Atheism is a faith.

The Atheist said:
Originally Posted by RandFan
Why bring it up while you are bemoaning your plight to Taffer to justify your actions? Martyr.
Click to expand...
I am seriously beginning to doubt these people who claim that you're quite smart.
Click to expand...

Just beginning? I'm surprised.

Exercise care with this fish, T.A. While it's toothless, and it really isn't chameleon, it thinks it is, and will emit nonsense that will test your powers of memory. You'll swear it really might be changing colors in front of your very eyes, but it's not. A strange fish, indeed.

I tend to throw it back in the water every time I pull it up. In fact, I'm reluctant to even touch it anymore. Cutting the line upon seeing it has become the best way to deal with it for me.
 
Taffer said:
According to one wiki source, the 'a' prefix doesn't mean "no" but rather "not" or "an absence of".


Source.

Thus, "atheist" is not "no theism" but "not theism", a difference which is subtle but important. And this is acording to the root of the word, so I would argue this is its 'original' meaning. And even if it is not, it is the literal meaning of the word, and how it is used and defined today in philosophy and metaphysics.
Click to expand...

What do you know, the thread got somewhat back on track. This may be a good time to ask a question.

It seems the basic argument is:
1) Atheism = No theism. No god. 100% belief that there is no god, with as strong conviction and faith as those that believe, move along in life as if nothing is there.

2) Atheism = Not theism. Absence of theism. No belief in god(s). No evidence for god, nothing to believe in, move along in life as if nothing is there.
Is that about it? There's been so much back and forth, so I'm open to correction.

It seems that The Atheist backs #1, and #2 is not really an atheist. Right? All others, regardless of their lack of belief in a god, are not atheists because the Oxford dictionary say's they are not. So they are some type of agnostic, right?

So my question is: What do you classify a person who has no concept of a god? That person may not exist, but from a purely definitional standpoint, say we come across some lost tribe somewhere, or there is some lucky person who was isolated and brought up with no references to a god. You ask this person, "Do you believe in god?", and this person replies "What is god?".

To me, this person is classified as an atheist. He has no god, and does not believe in a god. He doesn't know what a god is. According to definition #1, he cannot be an atheist, because he cannot profess to be 100% sure there is no god. But how can he be an agnostic, and say he cannot know for certain if there is no god, when he hadn't heard of god until you mentioned it? Does he not have a classification until you mention the word god to him, and then he becomes an agnostic?

All too confusing, and missing the point entirely, I think. Its all well and good to have accepted meanings and definitions for words and uses, but language evolves and meanings and uses change, and who is to say that the exalted Oxford dictionary is keeping pace? American English is a very different language than 'over the pond' English. English purists may scoff at the corruption that is American English, but words come to mean what the masses think they mean and how the masses use them. I am no liguist (obviously), and my use of the language has been poor at times (probably more obviously). To the vast majority of believers in god, an atheist and an agnostic are the same thing. They are both heathens. I think some agnostics call themselves that because agnostic has less negative connotations that atheist, and they want to soften the blow with the believers.

I am an atheist. As Dawkins termed it, a de facto atheist, and that's fine, but also confuses the issue. I do not believe in god(s). There is no evidence to prove to me that I am wrong. I live my live as if I am correct. But do I profess that I am 100% certain that no god exists? No. I am an engineer. I don't believe anything 100%. Everything has probablilities, everything has tolerances, and everything has factors of safety. Everything is open to reinterpretation. That does not make me a 'waffling' agnostic. I am confident enough in my decision with a high enough probability that I have no concern that I am wrong. I am an atheist.

<cue music>:)
 
Huntster said:
Just beginning? I'm surprised.

Exercise care with this fish, T.A. While it's toothless, and it really isn't chameleon, it thinks it is, and will emit nonsense that will test your powers of memory. You'll swear it really might be changing colors in front of your very eyes, but it's not. A strange fish, indeed.

I tend to throw it back in the water every time I pull it up. In fact, I'm reluctant to even touch it anymore. Cutting the line upon seeing it has become the best way to deal with it for me.
Click to expand...
:) I'm probably the one guy that got you to apply critical thinking to your beliefs. You didn't know that the god of the old testamant was a petulant tyrant who delighted in death and mysogeny.

I take it you haven't read about Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11: 30-38)?

That God, what a card.
 
Region Rat said:
What do you know, the thread got somewhat back on track. This may be a good time to ask a question.

