* Unawareness of the concept of a deity

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

Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decided against it, are de facto atheists).

the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

 

[lixluke]

the oxford english dictionary lists "to not believe in; to have no faith in; to not credit" as a definition for "disbelieve." so, according to what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and well-respected dictionary on the english language ever produced, a person who does not believe in any gods, or has no faith in any gods, is an atheist.

On a side note, it has always amused me how people who don't call themselves atheists insist on trying to tell people who do call themselves atheists what the word means.

oxford

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that god does not exist.

— derivatives atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— origin from greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

 

[Scaramouche]

With that everything is fine. But to make matters worse, there is a website called "infidels" that propogate their own definitions as if their definitions have any credibility in standard usage. Then they impart their definitions into wikipedia and such as if they were standard usage. Instead of stating that these are their own definitions, they are going around claiming that these are the standard definitions. Then use absurd twists on the 'a' in atheism to justify their terminology as if their terminology was historical usage.

It's the Internet. It's full of little cliques that invent their own realities and agree with each other and then try to push the idea that their agreed-upon crap is actual reality.

 

[lixluke]

Wrong. It's not always, but it can be.



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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

WTF? He's referencing Wikipedia. Did you not read the last 18 posts about this?

 

[lixluke]

Wrong. It's not always, but it can be.

I guess I have to explain this slowly. Any word can be anything any kindergartener wants it to be. What we're discussing here is standard usage for the sake of relevant discussion on a topic. When you're with your little cliqies, you can use any terminology you want. In a legit discussion however, it's best to go by standard definitions.

 

[Scaramouche]

Ages ago I was looking at Wikipedia's entry about the death penalty, and loaded the page just after someone edited it. It was quite funny.

 

[Nasor]

oxford

The OED defines "atheism" as " Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." I don't know what you were quoting there, but it wasn't the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Disbelieve" is defined as "Not to believe or credit."

"Believe" is defined as "To have confidence or faith in."

Do you have confidence that a god exists? If not, then you disbelieve in god. If you disbelieve in god, you are an atheist. But hey, I'm only referencing the Oxford English Dictionary here. What is that compared to a bunch of random web pages?

Edit: Upon further review, you were apparently quoting some bullshit dictionary that isn't the OED, but that simply stuck "Oxford" in its name in an attempt to fool people who aren't paying close attention into thinking it's somehow related to the OED.

 

[Scaramouche]

This website is actually a website of Oxford University Press, the folks who make the Oxford English Dictionary. The website uses the definitions from their compact edition.

 

[Nasor]

This website is actually a website of Oxford University Press, the folks who make the Oxford English Dictionary. The website uses the definitions from their compact edition.

And this website is the actual dictionary:

http://dictionary.oed.com/

But thanks for the correction. If it's true that the website is using the "compact edition," them the compact edition must be pretty different from the full edition. The full edition defines "atheism" as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." Given the definitions of "disbelief" and "belief" (see above) it seems quite clear that a person who simply does not have confidence that a god exists is an atheist.

 

[Scaramouche]

Yeah. Need a subscription for that one. Which is why they made the other website with the Compact definitions.

 

[Scaramouche]

Which means, this

Edit: Upon further review, you were apparently quoting some bullshit dictionary that isn't the OED, but that simply stuck "Oxford" in its name in an attempt to fool people who aren't paying close attention into thinking it's somehow related to the OED.

is silly.

 

[Nasor]

Which means, this

is silly.

True. That's why I said "thanks for the correction" in my previous post. Never the less, I'll still go with the full edition's definition rather than some chopped-down edition.

 

[Dywyddyr]

WTF? He's referencing Wikipedia. Did you not read the last 18 posts about this?

The only mention of Wiki is a statement of yours (unsubstantiated) about "cliques".

I guess I have to explain this slowly. Any word can be anything any kindergartener wants it to be. What we're discussing here is standard usage for the sake of relevant discussion on a topic. When you're with your little cliqies, you can use any terminology you want. In a legit discussion however, it's best to go by standard definitions.

Correct: and, as shown, your personal definition is incorrect.

 

[lixluke]

It's not my personal definition. Disbelief is a rejection of something as false. That is the dictionary. Atheism is the rejection of theism as false. That is the dictionary. The term atheism by standard, does not and should not be used to described nontheists who do not reject theism.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's not my personal definition. Disbelief is a rejection of something as false.

Oops, wrong again:

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

http://www.yourdictionary.com/disbelief

As has been pointed out to you more than once.

 

[lixluke]

Oops, wrong again:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/disbelief

As has been pointed out to you more than once.

Why the hell would you reference your dictionary with your personal defintion, and then tell me that I am using my own definition when I'm referencing actual dictionaries?

Either way, nobody takes infedel.com's kindergarten definitions of atheism seriously. In the adult world, not all nontheists are atheists. In the adult world, agnosticism is not a type of atheism. In that adult world, labeling all nontheists as atheists is a misuse of standard terminology. Just because you worship the bolloks on their website doesn't mean anybody else will take it seriously.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why the hell would you reference your dictionary with your personal defintion, and then tell me that I am using my own definition when I'm referencing actual dictionaries?

And you're wrong again.
You've been given numerous definitions, Nasor's being the latest. But you seem to ignore them, so it looks like possibly the only way to get through to you is to repeat it ad infinitum.

Either way, nobody takes infedel.com's kindergarten definitions of atheism seriously. In the adult world, not all nontheists are atheists. In the adult world, agnosticism is not a type of atheism. In that adult world, labeling all nontheists as atheists is a misuse of standard terminology.

And your experience of the "adult world" would be...?
It appears you have as little familiarity with English as you do with relativity.
If it doesn't conform to your personal take on it it must be wrong.

Just because you worship the bolloks on their website doesn't mean anybody else will take it seriously.

Fatuously stupid assumption/ assertion on your part.

 

[lixluke]

It's not an assumption. Those people are like viruses. they convert people to their definitions. And the people who get converted start converting others to their definitions which aren't acknowledged in any legitimate discussion. They fanatically uphold those definitions as if they were correct. Then go around 'correcting' others who are actually using the term 'atheism' correctly.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's not an assumption.

Er:

Just because you worship the bolloks on their website

IS an assumption.

Those people are like viruses. they convert people to their definitions. And the people who get converted start converting others to their definitions which aren't acknowledged in any legitimate discussion. They fanatically uphold those definitions as if they were correct. Then go around 'correcting' others who are actually using the term 'atheism' correctly.

But so is that. You have yet to provide any evidence.
(And bear in mind particular one is Webster's...)