Atheism is a faith.

[Taffer]

The the words speak for themselves. I'm not sure I'm satified with your definition of agnosticism but I could have had the wrong definition of it all this time. Theism (The ism of God) Atheism (the ism of No God) and Agnosticism (The ism of No Knowledge) Agnosticism isn't a belief like theism or atheism, its a comming-to-terms. "I dont know" plain and simple- it doesn't mean that agnostics subscribe to the certanty that the existance of God or the absoence of God will never be known, it simply means it is not known.

Not quite correct, chris. "Atheism" is any belief which is not "theism", it is not a held view point unto itself. There are many different types of atheist, among them the "there is no god" and the "I have no belief in god" stances. Agnosticism is "I cannot know if there is a god", which is subtly different. Someone who is agnostic to the existance of god can be 'theistic' or 'atheistic' in their views. It is independant of theism or atheism.

 

[LaPalida]

Hunster I was going to reply to you but I feel it would be to no avail. I think I would just be wasting my time typing out the reply... although practicing my discourse is a good thing I will save it for another time when it would make a difference. I will simply say that my atheism is not a "confident belief in something without proof". Faith is part of the bigger set "belief" but some belief is not necessarily part of the set "faith". Agnosticism isn't either. Over and out.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just do to Huntster's posts what he does to everyone else's posts. Whatever words he uses, pick any definition from the dictionary just to add to the confusion of whatever he's trying to convey.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unfortunately, my allowance is authorized by my insistence on proper language, which I will use the dictionary to enforce.

You get an share of money that's authorized by proper language?

allowance: an amount or share allotted or granted.

Of course, you are free to argue with the dictionary, but you do so at your peril.

Is that a threat?

Peril: exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.

And, yet again (for the umpteenth time), it is still a measure of belief or faith, and not a position of knowledge.

Umpteenth isn't a real word, according to the dictionary. Why are you risking the allowance above by using a non-word?

Nice, but when I pointed out in another thread that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore", the dictionary was used to deny it. I didn't take up several pages of internet space arguing the point, even though I was "right".

You pointed all of this out on a thread? What color was that thread? Was that thread woven out of wool or cotton?

When confronted by several large defensive linemen, take the ball toward an easier route.

I didn't know that electricians had much of a bearing on balls. I also didn't know that there were many that were self-conscious.

defensive: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings.

linemen: persons who installs or repairs telephone, telegraph, or other wires.

If none appear, hit the linemen with all you've got, and try to hurt them with more intensity than they're going to try to hurt you with.

Now you're condoning violence against working professionals who are only trying to do their jobs? I really don't think linemen are trying to hurt people, even the self-conscious ones.

 

[hammegk]

Belief - acceptance that a proposition is true. May be based on evidence, indoctrination, or anything else.

Faith - acceptance that a proposition is true without evidence.

I suspect Huntster agrees with your wording. The Question is "What do you "Believe" that does not contain some element of "Faith"?

As some of you know, for me, Thought Exists and is my 100% certainty.

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

And atheism says nothing about spiritualism.

What is this spiritualism that atheism as a philosophy does nor rule out?

 

[Huntster]

1) What are the rules of atheism?

Denial or disbelief in God or spirituality.

What code of ethics do 'we' follow?

Absolutely none. This forum literally proves that.

2) What does 'not necessarily' mean with regards to either being something or not being something?

Being something else.

Where is the third option - both?

Something else entirely.

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.

Correct. It is a faith of anti-religion.

4) WTF is denialism?

Denial.

And how exactly as an atheist can I have faith in something I have never heard of?

If you've never heard of it, you aren't an atheist. You're ignorant.

 

[Huntster]

.....'Ignore' is not the root of 'ignorance' in fact it is more the other way around. Using 'ignore' to mean something along the lines of 'deliberately not know' is a relatively modern usage.

Correct; today, and in accordance with you and your alliance here.

However, when I so use the word, it is denied by your same alliance.

Obviously, there is no requirement for consistency and balance here. It is an internet forum, not a court of law. If you have lots of allies, you can bully the minority. If the minority, you have to take your lumps.

 

[Huntster]

Ok. That's it. I'm out. 3 pages in 1 night. Huntster is obviously immune to reason.

Nope. I'm immune to what you call reason, and which I call BS.

We have explained multiple times that 'atheism' is a catch all label for all who do not believe in a god.

And I have rejected it multiple times.

