Atheism is a faith.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that was the subject of the thread, wasn't it?

No, the thread is about atheism being a faith, not a belief. They do not necessarily mean the same thing. Apparently you only know how to read the dictionary literally, but the difference between connotation and denotation continues to escape you. You seem to think that all beliefs are faith, yet belief also means just to hold an opinion. So therefore, all opinions must be a faith as well. This is just nonsense.

Dig yourself deeper. It will only hurt more.

Faith:

–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Belief:

–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Any more evasion attempts?

Connoted or denoted, you're trapped.

 

[Taffer]

You made an unsupported statement. You established nothing.

Believe what you wish to believe. I have explained it to you clearly.

One does not need to believe in an affirmative. One can also believe in the negative.

I know this. I never claimed otherwise.

It is belief nonetheless, because it is unknown.

I know this. I never claimed otherwise. Please review my three statements, and their differences.

I do, you agree, thus it is so.

Someone needs to look up sarcasm...

Since I supported my position with the definitions of "faith" and "atheism", I did not "mislead", I was not "unsound", I was not "deceptive, misleading, or of false nature", and I was "logical."

You have offered nothing to support your faulty position but your own words, which I have pointed out to be inaccurate or outright wrong.

Give me some evidence of the "fallacy" of my argument.

Ok. It's very simple Huntster. Just because a dictionary says a word means something, does not mean that a) the arguer meant it that way, nor b) that their argument is invalid. Thus, you have commited a fallacy.

Are you blind? Have you not reviewed the links that I cited?

Those are not "my" definitions. They were cited in their entirety and linked to dictionary.com.

It matters not. An argument from definition is false because words can be used in different ways. You should argue the substance of an argument, not pick a definition from somewhere, then say they disagree with that definition. It is fallicious at best, and dishonest at worst.

Again, you have offered nothing to support your words but more of your words, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

What evidence do you require? I have explained what the fallacy is, and how you are performing it. What more do you require?

 

[I less than three logic]

Yep, dug myself deep alright; now please, will you put the definitions of belief and the definitions of opinion next to each other to show they are the same as well. Then, we can prove that all opinions are faith. Well done, very well done indeed.

 

[Taffer]

No.

Start doing your research in order to support your lame position.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to research logic, argument techniques, and fallacies. As long as you continue to use definitions as your argument, you are commiting fallicious reasoning. Claiming you aren't won't change things.

 

[chris epic]

C'mon now . Agnosticism is more practical in a universe attempted to be understood by people on the basis of evidence that supports probability rather than certainty, more practical than either Theism or Atheism because both are presumptious and certain that there is/isn't a God. So I really don't see any use in trying to defend either with a skeptic mentality.

 

[Taffer]

The point is, only some athiests have the view that no god exists. Others simply state that they do not think a god exists. There is an important difference.

Also, FWIW, when I studied the philosophy of religion, epistemology and in particular metaphysics, "atheist" was "not theist", in other words the "I don't have a belief in god" rather then "I belief no god exists". "Agnostic" was "I don't know either way", or perhaps "I cannot know either way". That was the difference as I discovered in my studies.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You made an unsupported statement. You established nothing.

Believe what you wish to believe. I have explained it to you clearly.

An unsupported explanation that I refuted in detail. You have nothing.

Quote:
Since I supported my position with the definitions of "faith" and "atheism", I did not "mislead", I was not "unsound", I was not "deceptive, misleading, or of false nature", and I was "logical."

You have offered nothing to support your faulty position but your own words, which I have pointed out to be inaccurate or outright wrong.

Give me some evidence of the "fallacy" of my argument.

Ok. It's very simple Huntster. Just because a dictionary says a word means something, does not mean that a) the arguer meant it that way, nor b) that their argument is invalid. Thus, you have commited a fallacy.

So, in other words, the debater used poorly chosen words?

How does that explain the definition of atheism:

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Quote:
Are you blind? Have you not reviewed the links that I cited?

Those are not "my" definitions. They were cited in their entirety and linked to dictionary.com.

It matters not. An argument from definition is false because words can be used in different ways.

You're really desperate, aren't you?

Repeatedly I have shown that atheism requires faith or belief, and is a doctrine. How are you going to use those words "in a different way"?

Go ahead. Try again. You have a very efficient shovel.

You should argue the substance of an argument, not pick a definition from somewhere, then say they disagree with that definition. It is fallicious at best, and dishonest at worst.

It is honest, supported, double supported, cogent, and accurate.

