This group believes atheism is a lack of belief. Now, clearly, that’s semantics.
God does not exist, I believe, but I reserve the right to change my mind if proof of God is given.
Each individual that posts here has a definition for the word atheist. There is no group.
If you want to identify as someone who believes there is/are no god/s, okay. I would call you a gnostic atheist - a person who says they do not believe in god(s) (atheist) and claims to know no god(s) exist.
A/Gnosticism is about knowledge.
As I define the words, I am an agnostic atheist.
I call myself that because I do not believe claims that any gods exist but I cannot know for certain,
In fact, I think NO ONE can know for certain if any gods exist. So your claim that none exist is, imo, bupkus. Additionally, by claiming that no gods exist, you take on the burden of proof for that.
1 Like
THIS…
Words, mere words are meaningless, seemingly.
Words are assigned meaning by invention and by usage…common, or not so common, or, scientific or even religious usage.
Atheism has a dictionary definition and several sub definitions.
Agnosticism has a very specific meaning and a greek root. It is in the dictionaries as well.
Before making superfical (and quite silly comments) it would be good for your literary style to find out before making an absolute pigs arse of yourself. Oh, a word of advice, ‘cherry picking’ quotes and definitions does not go down well amongst this crowd of odiferous barbarians, in case you should be tempted…
2 Likes
Well I don’t have my own logic, as it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. I am and must rationally be an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, and also an atheist as I do not believe in any deity or deities. I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, because if I believe some and not others that would involve bias which is closed minded, and to believe all of them would inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, and be irrational.
Atheism is simply the absence or lack of belief in any deity, and agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about god, so if a god concept is presented that is unfalsifiable I must remain agnostic, and also atheistic about it. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, why would they be?
3 Likes
That isn’t remotely what an agnostic is?
noun
- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
FYI you cannot believe in nothing, humans can’t function without forming beliefs about the world they perceive.
Nope, nihilism is defined as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. You really ought to consult a dictionary before making these sweeping claims.
2 Likes
Well of course, since a) semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, and b) that is precisely what atheism means according to common usage, a cursory look at the dictionary definition demonstrates this.
noun
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
This is still atheism, since it also must involve the lack or absence of belief in any deity, I do not share your generic belief, as I see no way to demonstrate any objective evidence for it as a generic claim, it also seems to be an unfalsifiable belief in the generic sense.
Are we supposed to glean anything from those “mere words”?
1 Like
OH FUCK>>> You guys keep beating me to the posts… DAMN! Everyone is agnostic. Carusmn you are agnostic as well., If you weren’t, you would be able to show me god. What do you know about god and how do you know it?
3 Likes
This is one of the best threads I’ve seen in quite a while. I am afraid the core problem is an inability to understand that a person can “lack” of a belief in something you find so central to the core of your current life situation. The numerous attempts to explain that have been put off by you time and again. That you don’t seem to believe that any of us don’t revolve around a central tenet of a belief in something, even if it’s a belief in the lack of a belief. I don’t know that I have an answer for you that will satisfy you in this one regard, as I seldom get to this point with any religious or god(s) believing people. But I am going to try so, here goes:
Try this thought experiment:
Do you believe that fairies and elves or any wee folk exist? Santa Claus? Easter Bunny? No? Do you walk through life thinking deep thoughts about how to navigate your existential ideas about your purpose or the meaning of your life based on your non-belief in wee folk? No? Does it even cross your mind that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny had a place central to your absolute certainty that they once existed in your life, that they played a direct part in your life, interacting with your physical surroundings, listening fervently while you pleaded with them to bring you your heart’s desires and nothing, not even the admission by your parents that they themselves are the Santa and Bunny, would have changed your mind? Now fast forward to when you no longer believed in anything remotely smelling of red noses, cookies and milk, or Springtime and vinegar (colored eggs). Does your lack of a belief in those imaginary beings require you to hold a central tenet or dogma of a lack of those beliefs? Of course not. You probably don’t even think about it, except to lovingly remember the time when you did believe, as a time of innocence and the wonderful experience of waking up to see what you got under the tree and in your basket.
For myself, at least, my disbelief, or lack of belief, or un-belief, is like that. I am also one of the few who make the positive, assertive statement that no god(s) exist based entirely on the idea that they (wee folk, Santa, Bunny, god(s)) are all the same. Zeus, or Jupiter, if you like, Odin, Inana, Hecate, Bubba the Love god, Isis, Osiris, do you believe they exist? If not, we believe the same thing. I just don’t believe in one more god.
I have no idea if that will help you to overcome this, imho, fundamental misunderstanding of what lack of belief is.
According to me.
1 Like
No. Words are the most important “thing” we, as a species, have. It’s the fundamental way we communicate with each other. Words and how they are used matter. Nothing we currently have would be possible without “words.” An even more important invention is writing. Without writing, words would be ephemeral, knowledge limited to a very, very few. So please, don’t disrespect words.