It seems the basic argument is:
1) Atheism = No theism. No god. 100% belief that there is no god, with as strong conviction and faith as those that believe, move along in life as if nothing is there.

2) Atheism = Not theism. Absence of theism. No belief in god(s). No evidence for god, nothing to believe in, move along in life as if nothing is there.
Is that about it? There's been so much back and forth, so I'm open to correction.

It seems that The Atheist backs #1, and #2 is not really an atheist. Right? All others, regardless of their lack of belief in a god, are not atheists because the Oxford dictionary say's they are not. So they are some type of agnostic, right?

So my question is: What do you classify a person who has no concept of a god? That person may not exist, but from a purely definitional standpoint, say we come across some lost tribe somewhere, or there is some lucky person who was isolated and brought up with no references to a god. You ask this person, "Do you believe in god?", and this person replies "What is god?".

To me, this person is classified as an atheist. He has no god, and does not believe in a god. He doesn't know what a god is. According to definition #1, he cannot be an atheist, because he cannot profess to be 100% sure there is no god. But how can he be an agnostic, and say he cannot know for certain if there is no god, when he hadn't heard of god until you mentioned it? Does he not have a classification until you mention the word god to him, and then he becomes an agnostic?

All too confusing, and missing the point entirely, I think. Its all well and good to have accepted meanings and definitions for words and uses, but language evolves and meanings and uses change, and who is to say that the exalted Oxford dictionary is keeping pace? American English is a very different language than 'over the pond' English. English purists may scoff at the corruption that is American English, but words come to mean what the masses think they mean and how the masses use them. I am no liguist (obviously), and my use of the language has been poor at times (probably more obviously). To the vast majority of believers in god, an atheist and an agnostic are the same thing. They are both heathens. I think some agnostics call themselves that because agnostic has less negative connotations that atheist, and they want to soften the blow with the believers.

I am an atheist. As Dawkins termed it, a de facto atheist, and that's fine, but also confuses the issue. I do not believe in god(s). There is no evidence to prove to me that I am wrong. I live my live as if I am correct. But do I profess that I am 100% certain that no god exists? No. I am an engineer. I don't believe anything 100%. Everything has probablilities, everything has tolerances, and everything has factors of safety. Everything is open to reinterpretation. That does not make me a 'waffling' agnostic. I am confident enough in my decision with a high enough probability that I have no concern that I am wrong. I am an atheist.

<cue music>:)
Click to expand...

Good post, and your summery of the two positions is accurate. Myself and others do not agree with "the oxford definition" because it is not how most (read, philosophers, atheists, etc) use the term. We argue that the dictionary is wrong, as it does not depict scholarly usage of the word. They keep waving their definition and claiming we're wrong. It could go on for ever.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. Note, however, that I do not believe there is no god. The difference is very subtle and often lost on people. The former is not a negative of theism, but is the "0" to their real numbers. It is the 3rd party. The latter is the negative, and I consider it a faith-based position unless it is included as a part of the "I only believe things with evidence, there is no evidence, therefore I don't believe" mentality. If you include this last part, once again it becomes not faith, because you have stated your criteria for belief.

Agnosticism is the concept that we cannot know with 100% certainty if god exists or not (or anything, for that matter). You can be agnostic and atheistic, or agnostic and theistic. They are independant terms.
 
I've stayed out of this thread because I find the words "belief" and faith" in the same sentence very confusing.

One definition I've seen has an atheist being someone "who denies the existence of god." -- I find this even more confusing.

God? Show me some evidence, or leave me alone.

I have faith that you will all work this out, perhaps by the next millennium.

M.
 
Taffer said:
We argue that the dictionary is wrong, as it does not depict scholarly usage of the word. They keep waving their definition and claiming we're wrong. It could go on for ever.
Click to expand...
And dictionary definitions are just opinions of scholars based on the historical usage of words. Please note that definitions are not consistent in all dictionaries because definitions are not derived by any empirical process or logical deduction. To turn to a dictionary to settle an argument outside of a game of Scrabble is simply to engage in semantics. In the end dictionaries are about the meaning of words. If I call a rose by another name it doesn't change the rose.
 
RandFan said:
And dictionary definitions are just opinions of scholars based on the historical usage of words. Please note that definitions are not consistent in all dictionaries because definitions are not derived by any empirical process or logical deduction. To turn to a dictionary to settle an argument outside of a game of Scrabble is simply to engage in semantics. In the end dictionaries are about the meaning of words. If I call a rose by another name it doesn't change the rose.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I am oft to sing, "there was a farmer, had a dog..."
 
