Atheism is a faith.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm seeking help in penetrating the hardness of heart.

Heart? You're making an emotional argument?

I'm opposing an emotional opposition.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I do not select or change. The language is defined by authority above you and I. I change nothing.

I will try once again to rattle the bb. Words have more than one definition. (The ones you gave had numbers by them so you would know this.) When discussing a topic, you should stick to one definition. For some words, the multiple definitions are opposites of each other. Here are some examples:

screen - Can mean either to show or to hide
sanction - Can mean either to approve or to punish
clip - can mean to cut or to join
dust - can mean to spread dust or to remove dust
weather - can mean to endure or to wear away
dispense - can mean to hand out or to get rid of
overlook - can mean to ignore or to look at.

So you can see that when discussing something, you should stick to a single, agreed upon meaning.

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, we're arguing the very definition of the words. Like lawyers.

That is why I asked you to pick one of the eight definitions of "faith" that you gave and we'll use that one.

Like lawyers in a debate, words are weapons here. I posted authoritative definitions, and highlighted all that applied from my perspective. You're playing the game from the side clearly opposed to mine.

To swap definitions when you know full well that it means something different is intellectually dishonest.

Yet again, I haven't changed definitions. Please outline where I have done so.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I haven't thanked you for anything.

I know. I just assumed you would since I did as you requested. Where are your manners?

Appropriately reserved for the appropriate time.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Exactly. That is the precise definition that is listed in the dictionary, in not-so-many-words.

In other words, atheism is a religion, it requires faith in it's denial, and that is the meaning of the word.

So a person who's never even heard of God (thus holds no belief in God) as a concept is what according to you?

Completely ignorant, completely innocent, blessed for not having to endure the BS that we are witnessing here, and almost non-existent.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I believe that there are no pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me an a-spanish-talking-pink-unicornist. I think it's harder to be an agnostic when specific claims are made.

I'm not agnostic about the Christians' take on God, nor about the Jews' or pretty much anyone else's for that matter... including those who might be ... hmm... strong atheists who are actually angry at their previous faith (here, I run the inherent risk of evoking a strawman, but I can at least say that I have met individuals like this).

Hmm...so are you saying we have to be agnostic about non-specific claims? Isn't a non-specific claim irrelevant?

A: Hey, I believe in something. Do you?
B: What something?
A: Well something. Anything.
B: Oh alright. My tea's ready, see ya later. (runs off)

Any non-specific claim is only useful in that it might generate a specific claim in the future but it seems that only in religion would a vaguer, less concrete claim need to be given more creedence than a specific one. That just seems like backwards thinking.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I do not regret it, i've learned.

And you represented yourself well.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Completely ignorant, completely innocent, blessed for not having to endure the BS that we are witnessing here, and almost non-existent.

You missed out one word - athiest.

If you disagree that they are athiest please name the specific branch of theism to which they would be assigned membership.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Exactly. That is the precise definition that is listed in the dictionary, in not-so-many-words.

In other words, atheism is a religion, it requires faith in it's denial, and that is the meaning of the word.

Well some atheists have faith in their denial but atheism doesn't require faith.

I disagree.

It is not like a religion since it does not answer questions or explain anything although some atheists have beliefs that mimic a religion.

There is no requirement that a religion answer questions or explain anything.

Think of it this way, atheists may look at the world totally without faith. They believe there is no God or anything supernatural but have no strong belief since supernatural things are not testable other than for their effects if any in this world.

Do you see what you just typed?

"They believe", then they "have no strong belief"?

They have a belief. And, as this thread should clearly show, some of them have very, very strong beliefs.

No faith is required to hold those beliefs only the thought that scientifically testable data is the only useful knowledge.

That, in itself, is a belief. That is why I have repeatedly stated that science itself can be a religion for some.

Atheism as a whole is totally unlike a religion since religions hold in common lots of beliefs where as the only common factor in atheism is that there is/are no god(s).

Again, do you see what you just typed out?

A Christian is not a Christian because they believe in a god.

Correct.

 

[Huntster]

So there's a difference between belief and knowledge then.

Of course there is.

Agnosticism holds that one cannot know if a God exists or not. It says nothing about belief. Agnosticism is in a totally different camp from atheism and theism.

Correct.

So again what is a person who holds no belief in a God?

That depends on how that person defines that belief (even though it is still a belief).

For example I hold no belief in pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me what?

Do you "state that it is unknowable", "disbelieve", or "believe that pink unicorns don't exist"?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Since the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe is the central foundation of many religions (certainly Christianity, not to mention the cultural war between Christianity and Evolutionists in the public arena), God is involved deeply. Atheism denies God. Atheism is anti-God. Atheism, by default, is concerned "with the universe".

Atheism is not concerned with the universe at all. Maybe if I type really slowly you'll get this.