Quote:
Again, you have offered nothing to support your words but more of your words, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

What evidence do you require? I have explained what the fallacy is, and how you are performing it. What more do you require?

I even went to the extent of citing and linking the word "fallacy", then showed how the word doesn't apply to my position.

The least you can do is try to refute what I wrote instead of repeating the "fallacy - fallacy - fallacy" mantra with no support whatsoever.

 

[Huntster]

Yep, dug myself deep alright; now please, will you put the definitions of belief and the definitions of opinion next to each other to show they are the same as well. Then, we can prove that all opinions are faith. Well done, very well done indeed.

As you wish.

Opinion:

–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Belief:

–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Just because "doctrine" was included in the definition of "atheism", I figured this should be the last shovel load of dirt on this grave:

–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Want to keep digging?

 

[I less than three logic]

C'mon now . Agnosticism is more practical in a universe attempted to be understood by people on the basis of evidence that supports probability rather than certainty, more practical than either Theism or Atheism because both are presumptious and certain that there is/isn't a God. So I really don't see any use in trying to defend either with a skeptic mentality.

Agnosticism is the belief (yep, we’ve got another faith on our hands) that the existence of god or gods is unknowable. That it can never be known whether or not gods exist. I would suspect that an omnipotent being would be able to show or at least provide evidence for its existence should it choose to. Not only that, but it is not a three way division. Theism and atheism are binary, it’s either or, they are mutually excusive and exhaustive. You either believe something or you do not. Agnosticism can coexist with either of them, and still leaves you with the choice of belief or not. You can say you don’t know or can’t decide, which is fine, but it still leaves you in the not believe section. Any color except for red, even no color at all, is still considered not red; the same as any opinion short of “I believe gods exist” is not belief, it is still atheism.

 

[Taffer]

An unsupported explanation that I refuted in detail. You have nothing.

*sigh* I tire of this, Huntster. Believe what you wish.

So, in other words, the debater used poorly chosen words?
How does that explain the definition of atheism:

As I have told you, many many times, you cannot take a definition other then the poster's original intent and then claim your argument correct because it agrees with that definition. That is fallicious. Dictionary.com is not LAW, it is a dictionary. People can, and do, use words in different ways. For example, when I say "athiest" I mean "not thiest". Are you going to tell me I'm wrong because it does not agree with your precious dictionary?

You're really desperate, aren't you?

No, not really.

Repeatedly I have shown that atheism requires faith or belief, and is a doctrine. How are you going to use those words "in a different way"?

Go ahead. Try again. You have a very efficient shovel.

You have done no such thing. You have stated a definition of athiesm, then said that, based on that definition, it requires faith. You haven't actually asked what any of us, nor the OP, means when they say "athiest". Again, how does "not a thiest" require faith? Does not beleiving in Father Christmas require faith too?

It is honest, supported, double supported, cogent, and accurate.

Er, no. A fallacy is none of these things. As has been explained to you many times, here and elsewhere, you cannot just choose a definition, then claim victory. If we are to debate, we must choose an acceptable definition. I do not agree with your one. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong?

I even went to the extent of citing and linking the word "fallacy", then showed how the word doesn't apply to my position.

The least you can do is try to refute what I wrote instead of repeating the "fallacy - fallacy - fallacy" mantra with no support whatsoever.

I have refuted what you wrote. You do not use the same definition of "athiest" as many of us here do. You certainly don't use the same definition that I do. Perhaps if we all agree on a definition we can debate properly? Or would you rather claim victory?

 

[I less than three logic]

As you wish.

Opinion:



Belief:



Just because "doctrine" was included in the definition of "atheism", I figured this should be the last shovel load of dirt on this grave:



Want to keep digging?

Nope, I’ll leave you to your dictionaries and your complete lack of understanding of the English language. You’ve provided more than enough evidence for any lurkers to draw the same conclusion. Oh, wait:

Conclusion

–noun
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. a reasoned deduction or inference.
6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.
7. Law.
a. the effect of an act by which the person performing the act is bound not to do anything inconsistent therewith; an estoppel.
b. the end of a pleading or conveyance.

Guess, that would be a faith as well.

 

[Huntster]

As I have told you, many many times, you cannot take a definition other then the poster's original intent and then claim your argument correct because it agrees with that definition. That is fallicious. Dictionary.com is not LAW, it is a dictionary. People can, and do, use words in different ways. For example, when I say "athiest" I mean "not thiest". Are you going to tell me I'm wrong because it does not agree with your precious dictionary?

Yup. You/ve used the word improperly.