1 Like
It’s actually very simple. Just imagine belief in god is a cancerous tumor in your brain. When you get the tumor cut out of your brain, with what do you replace it? When it is just not there anymore, what do you imagine needs to take its place? I suggest, 'there may be a bit of scarring: however, the damage, the real damage, has been removed.
1 Like
What if one never had it? The consternation many apologists exhibit at this news borders on, dare I say it of the credulous, disbelief ironically.
3 Likes
I hope he (she, they?) come back. Too many don’t stick around through what we all here know as robust defence of our positions, but are taken as offensive, get angry and flee. It’s not always easy to stay in the lane without flinging shit because people can’t differentiate between robust debate and plain assholery and fuckery.
1 Like
Well I can’t imagine it’s much fun having their core beliefs that they cherish subjected to “robust” critical scrutiny. Then again they chose to come here.
1 Like
Cognostic, a good analogy. But what is the definition of harm?
1 Like
HARM: a harmful action, event or condition is what makes a life worse than it would have been otherwise, if that action or event had not occurred. The doctor removing the cancer by cutting into the brain is in fact harming the body. The lesser harm alleviates the greater harm, and so we endure it, If I did the same thing on my kitchen table, even if the procedure was a complete success, the harm would be done to the cultural perspective of the right way to do things. If I want to perform surgeries, I should first go to school and get degrees. We can not have just anyone performing surgeries whenever they feel like it. That would be harmful to society. In some sense to qualify as harmful, there must be a victim. If I bite my fingernails, it is probably harmful to my social image, but I don’t care, and so feel no harm. I will probably never harm my body by getting a tattoo. Many people like tattoos and are willing to engage in the harm to satisfy some desire they have. Seems that enduring a small harm for a greater reward is worth it to some people, Look at Jesus! He gave up a weekend of being an eternal being, just so you could have everlasting life. A meaningless harm for a great reward.
4 Likes
Is atheism a belief system?
If he does he’s not using it here.
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities…According to estimates there are at least 500 million atheists in the world."
So no then, in its broadest sense and by definition, atheism is not a belief system, and it need make no assumptions about naturalism or science. Your desire to give your own beliefs some purchase, seems to involve ever more desperately dishonest attempts to irrationally shift the burden of proof from your beliefs, onto those who don’t share them. Tellingly you do this in a generic sweeping way, rather than addressing specific claims individual atheists may or may not make.
Atheists have belief systems, atheism is not a beliefs system obviously. Which oddly enough was my initial response in March:
It’s in any dictionary? However your assertion is demonstrably wrong, as it would be absurd to claim one could believe something existed without defining it.
Is it me? I note that when I pointed out what I had already pointed out he moved one and never revisited that assertion, and he moved on to this:
There is one definition that encompasses al; atheists, no one has claimed only one definition has ever existed. Now note my response at this dishonesty:
Note the response:
Did I not just answer that? Is it not clearly emboldened in my post that we are using the primary dictionary definition? Why would I say that if I thought there was only one definition? To add insult to injury he then makes an anecdotal claim about an encyclopaedia definition, that apart from being almost a century old, can’t be examined for context.
Ok so these replies seems to cover this dishonesty, you’d think?
ote there he pretends to not understand that this was an analogy about how inaccurate using definitions leads to confusion.
Then he dishonestly ignored the point about primary vs secondary definitions, so I make yet another attempt to explain, despite him ignoring it at every turn:
He is trying to claim that those who hold no belief in any deity or deities are not atheists, which is of course absurd. He responds without addressing my question at all:
I have to say, I had forgotten just how relentlessly dishonest a poster he has been until I read through that brief discourse. He makes assertions, pretends to want to debate them, and simply ignore responses that carefully outline counter arguments. Anyway I then asked him about a blatant lie I highlighted and he had ignored:
Guess what:
Moving on indeed, no attempt to address the lie at all. I also got this from that very encyclopaedia: “atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.” The definition sherloc wants to pretend applies to all atheists is a philosophical one, and as I have shown, excludes rather than includes many atheists.
1 Like
Here is another breathtakingly dishonest response:
Dear oh fucking dear…which part of “would include” tripped him up there do you think?
It’s his claim that has created the excluded subgroup not mine? So another breathtakingly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, the word clowns was directed at religious apologists who’ve tried his irrational tactic here, by defining atheism in a way that would exclude many atheists. I not only didn’t claim anyone who held a belief no deity exists was not an atheist, I very specifically explained that the current dictionary definition would include them, I am frankly surprised I managed to keep my cool with such a blatant lie, after re-reading this.
There you go, one more clear attempt at honest discourse. And this is the result…
It’s annoying just re-reading his dishonesty. I think I will leave it there, but next time he’s ranting about civility in debate I’d recommend anyone read through that painfully mendacious exchange, and all to peddle atheism as a belief system, while pretending that he’s asking a question.
2 Likes