The Atheist said:
Well, I think we covered belief equating to faith, so you've covered it nicely.

Cheers
Click to expand...

You have faith in your belief , I don't in mine since the non existence of god is not proved but my belief is based on an overall analysis of data available to me and a best guess at the answer. Not faith in the least. I am totally willing to change my opinion should there be data developed or new information I acquire indicating there is a god(s).
No cheers for you
 
Region Rat said:
What do you know, the thread got somewhat back on track.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good on Euromutt, although I think the whole thing's nearly over - you cover it well, below.
Region Rat said:
It seems the basic argument is:
1) Atheism = No theism. No god. 100% belief that there is no god, with as strong conviction and faith as those that believe, move along in life as if nothing is there.

2) Atheism = Not theism. Absence of theism. No belief in god(s). No evidence for god, nothing to believe in, move along in life as if nothing is there.
Is that about it? There's been so much back and forth, so I'm open to correction.

It seems that The Atheist backs #1, and #2 is not really an atheist. Right? All others, regardless of their lack of belief in a god, are not atheists because the Oxford dictionary say's they are not. So they are some type of agnostic, right?
Click to expand...
I do think that's most of the problem right there - type 2 are not agnostic, but they're not AtheistsTM either. People like the much-vaunted trio so worshipped by RandFan have hijacked the word to include type 2, who are, far more literally, "non-theists". Because that's such an ugly term - who wants to be a non-something? - they class themselves, incorrectly, as "atheists".
Region Rat said:
So my question is: What do you classify a person who has no concept of a god? That person may not exist, but from a purely definitional standpoint, say we come across some lost tribe somewhere, or there is some lucky person who was isolated and brought up with no references to a god. You ask this person, "Do you believe in god?", and this person replies "What is god?".

To me, this person is classified as an atheist. He has no god, and does not believe in a god. He doesn't know what a god is. According to definition #1, he cannot be an atheist, because he cannot profess to be 100% sure there is no god. But how can he be an agnostic, and say he cannot know for certain if there is no god, when he hadn't heard of god until you mentioned it? Does he not have a classification until you mention the word god to him, and then he becomes an agnostic?

All too confusing, and missing the point entirely, I think. Its all well and good to have accepted meanings and definitions for words and uses, but language evolves and meanings and uses change, and who is to say that the exalted Oxford dictionary is keeping pace? American English is a very different language than 'over the pond' English. English purists may scoff at the corruption that is American English, but words come to mean what the masses think they mean and how the masses use them. I am no liguist (obviously), and my use of the language has been poor at times (probably more obviously). To the vast majority of believers in god, an atheist and an agnostic are the same thing. They are both heathens. I think some agnostics call themselves that because agnostic has less negative connotations that atheist, and they want to soften the blow with the believers.
Click to expand...
There's no question that the dual meaning of the word - as has been agreed for this thread - will ultimately hold sway.

As I've stated a number of times, this does get up my nose! I see a clear division between those who deny god/s, those who don't know and don't care and those you group as de-facto atheists in terms of Richard Dawkins comments. Unfortunately, it's just one of many things about English which bug the crap out of me, but which I'm going to have to get used to.

The unfortunate end result of mass usage changing the language is that it changes from a precise instrument of clarity into a mish-mash which can only end up as some type of trans-Atlantic Pidgin. That's a different subject, anyway.
Region Rat said:
I am an atheist. As Dawkins termed it, a de facto atheist, and that's fine, but also confuses the issue. I do not believe in god(s). There is no evidence to prove to me that I am wrong. I live my live as if I am correct. But do I profess that I am 100% certain that no god exists? No. I am an engineer. I don't believe anything 100%. Everything has probablilities, everything has tolerances, and everything has factors of safety. Everything is open to reinterpretation. That does not make me a 'waffling' agnostic. I am confident enough in my decision with a high enough probability that I have no concern that I am wrong. I am an atheist.

<cue music>:)
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that - the only group I really get annoyed at are the Apatheists/Apathetic Atheists mentioned right at the start - I don't like fence-sitters.

Cheers
 
Dogdoctor said:
You have faith in your belief , I don't in mine since the non existence of god is not proved but my belief is based on an overall analysis of data available to me and a best guess at the answer. Not faith in the least. I am totally willing to change my opinion should there be data developed or new information I acquire indicating there is a god(s).
No cheers for you
Click to expand...
No problem. I don't want to start an argument with you, but I do recommend that you check out what it says about the word "belief" in the dictionary, because it really is a synonym for "have faith in" to the extent that "adherence to a religion or doctrine" is one of the descriptions...
 