It includes people who believe there is no god (X=~Y), people who do not believe in god (~(X=Y)) and people who do not believe in god because they only believe in things with evidence (let 'Z' equal evidence of god. Z=0, therefore X=~Y until Z>0, in which case X=Y). This is been explained over, and over, and over again. Huntster sticks to his online dictionary's definition (a definition which does not agree with other online dictionary's definitions), and continues to spout the same old claptrap.

The dictionary definitions do agree with each other.

We have explained what 'atheism' means, and why the strict definition Huntster gives is incorrect.

And I have rejected your definition.

We have posted links which explain what atheism is.

As have I.

We have defined what we mean when we say "atheism". Huntster continues to ignore all of this, and argues against his straw man. Ok, Huntster, you win. Argue against the straw, I no longer care.

Okay.

It's like arguing with a four year old.

Mark 10:15

Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.

 

[RandFan]

Denial or disbelief in God or spirituality.

And these rule(s) would be found where? Why do you say it is a rule? Isn't it more accurate to say that it is a consequence?

Atheists hold positions provisionally and not dogmatically. It is either disingenuous or ignorant to declare disbelief in god a rule since atheists would cease being atheists if there was evidence for them to believe. Atheists are not bound by rules, only reason and evidence.

Absolutely none. This forum literally proves that.

How does it prove that? I think it does but your answer seems to suggest that atheists are not ethical. I hope that is not your purpose.

Correct. It is a faith of anti-religion.

So do I also belong to the faith of anti-fairies, demons, magic, etc?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Unfortunately, my allowance is authorized by my insistence on proper language, which I will use the dictionary to enforce.

You get an share of money that's authorized by proper language?

Nope.

Quote:
Of course, you are free to argue with the dictionary, but you do so at your peril.

Is that a threat?

Nope.

Quote:
And, yet again (for the umpteenth time), it is still a measure of belief or faith, and not a position of knowledge.

Umpteenth isn't a real word, according to the dictionary. Why are you risking the allowance above by using a non-word?

Umpteenth:

–adjective
Informal. of an indefinitely large number in succession

Quote:
Nice, but when I pointed out in another thread that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore", the dictionary was used to deny it. I didn't take up several pages of internet space arguing the point, even though I was "right".

You pointed all of this out on a thread? What color was that thread?

It used to be blue and white. Now it's red and grey.

Was that thread woven out of wool or cotton?

It was made of electrons.

Quote:
When confronted by several large defensive linemen, take the ball toward an easier route.

I didn't know that electricians had much of a bearing on balls.

Depends. I've known electricians who had no balls at all.

Are you an electrician? Got some balls?

I also didn't know that there were many that were self-conscious.

Some of them don't appear to be at all.

Quote:
If none appear, hit the linemen with all you've got, and try to hurt them with more intensity than they're going to try to hurt you with.

Now you're condoning violence against working professionals who are only trying to do their jobs?

Yup. If they try to stop me from going in the direction I want to go in, I'll go around, over, under, or (if the other avenues are blocked) through them with great glee.

I really don't think linemen are trying to hurt people, even the self-conscious ones.

I agree. You really don't think much at all.

 

[RandFan]

Nope. I'm immune to what you call reason, and which I call BS.

When explorers reached isolated tribes in Africa and South America and at first tried to educate them this was the response they got.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Belief - acceptance that a proposition is true. May be based on evidence, indoctrination, or anything else.

Faith - acceptance that a proposition is true without evidence.

I suspect Huntster agrees with your wording.

You're correct, however, I'd like to add:

Belief - acceptance that a proposition is true. May be based on evidence, indoctrination, or anything else, and is proportionary.

Faith - acceptance that a proposition is true without evidence, or with a proportionary amount of evidence

 

[LaPalida]

Atheism from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

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]

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding empirical evidence for spiritual or supernatural claims. They cite a lack of evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the personal to the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, while atheists tend to accept secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, they do not necessarily adhere to any one particular ideology, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors.[13]
Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or nonspirituality in Western culture,[14] but they are not the same. Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities.[15] Atheism is also sometimes erroneously equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion). [citation needed]

<- we should cite this thread for evidence.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Denial or disbelief in God or spirituality.

And these rule(s) would be found where?

Here:

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

Why do you say it is a rule?

Because if it's violated, you are no longer an atheist.

Isn't it more accurate to say that it is a consequence?

The consequence is the result of breaking the rule.

 

[RandFan]

Here:

? That's a definition. What makes a definition a rule?

Because if it's violated, you are no longer an atheist.

You are simply taking about cause and effect. Why should that be considered a rule?

The consequence is the result of breaking the rule.

Circular.

Like the "laws of physics" I think you could call it a rule but it is weak rhetoric to do so. There is no atheist leadership that declares what these rules are. It's like saying it is a rule for a duck to quack. If the duck stops quaking it is breaking the rules. That's just silly. Yes, maybe in some convoluted notion it is a rule for the duck to quack but it makes little sense to assert it just as it makes little sense to assert that atheists have a rule.

Any other rules?

 

[Huntster]

....Atheists hold positions provisionally and not dogmatically.

Dogma:

noun,
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

It is either disingenuous or ignorant to declare disbelief in god a rule since atheists would cease being atheists if there was evidence for them to believe.

That's the rule and the consequence for breaking the rule.

Atheists are not bound by rules, only reason and evidence.

Reason and evidence aren't mentioned in the definition of atheism. It's:

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

Belief in God is the one, simple rule.

How does it prove that?

It might not be "proven", but I certainly presented some very strong evidence of what atheism is.

I think it does but your answer seems to suggest that atheists are not ethical. I hope that is not your purpose.

Quote:
What code of ethics do 'we' follow?

I answered "Absolutely none. This forum literally proves that."

Nowhere within atheism have I seen a code of ethics, including this forum brimming with atheists.

So do I also belong to the faith of anti-fairies, demons, magic, etc?

No results found for anti-fairies.

No results found for anti-demons.

No results found for anti-magic.

 

[RandFan]

That's the rule and the consequence for breaking the rule.

Yes, like the rules of physics but not the rules of a church. It's like the rule that water seeks the course of least resistance. It's just the consequence of the state of being. Declaring it a rule so as to score a rhetorical advantage is disingenuous.

Reason and evidence aren't mentioned in the definition of atheism. It's:

And this is important because? A definition isn't legal law or a law of physics. A definition is simply an attempt to understand word usage so that we can communicate.

It might not be "proven", but I certainly presented some very strong evidence of what atheism is.

No, you've simply demonstrate the common usage of the word atheist.

I answered "Absolutely none. This forum literally proves that."

Nowhere within atheism have I seen a code of ethics, including this forum brimming with atheists.

That's all well and good but it doesn't answer my question. Do you believe that atheists are unethical? Why should atheists have a code of ethics? This seems to suggest that atheism isn't an organized group per se but is simply a shared state of disbelief in god. Nothing more.

 

[RandFan]

No results found for anti-fairies.
No results found for anti-demons.
No results found for anti-magic.

And this is significant because? This seems to have no bearing on your argument. This is a non-sequitur as to your argument. Think it through carefully and get back to me. But go back to how this started so you can see why this is irrelevant.

Argument should be more than rhetoric.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's the rule and the consequence for breaking the rule.

Yes, like the rules of physics but not the rules of a church.

Atheism isn't an organized church with documented rules. I thought we already established that.

Atheism is still bound by the most basic rules that many other entities are bound by.

Quote:
Reason and evidence aren't mentioned in the definition of atheism.

And this is important because?

For the same reason you're trying to pin me with the word "rule."

It works both ways.

A definition isn't legal law or a law of physics.

Again, I've been serving on a grand jury for the past month or so. Definitions are huge in law. I've got to hear them read to me repeatedly during the course of several charges.

Quote:
It might not be "proven", but I certainly presented some very strong evidence of what atheism is.

No, you've simply demonstrate the common usage of the word atheist.

No, I'm having the common usage pushed at me, and I provided the defined usage.

Quote:
I answered "Absolutely none. This forum literally proves that."

Nowhere within atheism have I seen a code of ethics, including this forum brimming with atheists.

That's all well and good but it doesn't answer my question. Do you believe that atheists are unethical?

They are as unethical as people who are not atheists.

Why should atheists have a code of ethics?

I don't know. You tell me.

 

[Huntster]

And this is significant because?

Those words were not found defined, and I have no further comment on them.

This seems to have no bearing on your argument.

I agree.

This is a non-sequitur as to your argument.

It is to point out that those words are not defined.

Think it through carefully and get back to me.

No, thanks.

But go back to how this started so you can see why this is irrelevant.

No, Thanks.