Atheism spreads religious awareness and biases our thinking...

@Thomas,

Quote:

But even if that was all I did, I would still be an atheist, because I would still fit the dictionary's definition of an atheist.

For the most part, dictionaries show how a word is being used at any point in time. To suggest that you are an atheist because you fit some arbitrary (and often contradictory) definition really insults your considerable intelligence, Thomas.

You are an atheist if you say you are an atheist. If you say you are not an atheist...you are not an atheist no matter how determined some atheists are to demand that you be an atheist.

The notion, for instance, that atheism requires no more than an absence of belief in any god...is an absurdity. I understand and acknowledge that the word is used that way...and is even defined that way in SOME dictionaries. But it is an absurdity nonetheless.

I am an agnostic. I am absent a belief in any gods. But because I am absent a belief in any gods...and because "an absence of belief in any gods" is used by SOME dictionaries to describe an atheist...does not make me an atheist.

Said another way: ALL atheists are absent a belief in gods, but not all people who are absent a belief in gods are atheists.

I am an agnostic...I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. But I am absent a belief in any gods.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps. Though I still maintain that "atheism" is only a meaningful term because we have theism, and that it is meaningful only in the context of our culture.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
But even if that was all I did, I would still be an atheist, because I would still fit the dictionary's definition of an atheist.

For the most part, dictionaries show how a word is being used at any point in time. To suggest that you are an atheist because you fit some arbitrary (and often contradictory) definition really insults your considerable intelligence, Thomas.

No. It only insults people who think they can make up their own usage of commonly-used words. Admittedly, I quite enjoy insulting them. But that's water under the bridge. Cyracuz and I have already settled the dictionary part of our disagreement.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

No. It only insults people who think they can make up their own usage of commonly-used words. Admittedly, I quite enjoy insulting them. But that's water under the bridge. Cyracuz and I have already settled the dictionary part of our disagreement.

Possibly you have settled your disagreement with Cyracuz, but not with the world in general.

Dictionaries do not agree on what constitutes an atheist. What makes you think a person cannot take that into account and specifically denote what is being described when using a particular word? In fact, why would anybody object to that in the context of what we are discussing here?

I will not be considered an atheist. I think Cyracuz will not be considered an atheist. Are you telling me you can cite a particular dictionary...and because of that we simply have to accept that we are atheists despite what we say?

C'mon.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will not be considered an atheist. I think Cyracuz will not be considered an atheist.

Oh yeah? You just watch me consider, then!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

but to be honest with you

It is good compositional form Frank to expand such a cliched phrase, which draws attention to the possibilty of you not being honest, with something along the lines of "and absolutely frank, swear on God's Holy Bible and cross my heart and hope to die". There are people just being honest with us all over the TV interview rooms. It's very rare in print because expressions which allow a few extra seconds of thinking time are not necessary in that medium.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

To suggest that you are an atheist because you fit some arbitrary (and often contradictory) definition really insults your considerable intelligence, Thomas.

I can't agree with that Frank. It is your intelligence that is being insulted. Not mine of course because Thomas doesn't address any posts to me.

A dictionary needs to define God before it can define what not believing in God is. If God is the wisdom of the ages refined by the best brains and personified, for simplicity's sake, on behalf of simple folk, then not believing in God is to not believe in such distilled wisdom. Which often happens when the wisdom of the ages is not convenient for the personal services.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You are right in that I do not consider myself an atheist. Even though the dictionaries define atheism as "rejection of theism" rather than the "belief that theism is wrong", this is one of the rare occasions where I think the dictionary definitions could stand some improvement. But that is not a battle I am prepared to take, and being a poster who's native tongue is not English, I fear my efforts would be dismissed on that background no matter how reasonable my arguments...

It is a philosophical issue, as I see it. Does disbelief in something equate a belief in an alternative?
To my mind, an atheist is a person who believes there are no gods. The opposite is a theist, and in the middle of the two are the people who couldn't care less either way, and they are not atheists. I know this isn't the dictionary definition of the term, but this way of thinking about it offers greater clarity when addressing the issue. Also, then I don't have to be placed in the same category as those who scream objections to everything that has to do with religion.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It is a philosophical issue, as I see it. Does disbelief in something equate a belief in an alternative?