Last edited:
Moochie said:
I've stayed out of this thread because I find the words "belief" and faith" in the same sentence very confusing.

One definition I've seen has an atheist being someone "who denies the existence of god." -- I find this even more confusing.

God? Show me some evidence, or leave me alone.

I have faith that you will all work this out, perhaps by the next millennium.

M.
Click to expand...
Jesus, you're up early!
 
Huntster said:
Just beginning? I'm surprised.

Exercise care with this fish, T.A. While it's toothless, and it really isn't chameleon, it thinks it is, and will emit nonsense that will test your powers of memory. You'll swear it really might be changing colors in front of your very eyes, but it's not. A strange fish, indeed.

I tend to throw it back in the water every time I pull it up. In fact, I'm reluctant to even touch it anymore. Cutting the line upon seeing it has become the best way to deal with it for me.
Click to expand...
Haha! I thought you'd enjoy that.

I agree with you on all of that - but child's play, really. I practice for guys like that by talking to my seven year old daughter, so I get the right whiny voice in my mind to read their posts with. As to changing, twisting and turning, I agree with the fishing analogy, but it's a conger eel - no sooner do you think it's on the gaff than it twists into a whole new shape and is back in the water. Fortunately, I hold the New Zealand line-class record for conger eel on a rod! (38kg)

Best part was surely the appeal to authority, I nearly fell off my chair with that. Tell an atheist that they're replicating faith in god and the church hierarchy and they scream like stuck pigs, yet no sooner do they get caught in the snare than they cry, "But..., but..., but..., Randi, Dawkins and someone else said....". Whoopdy-do, some guys who call themselves (incorrectly, by the looks) atheists say THIS, so it must be right. That is just priceless! Almost as good was Randi cited as the authority on the English Language!

I'm sure I have it figured why these people cannot handle me - the ones I have the most severe arguments with are those who are former christians - jjramsay & RandFan for starters - turned non-theist. Those people clearly have no direction and have a need to be fulfilled. If they can't fill it with a god, they find a "hero" to fill in instead. Most of them seem to see Randi or Dawkins in that lead role. (God knows why, I'd honestly rather believe in your god than one of them! Both of them are clever, but really... Dawkins comes across as an upper-class Pommy twat and I do NOT relate well to people like that. Haven't read anything he's written and never will, I imagine.)

Meanwhile, my own brand of atheism was arrived at after never having been any type of christian, so I have no space to fill. Honestly, the behaviour of these types really does make me question their atheism. These "atheists" often read books by other atheists. Wonder why. There will be no evidence in them, no substance; purely opinions. Tai Chi put the question recently in a thread that some atheist I'd never heard of had had a late-life conversion to christianity and wondered what other atheists thought about it. Tai Chi described the guy as a "top atheist". "There is NO top atheist" said the "atheists".

Have another look at this thread, then tell me that the "atheists" in here don't have a hierarchy! (not all of them, but a significant number)
 
The Atheist said:
Honestly, the behavior of these types really does make me question their atheism.
Click to expand...
No true Scotsman?

I don't believe in god, what is there to question about my atheism?

These "atheists" often read books by other atheists. Wonder why. There will be no evidence in them, no substance; purely opinions.
Click to expand...
No substance to Blind Watchmaker? No substance to God Delusion? No substance to Harris or Dennett? You don't read them but you declare that there is no substance to them. And you would know this how?

Dawkins comes across as an upper-class Pommy twat and I do NOT relate well to people like that. Haven't read anything he's written and never will, I imagine.
Click to expand...
But you relate well to Huntster, a guy who believes that the Bible is a good source for morality. Who justifies genocide and murdering children.

You are an odd duck TA. You have contempt for me because I'm not a true atheist or something like that. My atheism isn't up to your snuff. I don't put sugar on my porridge so you take issue with me.

You don't know anything about me. You are as presumptuous as you are arrogant.
 
RandFan said:
Thanks. I can assure you that while I defend my positions vigorously I am not at all dogmatic. If you make a reasoned argument that is better than mine I will change my mind. It might take awhile but I will.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was a very poor choice of word. I meant "decisive", in that you'll either take a position on something or not, instead of engaging in vague hand-wavings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom