Atheism is a faith.

[Huntster]

....I'm sure Huntster lies in bed when he sleeps, so he must be a liar.

That would be incorrect. I lay in bed when I sleep, thus I am a layer.

verb (used with object) 1. to put or place in a horizontal position or position of rest; set down: to lay a book on a desk......

noun
1. a thickness of some material laid on or spread over a surface: a layer of soot on the window sill; two layers of paint.
2. bed; stratum: alternating layers of basalt and sandstone.
3. a person or thing that lays.....

Now, were you simply incorrect and ignorant of the language again, or were you intentionally trying to warp the truth, which would be a lie, and thus make you a liar?

 

[Taffer]

Yup, and supported with the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

Dictionary.com is not "the black letter defining operating manual of the English language". Nor is any dictionary. There is no such thing. The English language is used however it is used, and for the perposes of an argument, we must agree upon a common definition of the terms being used or discussion is impossible. As you have most aptly shown.

I have done so, supported by the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

See above.

It is still based on the fact that knowledge is not there - a lack of evidence - uncertainty - the need for faith.

Nonsense. I make no claim based upon my position. How is a claimless, belief-less position a position of faith?

You believe that there is no God, or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Stop playing semantic word games. That is not how I mean "believe" and you know it. Substitute it for "think" if you like. Secondly, please explain how X=~Y is the same as ~(X=Y).

It is a fact that those interpretations (stated in two ways) are recorded in the dictionary of the English language. It is also a fact that you have written opposition to that without a single reference from any other authority whatsoever.

Since you are telling me I'm using the words wrong, I consider myself an authority, since it is I who is using the words, not an online dictionary. Secondly, I have posted an alternative definition from a different dictionary for atheism. I await your response (yes, I understand that you haven't gotten to that post yet, I'm patient).

The dictionary, which is the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

Wrong. It is up to the parties in a discussion to agree upon a definition. When I say "atheist" I do not mean it in the way your dictionary says it means. My view is not wrong.

Yup. And I reject the definition that you insist must be used, because it is flawed and unrecognized by authority.

Dictionary.com is not an authority. No dictionary is an authority. Argue the substance, not the semantics. To do otherwise is dishonest. We have explained multiple times what we mean by "atheist", yet you continue to argue against your own definition.

 

[Huntster]

....If you say "There is no evidence of a god, so, based on that, there is no god(s)", then it is not a faith......

No evidence is not proof of non-existence.

Thus, you do not know, but believe that there is no God.

 

[Huntster]

Always God, God, God, God.... Same old, same old. I'm getting bored with this. Why don't people start more interesting threads like "A belief that there are no women with four boobs is still faith" ? What's more interesting in a God than in a woman with four boobs ?

I don't know about 4 boobs, but I know that women can have 3, because Mrs. Huntster does. I've seen it, touched it, even sucked milk from it when our children were nursing from her.

Therefore, I know that women can have 3 boobs, and faith is not required.

 

[drkitten]

That would be incorrect. I lay in bed when I sleep, thus I am a layer.

Didn't read your definition, did you?

"Lay" is only used in that sense as a transitive verb. (That's what "used with noun" means.)

You may lay your head on a pillow, but you yourself simply lie.

 

[I less than three logic]

I have done so, supported by the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

Did you read the terms of use for the dictionary you keep citing as your authority?

4. Disclaimer of Warranties & Limitation of Liability

4.1 YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER LEXICO, NOR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERUPTED OR ERROR FREE. NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, COMPLETENESS, OR CONTENTS OF ANY CONTENT, INFORMATION, MATERIAL, POSTINGS, OR POSTING RESPONSES FOUND ON THE SITE, ANY MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE, OR ANY LINKS TO OTHER SITES MADE AVAILABLE ON THE SITE.

4.2 THE SITE AND ALL CONTENT, MATERIAL, INFORMATION, POSTINGS, OR POSTING RESPONSES FOUND ON THE SITE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 

[Taffer]

That would be incorrect. I lay in bed when I sleep, thus I am a layer.

Now, were you simply incorrect and ignorant of the language again, or were you intentionally trying to warp the truth, which would be a lie, and thus make you a liar?

In my country, Huntster, we say "he lies in a bed" and "that hen lays an egg". Who is to say which is correct? A dictionary? I'll bet they don't agree either.

 

[Taffer]

Didn't read your definition, did you?

"Lay" is only used in that sense as a transitive verb. (That's what "used with noun" means.)

You may lay your head on a pillow, but you yourself simply lie.