No, speed isn't a factor here. It's what you type, not how fast or slow you type it.

But, of course, you knew that, didn't you?

Atheism is concerned with one question, and one question only, namely the existence of god.

Which God?

There are many.

One is an atheist if one can answer Do you believe in God? with an honest no. That is all there is to atheism.

Thank you for that clarification, yet again.

Thus, atheism is rendered to a belief.

Likewise, given the information that someone is an atheist, only one thing is known about them. Their position on the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is not revealed by knowing they are atheist.

The "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is a consideration of religion.

You could go so far as to say that they believe God was not the "cause nature, and purpose of the universe", which follows logically from not believing in God, but that does not make atheism a religion.

If you believe that God was not the "cause nature, and purpose of the universe," you are delving into the realm of religion.

Quote:
By admission, you agree that "atheists share (by definition) one belief..."

Therefore, it holds. There is "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs......."

Nice truncation, but it's "beliefs and practices". Shall I go dig up the definition of and for you, or can you work that one out yourself?

Oh, I can work it out for myself, but I'm working for the benefit of all here.

How about if you go dig up your own definitions, present them, and we can go from there?

Quote:
You believe there is no God. That is the central theme of atheism.

You believe.

I never said I didn't. But that is not the central theme; it is the only theme. There is nothing else to atheism besides.

I agree 100%.

 

[Huntster]

I believe that there are no pink unicorns that talk in Spanish. That makes me an a-spanish-talking-pink-unicornist.

According to some, that may also makes you racist.

Who believes that?

 

[Jimbo07]

Hmm...so are you saying we have to be agnostic about non-specific claims? Isn't a non-specific claim irrelevant?

Yes, we can only be agnostic about non-specific claims, and yes, 'irrelevant' was the very word I used:

Okay... that's part of my point. I am unable to address the TRUTH of the existence of God, or not. In this case I believe Truth to be irrelevant.

ETA: Huntster, I can't be racist, I hate all talking pink unicorns equally!

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Really?

What else can atheism be if not denial of God/spiritualism?

I should have been more clear. I only meant that atheism was not, by definition, the active denial of God.

According to the dictionary, it most certainly is:

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

And atheism says nothing about spiritualism.

It's certainly implied.

If you disagree, what do you say about Koyukon beliefs, or Taoism?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, we can only be agnostic about non-specific claims, and yes, 'irrelevant' was the very word I used:



ETA: Huntster, I can't be racisit, I hate all talking pink unicorns equally!

I see what you are saying but.... still uncomfortable with the idea that a concrete idea of God can be dismissed but a vague, non-specific, irrelevant claim deserves something better.

I understand and agree with the argument you are presenting but it still doesn't feel right. Maybe that's why I should never study philosophy.

 

[I less than three logic]

I've been "boxed in" from the start by the limits of language, and I don't deny it. You've been wild with the language, trying to write your own, and I won't allow it.

What you allow is irrelevant. It is not up to you to allow anything. That is just how the language works. Atheism is defined in the negative just like “not red” or “not forward”, which would include going backwards, sideways, straight up or down, or not moving at all. All those are “not forward”.

The teacher asked the wrong question (if she didn't like the answer of "the air")

Where did I say the teacher didn’t accept it? At that point I asked if you accepted the answer. Do you restrict yourself to rules that were not stated?

What you are doing (according to the definition of "atheist") is hotly denying that the color "red" exists.

No, that would be your straw man definition of atheist. Not my definition. My definition comes from exactly how the word was created. A, a prefix meaning “not” and theism, meaning “the belief that god or gods exist”, atheism is “not” – “the belief that god or gods exist”. It is “not theism”, it is just like “not red” or “not forward”.

Now, if you're arguing that "color" doesn't exist, that's an entirely different debate, and one, I might add, that is easier to defeat. That is why I believe you're fighting so hard to stay here with the definition of "red".

I am in no way arguing that color does not exist. That is probably the worst non-sequitur conclusion I’ve ever read on this forum. Honestly, I can’t even begin to see where you drew that from?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by joobz
I do not regret it, i've learned.

You should probably get a prize.

I agree.

Almost everybody's here. You've got T'ai Chi and ceo_esq in the same room, that's pretty unusual. This thread has become a phaenomenon.

Not only that, it has become a phenomenon.

Of course, the Senior Partners are simply observing. As their envoy, I'm bugging out.

Who are the "Senior Partners"?

Nothing but hurt to be earned here.

Pain is earned. So is respect. Respect is commonly earned through pain.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Of course there is.
quote]

Not got this quote thing working quite right yet...

Huntster.. if, as you state, there is a difference between belief and knowledge can you provide an example of something you 'know' and that is not a 'belief' according to the definitions you are using.

 

[Dogdoctor]

That, in itself, is a belief. That is why I have repeatedly stated that science itself can be a religion for some.

So I guess you don't distinguish between a loosely held belief and a tightly held belief. Religion is a tightly held set of beliefs that are not likely changed by the addition of new information. The belief that the bible is the word of God is one such belief. Most people holding that belief will not change their opinion no matter what new information is learned since that belief is a testament of faith. Many atheists would be willing to change their atheism should evidence be provided to show their is a god(s). Scientists can treat science like a religion but science is not like a religion. Most scientists are willing to change their beliefs since they are not faith based. No one dictates what is true in science and all are questioned.

 

[Huntster]

This thread was fairly interesting up until about page 6, it's pretty obvious Hunster really struggles to 'get' Atheism and is trying to understand it using the constructs of his own beliefs.

I'm not struggling at all, and I understand atheism quite well.

I reject what many are trying to foist upon me as atheism.

He's looking for the holy book of Athiesm which defines what it means to be an Athiest - unfortunately he can only find the dictionary.

Actually, I'm penning atheists up into the pen that they deserve. It's a difficult "round up", the cattle are recalcitrant, and I'm one of few cowboys, but I've got a damned good horse, I've got a lot of time, and that cattle can't go far.

It's just a matter of patience and hard work.

He's then using this to tell other people what they think/believe/have faith in despite them telling him he is wrong.

I'm denying excuses.

He just doesn't understand it and he never will.

I understand it well, and I'll never relent.

Worse still, he doesn't want to.

You've got that right.

The concept of a faithful Athiest is ridiculous... faithful to whom? to what?

Denialism.

There are no rules to athiesm. No ethics or codes to follow. Even athiests themselves will argue over what athiesm actually means because there are so many different views contained within the catch-all heading.

Nice try.

There are always rules. If you didn't know that by now, you're a pup.

The word itself carries the definition though - it is the opposite of theism.

I agree. And, like theism, it's a faith.

You are one or the other.

Not necessarily.

 

[Jimbo07]

I see what you are saying but.... still uncomfortable with the idea that a concrete idea of God can be dismissed but a vague, non-specific, irrelevant claim deserves something better.

It doesn't deserve better, it's just all there is. We've had other threads where it's wound up that a person can define God so vaguely that it can't possibly be disproved, but it then becomes relatively useless.

I disagree with MdC.

Atheism is not concerned with the universe at all... Atheism is concerned with one question, and one question only, namely the existence of god.

Likewise, given the information that someone is an atheist, only one thing is known about them. Their position on the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" is not revealed by knowing they are atheist.

You could go so far as to say that they believe God was not the "cause nature, and purpose of the universe", which follows logically from not believing in God

By stating 'No God' you've put at least one constraint on what the universe cannot be. Most of us here are in agreement that God is maybe not necessary, but you'd need further knowledge, which I don't believe you have, to demonstrate that some vaguely defined super-thingy did not create the universe.

Atheism does carry with it an underlying assumption about the universe. It is not knowledge, and should not be mistaken to be.

That's my beef. To the existence/non-existence of Ed, I'm willing to say, "Bah! Irrelevant!" However, the position of atheism should not be conflated with knowledge. That is why I maintain that atheism is somewhat akin to (or is, or is a substitute for, or something) faith. I think it shares more characteristics with faith, than it does with knowledge.

 

[I less than three logic]

No, we know it to be true. 100% It's undeniable. It is known.

Then I’m afraid I would have to retract my earlier apology if this is the case. You no longer agree that this is an opinion or belief. Since it is no longer an opinion, hammegk would have indeed made the claim that all (bolded, italics, and underlined, I guess so you know what meaning to use) opinions are faith. That opinion, that he listed as the only exception would no longer be an opinion, thus would no longer be an exception.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'm not struggling at all, and I understand atheism quite well.

I reject what many are trying to foist upon me as atheism.



Actually, I'm penning atheists up into the pen that they deserve. It's a difficult "round up", the cattle are recalcitrant, and I'm one of few cowboys, but I've got a damned good horse, I've got a lot of time, and that cattle can't go far.

It's just a matter of patience and hard work.



I'm denying excuses.



I understand it well, and I'll never relent.



You've got that right.



Denialism.



Nice try.

There are always rules. If you didn't know that by now, you're a pup.



I agree. And, like theism, it's a faith.



Not necessarily.

I think I can almost rest my case. Your answers illustrate my points beautifully.

1) What are the rules of atheism? What code of ethics do 'we' follow?
2) What does 'not necessarily' mean with regards to either being something or not being something? Where is the third option - both? Logically impossible. Neither - again logically impossible when one option encompasses the set of all other possiblities.

ETA: 3) Theism is not A faith - theism is ALL faith (using the word in its religious context). Therefore by definition atheism is NOT religious faith.

4) WTF is denialism? And how exactly as an atheist can I have faith in something I have never heard of?