It's an issue of definition, not philosophy. The definition says that believing in an alternative is sufficient but not necessary for disbelieving. Think of it in terms of those old American court movies. "Has the jury reached a verdict?" "Does the jury find the defendant guilty?" Logically speaking, the jury disbelieves in the defendant's guilt if it hasn't reached a verdict OR if the verdict is "not guilty".

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The following link is to a definition of the word "disbelief".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

The definition says: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

Logically, wouldn't that mean, in the case of gods, that the disbeliever believes that whatever he disbelieves is not true? (Bad sentence building there, but I hope you can understand.)

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Nobody can understand anything cyr if it doesn't relate to the consequences of the respective viewpoints. What you're doing has been going on for a few thousand years and more often than not with more style.

One has to wonder just what it is you are up to. The consequences of atheism are much more interesting and relevant than whether it has validity as a principle.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

It would. That's odd. Merriam-Webster seems to disagree with itself here, because their definition of the verb "disbelieving" includes withholding belief.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...or maybe you are not entirely certain on what any signifies...probably you are one of those ignorants who also believes that nothingness is something after all, join your idiot pal JLNo-one on that crusade...either you are stuck with having beliefs, or you are actually able to achieve certainty...you seamed to imply that certainty can be achieved some times while on "some things" you have to rely on faith...simultaneously you said people can't have any beliefs...well people not only can't have any beliefs but they can actually have all sorts of beliefs...the question emerging being if they can achieve certainty or not...pleading for special cases on certainty without presenting good reason is self contradictory.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I do not have any doubts about what "any" signifies. That means I have no doubts.

You aren't exactly qualified to challenge me on what English words mean, you who can barely make yourself understood in English...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That is why I said it is perhaps a philosophical issue. What does it mean to withhold belief? Is it akin to suspending judgment?

I would say that a person who refrains from making up his mind about the issue of gods either way cannot be called an atheist, because it is not determined that he believes in gods, and it is also not determined that he does not believe in them. He is undecided on the matter, and cannot be an atheist...

To put it another way. If you ask a person if he believes in gods, and he answers "I don't know", he cannot be called an atheist, and not a theist. He might be either, but until he chooses one he is neither.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Just because someone is not undecided, that is, that in so far he has no good reasons to even be undecided or pounder that in fact that might be a God, or that for not being an agnostic then he is a believer either that God exists or that God doesn't... again from one step to the other it doesn't follow.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

But the consequence of not choosing a side is being out of the game. The consequences for society of atheism or a belief are pretty self evident but there can be no consequences of dithering except that you are not able to choose either and just sit there like a great big nonentity.

Once you have said you're an agnostic you have said everything there is to say. Perhaps that's why you keep going on about what agnosticism is or is not unto the thousandth generation. Or talking about yourself in other words. Apolitical follows like a cart follows a shafted dray-horse.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

while the same person may well argue that a God might be possible, it still is equally arguable that no good reason in so far was sufficient to take seriously the possibility of having doubt or suspend judgment...a remote possibility on itself does not need to be sufficient reason to suspend judgment on the matter.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

...The consequences for society of atheism or a belief are pretty self evident...

Are you saying that the best justification for God that you can think off as an argument is that people need a super policeman otherwise they become an uncontrollable mob ? I suppose you believe also that all atheists are immoral or amoral...that is an old argument and it never stick together, no glue there...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Are you saying that the best justification for God that you can think off as an argument is that people need a super policeman otherwise they become an uncontrollable mob ?

Yes. And God is a better super policeman because His judgements are not in the here and now as those of other sorts of super policemen are. I don't know how much fear of God's judgement there is but it doesn't look a great deal to me. I'm avoiding the uncontrollable mob solution, it is an option, because I expect you fancy that as much as I do.

All atheists are obviously amoral. If they are not immoral as a result it is for various social or psychological reasons which disqualify them as a matter of course from becoming politically powerful because they only do dog eat Chunkie and not dog eat dog where it is either eat or be eaten.

How would an atheist define immoral? He only has anti-social behaviour institutionalised as crime. And that is quite flexible. A Supreme Court of lawyers decided by 7 to 2 to decriminalise abortion for example. And 50 million abortions, and counting, have taken place since.

Selling alcohol went from legal to illegal and back again.

Quote:

I suppose you believe also that all atheists are immoral or amoral...that is an old argument and it never stick together, no glue there...

The argument sticks together like **** to a blanket notwithstanding assertions to the contrary. Its age has no bearing on the matter.

2 Replies

Atheism spreads religious awareness and biases our thinking...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know