Weak Atheism. What a joke.

You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
Assume that Definition 1 is the accurate one. How would that apply to all of your other isms?

What you are claiming is one sided. You have only addressed one definition, and have not provided inference regarding the other definition. You support definition 2, yet have claims.

You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.
 
lixluke said:
You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
We've acknowleged you definition and decalred it wrong. Why would we "assume" it's correct and proceed to debate it or draw any inferences from it?
 
Because you cannot prove that you know what you are talking about unless you show how it affects the other isms. SW takes the ignorant approach. "Your definitions are wrong period."

I specfically rewrote your point of view clearly for the purpose of making sure that I have the correct interpretation of your point of view. It is important for other parties to acknowledge I have correctly interpreted their position. Refusal to do so shows you have no life.
 
lixluke said:
Because you cannot prove that you know what you are talking about unless you show how it affects the other isms. SW takes the ignorant approach. "Your definitions are wrong period."

I specfically rewrote your point of view clearly for the purpose of making sure that I have the correct interpretation of your point of view. It is important for other parties to acknowledge I have correctly interpreted their position. Refusal to do so shows you have no life.
I have no life.
 
lixluke said:
You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.
This is ambiguous.

Some claim that Bigfoot exists.

Some claim it dosen't.

Others simply have no dealings with it. It means nothing to them. It is a complete non-issue in their lives. They make no positive claims either way. It is a null proposition. Can you understand this? It this not clear to you?
 
The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.

In the end, licksluke is only shown us that he has some pathological issue with atheism.
 
superluminal said:
This is ambiguous.

Some claim that Bigfoot exists.

Some claim it dosen't.

Others simply have no dealings with it. It means nothing to them. It is a complete non-issue in their lives. They make no positive claims either way. It is a null proposition. Can you understand this? It this not clear to you?
Yes such an individual has the following qualities:
1. Does not believe that God definitely exists.
2. Does not belive that God definitely does not exist.

The person simply does not acknowledge any God.

According to definition 2, this is atheism.
According to definition 1, this is not atheism.

I am not stating in this post that 1 or 2 are correct. I am just stating how each position views this situation regarding whether or not it is atheism.
Would this be an accurate depiction of both definitions?
 
SkinWalker said:
The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.
Assuming definition 2, this would be correct. Assuming definition 1, this would be incorrect.
Yes or no?
 
lixluke said:
Yes such an individual has the following qualities:
1. Does not believe that God definitely exists.
2. Does not belive that God definitely does not exist.

The person simply does not acknowledge any God.

According to definition 2, this is atheism.
According to definition 1, this is not atheism.

I am not stating in this post that 1 or 2 are correct. I am just stating how each position views this situation regarding whether or not it is atheism.
Would this be an accurate depiction of both definitions?
I have no idea what you're getting at here but for the sake of argument, let's suppose I say yes. Then what?
 
SkinWalker said:
Sorry, but I'm not going down this road of intellectual dishonesty with you. My mind isn't that limited that I need to invoke the god-did-it excuse simply because certain "why" questions aren't forthcoming. Moreover, science asks both "how" and "why" questions all the time. What science doesn't do is entertain superstitious bullshit answers just because testable ones aren't readily observable. If the concept cannot be tested, it isn't science. Paranormal bullshit like gods is tossed out. That doesn't mean that scientists are therefore atheists (I'm sure Ken Miller would disagree with that notion). In fact, your comments about atheists are largely generalizing and inaccurate. Many atheists simply aren't any more interested in how the universe works than many head-in-the-sand theists. They simply don't buy into the superstitious bullshit of religious nutters.


Show me an example of science asking "why". Example, why is the sky blue was not originally asked by science or a scientist and you know it.
 
SkinWalker said:
The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.

In the end, licksluke is only shown us that he has some pathological issue with atheism.

Once again you are wrong. People who believe in God are not always superstitious, and you have superstitious scientists who believe in a lot of stuff, like randomness, or chaos creating order, or any of these athiest versions of superstition. Some scientists truly believe that the universe has an end, and some scientists in the past believed you could fall off the edge of the earth.
 
TimeTraveler said:
Show me an example of science asking "why".

You're kidding, right? How about "why does climate change?" And millions of other questions, many of which are observations that come up during research. Indeed, the very nature of research is to ask a research question, often beginning in "why" as well as "how" or "what."


TimeTraveler said:
Once again you are wrong. People who believe in God are not always superstitious,

Poppycock. The very nature of belief in the supernatural, particularly "god," is superstitious. Deny it all you want, but religion amounts to superstition, the belief that there is some invisible, yet all-powerful supernatural agent that needs to be appeased or whose approval is sought. Superstition. Nothing more.
 
lixluke said:
Assuming definition 2, this would be correct. Assuming definition 1, this would be incorrect.
Yes or no?

Your "definitions" ended up with a double negative and number 2 came across ambiguously. Its just easier to reject your definitions and stick to the real ones.
 
SkinWalker said:
The Greek language is origin of the word atheism, or atheos, and its meaning, for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language, is clear: "without gods."
Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

EvilBible.com:
...some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.

In practice, there are some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.


Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.
 
lixluke said:
You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
Assume that Definition 1 is the accurate one. How would that apply to all of your other isms?

What you are claiming is one sided. You have only addressed one definition, and have not provided inference regarding the other definition. You support definition 2, yet have claims.

You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.
This argument is quickly becoming a waste of time. Terms are not concrete and the only point to arguing their definition is to define a common understanding from which to proceed. To argue endlessly as to their definition is an exercise in stupidity. The terms can mean whatever we decide they mean. So whether or not the term "atheism" means, "without belief in god" or "the belief that god does not exist" is irrelevant.

But apparently you didn't understand what I was saying so I'll try it again.

Atheism can be either because the term atheism does not preclude either epistemological position. One can take the gnostic or the agnostic stance, the strong or the weak position. But the default position by definition is belief or the absence thereof, not knowledge:

theism 1. : belief in the existence of a god or gods (Websters unabridged)
atheism 1. a : disbelief in the existence of God (Websters unabridged)

Of course, either statement is nonsense unless we establish what god is. If god is a banana sitting on my kitchen counter, then I am a theist.

So my question is, do you have a point here other than arguing the definition of the terms theism and atheism or should I stop wasting my time?

~Raithere
 
Hey Cris, didn't we do this once before?

Pete said:
Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.
Etymological arguments are such a hack.

Here's a portion I posted in a previous discussion:

But if we're using etymology, why stop with the Greeks?

" Tiw wasn't really a war-god at all. Sometimes written Tîwaz, his name is actually identical to deus (Latin "god"), theos (Greek "god"), duw (Welsh "god") and deva (Sanskrit "god"), all of which are thought to derive from an Indo-European root meaning "shining"."
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue105.html

Yet, for the Indo-European-speaking society, we can reconstruct with certainty the word for “god,” *deiw-os, and the two-word name of the chief deity of the pantheon, *dyeu-p ter- (Latin I piter, Greek Zeus pat r, Sanskrit Dyau pitar, and Luvian Tatis Tiwaz). The forms *dyeu- and *deiw-os are both derivatives of a root dyeu-, meaning “to shine,” which appears in the word for “day” in numerous languages (Latin di s; but English DAY is from a different root). The notion of deity was therefore linked to the notion of the bright sky.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html

So we can then take the word atheism to mean "not shiny".

~Raithere
 
Back
Top