You migh not bet your life savings on the claim that there is no God with 100% certainty. Nonetheless, you can still claim that to your knowledge, there is no God. Simply not claiming there is a God does not make one atheist. In the same way, simply not claiming there is no God does not make one a theist. I would in all respects label you an atheist. That does not mean to say you will bet your life on whatever position you stand by. As far as you are concerned or as far as you know, there isn't any God out there.
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It seems you think you know me better than I know myself, how come ?
And what about the other two questions ?
You're missing the point. Hitchens does not comment on the existence of a particular god, but instead refers to the influence of churches and religious beliefs in general being harmful. It's not just simply a matter of believing in a god.
Religious indoctrination, for example, has been equated to child abuse. Those effects of religion are indeed harmful as they force children to accept, uncritically the religious beliefs past down to them. Their abilities to reason and rationalize are decimated.
Well I'm not psychic if that's what you think. You're not the only one around here who has told me that btw. It's just observation and deduction.
Not that my positions have any effect on the definitions of the positions, but I consider myself anti-anti-theist. Or radical theist terrorist.
I did not miss the point. Are you sure you read my statement correctly?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, you misunderstood. You didn't get it right at all. It's just that you seem convinced that you know me better than I know myself.
I don't know you better than you know yourself. My thoughts are simply that you value spirituality more than most others. Am I mistaken?
Yes, this one:
"Nobody should be allowed to worship or believe in any God is an example of anti-theism. "
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't think so, but what do you mean exactly ?
Atheism is a fixed belief system (a religion) that doesn't believe in gods.
:shrug:
As has been explained to you before, providing links merely to arguments you have constructed yourself is NOT evidence of their correctness.
Please provide evidence that supposedly debunks the given etymology of "atheism", from "atheos" meaning "godless".
You have said "already proven... not only incorrect... but complete propaganda" yet you have not provided an alternative etymology with any supporting evidence.
You have nothing but your own confidence to support your claims.
Atheist = not theist.
Either live with it or please give the rest of us a break from your repetitive irrelevancy.
As to the question raised by another of why "weak" atheists do not argue against the position held by "strong" atheists (i.e. those who believe God does not exist) it is because the strong atheist only really goes one step further - and it is a step that most "weak" atheists understand but do not adhere to.
It is the step from "no evidence" to "therefore God does not exist" that the strong-atheists generally take.
It is a step that it is understood, if not agreed with.
There is therefore little to discuss.
Yes, the weak atheist can call the strong atheist irrational for making that jump to the "God does not exist conclusion" - but the strong atheist would generally hold their hand up and say it is a matter of probability... and a jump of 0.01% is hardly a jump. So again... not much argument to be had, really.
If a strong atheist wishes to provide evidence that proves God's non-existence... then we might have more discussions.
But I am not aware of many such arguments... only usually the "lack of evidence by now leads one to conclude..." sort of argument.
I guess it is just a feeling I pick up. Sort of an impression that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything you or anybody speficically said. These impressions are different for evebody. For you, it's an impression that you growth in a metaphysical sense in one form or another. While all humans are part of the planet earth, you probably have more of a natural connection to it. Which is why I am not surprised when you mention something about the environment. You were born to defend the environment. You should become an ecoterrorist. See it's not like I think I know people. I honestly know nothing about people in here. I don't know what people for a living or what their family or daily life is like. But there are impressions of personalities that I get.
Interesting that you say it is a "belief system" and then define it as a lack of belief rather than an actual belief.
Would you like me to rephrase it to please your highness?
Atheism is a fixed belief system (a religion) that believes in the nonexistence of god(s).
What are you talking about? I've already shown the correct etymology.
Athe-ism is an ism just as much as the-ism is an ism.
Thus, the claim that a-theism to be without theism is a misinterpretation. It is incorrect etymology. I thought we were past this.
Again, for the record, there are 2 positions on the matter.
1. The position that the original proper etymology for atheism is athe-ism meaning all who hold the antithetical position to theism. Thus, atheism is the term only for those who hold that there is no God.
2. The position that the original proper etymology for atheism is a-theism meaning all who are without theism. Thus, atheism is the term for all those who do not fall under theism.
Of the 2, I consider #1 to be the original etymology for atheism. I also consider #2 to be unecessary and pointless. They might as well say all those who do not hold there is no God fall under thesim. #2 is incorrect etymology. #2 is not the original intended use for the term, and it is not the common standard use for the term.
Atheism has a religious connotation to it so it should be treated like a religion.
You consider 1 to be the correct etymology - but provide little/no evidence to support your case.
You say that 2 is not the original intended use... yet you provide no evidence to support your case.
You see the issue with your claims?
Maybe if you provide some source that clearly shows the first usage of the original word and the "original intended use" then maybe you'll be on to something.
And as for atheism being an "-ism" - all this means is that atheists follow their lives as though there is no god. It does not mean that they actually believe god to not exist - just that they do not follow their lives as if god does exist. - i.e. someone who does not follow theism.
And this ties in with the etymology of atheism from "atheos" meaning godless - i.e. those that lived their lives without gods - i.e. anyone who did not follow their lives as though the Gods existed - or indeed anyone who just refused to acknowledge them.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Come on Q, don't play manipulative word games. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze AGe. You were using Bronze Age to mean religion. But obviously mankind is not in agreement with you about religion. It is false we.
My beliefs are pointless because I cannot convince you?
Good argument.
Q, you got sarcastic, pissed off and manipulative, when I said I was a theist.
All that shit you have in you in reaction to theists has nothing to do with me.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Evasive as usual when it comes down to things you say and believe.
You wrote about 'demonstrating of the non-existence of gods'.
1) this has not happened
2) it can only be said by someone who believes there are not gods.
You refuse to admit that you have this position. Perhaps because it separates you from other atheists, perhaps because you know that it is a problem to defend.
You want your cake and eat it too. Make remarks that are from that philosophy, then deny it when it is pointed out.
I'm not going to pretend you are making sense.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Q said referred to non-theists 'demonstrating the non-existence of god' and not a single atheist in this discussion, not you, not Sarkus, not Phlogistan, not one of you is going to comment on that.
But you will make damn sure that anything you think the lixluxe says that you consider illogical is thoroughly commented on.
Why is that?
- Status