Beaten to the punch, and beaten with accuracy too! Double-ouch!

 

[Tricky]

I'm not changing anything. Nor will you.

Yes you did. You picked three of eight definitions and you change the one you use within the same discussion.

The definition itself.

ROTFL!
The definitions "decide" for themselves? When did definitions become conscious entities, Huntster?

Christian theology isn't the only definition of faith. In fact, it isn't even the first.

It doesn't matter if it is the first. It is the one I picked to use, just as you picked others to use. Surely you want me to play by the same rules as you. You don't strike me as the sort of person who would cheat.

Again, they don't change. They include. Christian theology is a faith. So is "confidence or trust in a person or thing", "belief that is not based on proof", and "belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc."

They also contradict each other. You can believe a thing exists, yet not have confidence or trust in it. I believe Republicans exist (there's lots of evidence for them), but I don't have confidenced or trust in them. So I have faith in them, but I don't have faith in them. This is what happens when you start mixing definitions.

I don't need to hold it in my mind. I'm quite "faithful" that you and yours will continue to try to escape this reality with great consternation, allowing me to continue to pound the painful truth home.

Ah, once again you misinterpret our willingness to discuss this issue with "consternation". No, Hunny, I don't expect to ever make any sort of dent in your inpenetrable skull, but it is fun whacking it. I love to hear your brains rattle like a bb in a beach ball, and out of the blowhole pops something like "definitions decide".

 

[Huntster]

....Agnosticism: “a”, a prefix meaning “not”, gnosis means “knowledge”, and ism means doctrine, theory, or a system of principles.

All correct.

So, agnosticism is the theory that you can not have knowledge.

Correct.

That’s it, and there are plenty of things one can be agnostic about than just the existence of god or gods. Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism; it is not a three way split, one can believe or not believe regardless of whether they think they can have knowledge or not.

Correct.

Theism is the belief in the existence of god or gods. Atheism, “not theism”, is anything, and that means anything, that is not “the belief in the existence of god or gods”. Indifference is not “the belief in the existence of god or gods”, so indifference is atheism.

Correct, and it is still a belief, because it is incomplete knowledge, thus a measure of faith or belief is required to arrive at that decision.

 

[Taffer]

They also contradict each other. You can believe a thing exists, yet not have confidence or trust in it. I believe Republicans exist (there's lots of evidence for them), but I don't have confidenced or trust in them. So I have faith in them, but I don't have faith in them. This is what happens when you start mixing definitions.

Ah, once again you misinterpret our willingness to discuss this issue with "consternation". No, Hunny, I don't expect to ever make any sort of dent in your inpenetrable skull, but it is fun whacking it. I love to hear your brains rattle like a bb in a beach ball, and out of the blowhole pops something like "definitions decide".

Is this like when you have a toothache and you can't help but poke at it to see if it still hurts?

 

[hammegk]

hammegk, you are so immaterial!

As are you in my worldview.

So, hammegk, would you prefer a flushing toilet, via running water and plumbing, or an outhouse if you were to build or purchase a new home?

What do you think?


We do share a perceived reality we name physical and objective. Or at least Thought so dictates.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Correct, and it is still a belief, because it is incomplete knowledge, thus a measure of faith or belief is required to arrive at that decision.

If arriving at a decision based on incomplete knowledge requires a measure of faith, then every decision requires a measure of faith, and the concept of faith becomes a useless appendage.

Oh, wait. It already was.

 

[I less than three logic]

What do you think?


We do share a perceived reality we name physical and objective.

I was just asking for your opinion faith. Oh wait, let me rephrase that so as to not have any confusion. I was wondering which you believe to be preferable.

Not whether you think the toilet really exists, that is entirely besides the point of the question.

 

[Huntster]

I have an idea

I'm impressed.

why don't we play Huntster's game for a moment?

Please do. I'm still waiting for my bucket conversation with Roborama.

This, Huntster, is why an argument from definition is a fallacy:

Atheism

Quote:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities. <snip>
2. The doctrine or belief that no deities exist.
3. The absence of belief in deities.
4. Godlessness; ungodliness; immorality.

Look, my dictionary agrees with me and disagrees with you! Therefore, you are wrong!

That is incorrect. I correctly cited my source, and you correctly cited yours. Yours has more interpretations. Thus, we can debate based on your (finally!) supported position.

Shall we begin?

By the way, Huntster, you may wish to view this page.