Call yourself "not theist" if you're not theist, and I will state that you then don't believe theists are correct, or you believe theists are incorrect.

Regardless of what you call yourself, you believe or disbelieve because you cannot know.

You do not use the same definition of "athiest" as many of us here do. You certainly don't use the same definition that I do. Perhaps if we all agree on a definition we can debate properly? Or would you rather claim victory?

I claim facts, I support my claims with evidence, and you do not.

 

[Taffer]

Agnosticism is the belief (yep, we’ve got another faith on our hands) that the existence of god or gods is unknowable. That it can never be known whether or not gods exist. I would suspect that an omnipotent being would be able to show or at least provide evidence for its existence should it choose to. Not only that, but it is not a three way division. Theism and atheism are binary, it’s either or, they are mutually excusive and exhaustive. You either believe something or you do not. Agnosticism can coexist with either of them, and still leaves you with the choice of belief or not. You can say you don’t know or can’t decide, which is fine, but it still leaves you in the not believe section. Any color except for red, even no color at all, is still considered not red; the same as any opinion short of “I believe gods exist” is not belief, it is still atheism.

Good explanation. I wish to add that an "atheist" is simply someone who does not believe in a god. There are many different forms this disbelief can take, including the three I (and then you) posted above, which have yet to be addressed by Huntster (apart from semantic word-games, of course)

 

[Huntster]

Good explanation. I wish to add that an "atheist" is simply someone who does not believe in a god.

I agree. He/she does not know, because they cannot, so they must believe, disbelieve, or remain indifferent.

 

[Taffer]

I agree. He/she does not know, because they cannot, so they must believe, disbelieve, or remain indifferent.

Wrong. The absence of belief is not a belief.

 

[I less than three logic]

I agree. He/she does not know, because they cannot, so they must believe, disbelieve, or remain indifferent.

Remaining indifferent still does not believe. It is still atheism. Atheism is defined in the negative. You either believe or you do not, and anything that is short of "I believe X" does not believe.

 

[Taffer]

Remaining indifferent still does not believe. It is still atheism. Atheism is defined in the negative. You either believe or you do not, and anything that is short of "I believe X" does not believe.

Exactly. To further expand on your point, <3, if I may, perhaps we can formulate the three views being discussed here by using logical symbols.

Let 'Y' stand for "the belief that a god exists", and let 'X' be "my belief". Let '==' stand for "is the same as". Let '~' stand for the negative, i.e. "not raining" could be expressed "~raining".

Therefore a theist's view can be expressed thus: X == Y
A 'strong atheist', or one who states "I believe no god exists" can be expressed: X == ~Y
A 'weak atheist', or one who states "I do not believe a god exists" can be expressed: ~(X == Y). (I dislike the terms "strong" and "weak" atheist, as 'atheist' is a capture all term.)

Understanding these differences is important.

 

[I less than three logic]

Call yourself "not theist" if you're not theist, and I will state that you then don't believe theists are correct, or you believe theists are incorrect.

Wow you are dense. Just what do you think atheism means? "A" is a prefix meaning "not". Atheism means exactly "not theism". I know you hold dictionaries as some sort of authority, but perhaps you should learn your language. Dictionaries are just books with a list of words with their most common meanings among the general public, but not necessarily all meanings or even the most correct meanings. If you knew what the parts that make up the word meant, how the word came to be, and why it was intended to mean what it means, you’d most likely run into this problem less often.

 

[Sushi]

Dictionaries only give common usages of words; and are never complete. The word, while it may fall under one of the available definitions in the dictionary, does not apply to our context. Your semantic maneuvering is tiresome and rather... immature, and I mean intellectual immaturity.

 

[Taffer]

Yup. You/ve used the word improperly.

Claims you. This is why it's fallicious to use a dictionary's definition to argue from, because then it's "claims them". You have to argue against the arguer's definition, or you won't get anywhere.

Call yourself "not theist" if you're not theist, and I will state that you then don't believe theists are correct, or you believe theists are incorrect.

Regardless of what you call yourself, you believe or disbelieve because you cannot know.

This is wrong in many ways. First, the "a" in "atheist" means "not a theist". Secondly, please explain why a lack of belief is a belief? From a purely logical view point, I do not claim theists to be incorrect, I just do not have that belief. I have no belief in the existance of a god, therefore I am an atheist.

I claim facts, I support my claims with evidence, and you do not.

A definition is not a fact. It is one interpretation of the meaning of a word. There are many. We are obviously using a different definition. Who is to say who is right? This is why you must argue from a common definition.