Quote:
Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of deities.[2][3][4] It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate), positive rejection and denial of theism;[5][6] however, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[7][8][9] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[10][11] The former, narrower usage defines atheism positively, as the belief that no gods exist; the latter, broader usage, however, defines atheism negatively, as the absence of belief in gods. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism for the former and latter, respectively, to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief or of negative unbelief.[12]

In all of the above cases, since the person cannot know, they are rendered to apply some measure of faith, uncertainty, belief, opinion, doctrine, etc in order to arrive at their decision to reject or remain indifferent, unless they have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Then, they are ignorant.

 

[Taffer]

I'm impressed.

Snide remark noted.

Please do. I'm still waiting for my bucket conversation with Roborama.

That is incorrect. I correctly cited my source, and you correctly cited yours. Yours has more interpretations. Thus, we can debate based on your (finally!) supported position.

Shall we begin?

"Finally supported"? Huntster, I don't have to provide citations and evidence for the way I'm using a word! It's up to me as to how to use it! Usage of words is not like scientific theories, requiring evidence to back it up! I have always stated exactly what I mean by "atheism". No "support" is required other then my explanation of what I mean!

In all of the above cases, since the person cannot know, they are rendered to apply some measure of faith, uncertainty, belief, opinion, doctrine, etc in order to arrive at their decision to reject or remain indifferent, unless they have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Then, they are ignorant.

Completely false. Look, Huntster, stop ignoring the bloody question and answer how "X=~Y" is the same as "~(X=Y)"! What you are arguing is that I need to have faith in my view that I do not think a god exists. No faith is required. It is the default position. Just as the default position is that "XCOIER" does not exist (especially since you hadn't heard of it until now). Listen carefully. I do not have any belief at all. That is the point! Not having a belief does not equal having a negative belief. "X=~Y" does not equal "~(X=Y)"!

 

[Anacoluthon64]

... becomes a useless appendage.

Your art imitates life disconcertingly well.

'Luthon64

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup, and supported with the black letter defining operating manual of the English language.

Dictionary.com is not "the black letter defining operating manual of the English language".

It is a black letter defining operating manual of the English language. Please excuse my previous incorrect use of "the."

Nor is any dictionary. There is no such thing. The English language is used however it is used, and for the perposes of an argument, we must agree upon a common definition of the terms being used or discussion is impossible.

I am currently serving on a grand jury. For each hearing, we must endure the DA reading the law each charge is based on, then a litany of definitions. This is done because defense attorneys have played games with the definitions of words and intent of the laws themselves. These definitions were crafted by the legislature (at the time and expense of the public) to close these holes that defense attorneys have used to avoid the truth. Yesterday the DA, during one of these litanies, told us he must read us the definition of "property", and added the sarcastic remark (on the record), "because, of course, none of these grand jurors could possibly know the meaning of the word and concept of "property"."

I fully understand the need to use definitions to corner game players.

Quote:
It is still based on the fact that knowledge is not there - a lack of evidence - uncertainty - the need for faith.

Nonsense. I make no claim based upon my position. How is a claimless, belief-less position a position of faith?

Because you have taken a position, and that position is based on an opinion, belief, faith, or doctrine because you cannot know the truth of the matter with 100% accuracy. Therefore, you must apply some measure of faith or belief that your position is correct.

Quote:
You believe that there is no God, or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Stop playing semantic word games. That is not how I mean "believe" and you know it. Substitute it for "think" if you like. Secondly, please explain how X=~Y is the same as ~(X=Y).

You are now attempting to play the game on a different field. The answer is the same: A lack of complete certainty.

 

[Tricky]

Completely false. Look, Huntster, stop ignoring the bloody question and answer how "X=~Y" is the same as "~(X=Y)"! What you are arguing is that I need to have faith in my view that I do not think a god exists. No faith is required. It is the default position. Just as the default position is that "XCOIER" does not exist (especially since you hadn't heard of it until now). Listen carefully. I do not have any belief at all. That is the point! Not having a belief does not equal having a negative belief. "X=~Y" does not equal "~(X=Y)"!

But wait!

Gasp! I think I just got it!

I "know" that I'm without belief, therefore, I have "faith" that I am without belief! Oh, it's all so clear now!

Take acupuncture. I "know" that I am uncertain as to whether it has any actual benefits, therefore I have "faith" in acupuncture! I am dancing with joy over this epiphany!!

OW! I just pulled a Chakra!

 

[hammegk]

I was just asking for your opinion faith. Oh wait, let me rephrase that so as to not have any confusion. I was wondering which you believe to be preferable.

Keep wondering.

Not whether you think the toilet really exists, that is entirely besides the point of the question.

Is it?


I do wonder at the silliness of your questions.