Atheism: A belief?

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that your claim of usage and your actual usage are two different things. The "lacks belief" definition is more of a slogan than a definition. It does not describe the way people actually use "atheism", but it does accomplish polemical goals.

Meh, I see people use it this way as opposed to your way. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Notice the bold, underlined word above. This is where we are having a huge disconnect. I never said, nor do I believe, that you reject the possibility of the existence of gods. What I think you do reject, based on my impression of things you've said in the past, is that you reject the probability of gods. Atheists almost never reject the possibility of gods, just their plausibility.

I don't assign a probability one way or the other on something that I would define as god existing. I would have no rational basis for defining such a probability.

I think, perhaps, you need to step away from some of the assumptions tend to make.

 

[Copernicus]

I guess I misunderstood. To actually reject belief in gods, you'd have to reject belief in anything validly called a god. Since you've been holding up dictionaries as authorities so far, I figured that's what you'd be basing things on.

The question here is how one determines "anything validly called a god". Dictionaries may or may not do an adequate job of defining words, and they usually disagree with each other on the details of word senses, if not their substance.

So... you want us to go by usage instead of usage? I'm confused.

I want to go by actual usage rather than prescribed usage. You should not be confused about that. I've explained the difference before.

That's the thing - IMO, there's no way to define "spiritual" as something distinct from "physical" that doesn't create some sort of internal contradiction AND allows us to know about these "spiritual" things at all.

Well, we disagree. Mind-body dualism is a fairly universal belief among humans, and it is what gives rise to claims about a "spiritual" plane of existence.

Here's how I look at it: imagine you're confronted by some previously-unknown force or phenomenon. How would you tell whether it's "spiritual" or "physical"?
If the spiritual interacts with the physical, then there's no way to tell...

I agree.

There's no meaningful distinction between the two categories.

I disagree. Meaning does not depend on existential verification. It depends on associations with experiences. We experience our minds interacting with our bodies. That is how we come to understand the concept of a spiritual plane of existence.

I meant that the term can be used in a sense like "I'm an atheist toward Thor." And it could very well be that a Christian might make this claim.

That is a reasonable metaphorical extension of usage for "atheist". When you say that, you are not expressing neutrality or ambivalence about the existence of Thor. Most people would understand you to be saying that you hold the opinion that he does not exist. This corroborates my definition of "atheist", not yours.

There's no burden of proof here. Conceptually, this approach would be like going down a checklist of god-beliefs and checking "no" for every belief on the list, making sure that you've put a checkmark down for each and every god. Why you check "no" is up to you - I'm not asking for any reasons for your decisions, just for the decisions themselves.

How do you compile the "checklist"? What qualifies something to be an item on that checklist?

However, like I said, that's only one way to go at the problem. You can also exclude gods by category... as long as you can define your categories properly.

OK. How do you determine what qualifies as a "proper category"?

Exactly! I can't reject things I've never conceived of.

So you seem to be saying here that you think pixies, leprechauns, and banshees might exist, right? Or are you saying that you have no opinion on the matter? That is, you have no belief that they exist and no belief that they do not exist. Complete neutrality.

And this illustrates part of why it's much more workable to define terms like "atheist" or other labels of non-belief in terms of lack of belief. If someone somewhere on Earth has come up with a mythical being that has the front half of a narwhal, the back half of a grizzly bear and flies through the air pooping cinnamon hearts (let's call it a "flying grizzwhal" ), the mere fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean I'm a "flying grizzwhal agnostic".

I agree. The idea is so preposterous that you could easily reject belief in such a being. Someone might come up with a slightly more believable being that you would be genuinely "agnostic" toward. If the grizzwhal fancier were to call this being a "god", then you would acquire a different understanding of its nature than that of any old mythical being. At that point, you would expect the thing to be the object of worship, to have super powers, and so forth. In other words, the word "god" carries special semantic baggage.

"Within reason"?

Your approach to defining the concept of a "god" does not seem reasonable to me. I refer specifically to your "checklist" approach.

So... off the top of my head, your category does not include any gods who get tired or hungry (since their power cannot be considered absolute), or gods who are less than perfectly sovereign over their domain (subject to usurpation of more powerful gods, as you said).

Where does my definition require that gods not get tired or hungry? In principle, lesser gods can be trumped by greater gods. They can still be "masters of their domain", subject to stipulations. Penguins can still be birds, even though they cannot fly.

It sounds to me like your rejection of gods managed to miss the entire Greek pantheon. I'm sure it misses many other gods as well.

My definition included those gods. But how do they get on your checklist? I'm willing to refine my definition, if you think that it's inadequate. Unlike you, I have a viable method for defining what a "god" is. So do all lexicographers. That's why dictionaries provide definitions for the word. You have yet to explain where your checklist comes from.

And I'm sure that the panentheists (AND the panenfneeglemorphists ) who view God as something like a "life force" and not necessarily intelligent would disagree with your description of God as an "intelligent entity".

Maybe so, but we would need to look at whether their usage is consistent with such a claim. In my experience, it almost never is, because they start behaving towards that "life force" as if it were worthy of reverence or prayer. Panentheists almost always allow for a "God" concept that transcends the physical reality that it permeates. I can introduce you to a Christian who claims to be a panentheist, holds prayer services, and passes around a collection plate.

Also, what about those theists who say that their God is all-powerful, but this is subject to the limits of "logical possibility" (e.g. no ability to create "square circles" and the like); is this absolute power or not? It's not absolute power over logic, and in these monotheistic religions, there's no higher god saying "you must obey logic!"

I have no trouble at all with the idea that omnipotence is restricted to logically possible acts. I'm not really sure why it is a problem for you.

I'd tend to agree, but I also realize that this seems to take an a priori position (at least for this discussion) that god-belief is false. After all, to the extent that gods are based on human traits and characteristics, they're not based on the truth of the god-claims that they describe.

What would be the "truth of the god-claims that they describe"? I'm not quite sure how to interpret that.

Yes, but imagining a thing does not necessarily mean that it can exist.

So? Why is that a problem? Are you saying that we cannot name imaginary things and talk about them?

I'm not going to get into a fight with someone over the matter either, but I'm still not going to accept a person's claim that their cat is a god. That deals with the problem. And if I did accept their claim, I'd cease to be an atheist.

Well, I don't see how that cat doesn't make its way onto your checklist. I'm hoping that you have a good explanation for how you keep it off.

IMO, I think that a general term has to be generally applicable. If you leave holes in the category, then it doesn't really work.

Well, nobody said that the life of a lexicographer or lexicologist would be easy! They do have to confront semantic vagueness, and definitions often undergo a lot of refinement before they get published.

But in any case, I don't think it's even true that your definition of "god" is good on the whole with problems on the edges; I think it's generally unworkable as it is. It misses many mainstream god-concepts.

I disagree. I think that it captures most of them. I also think that it could stand more work, though. Wordnet mentions the component of "worship", and I believe that that it needs to be added to my definition.

I'm not sure we do agree. What I'm saying is that because rejection is an explicit act, to reject belief in gods generally, you must reject belief in each and every god, either individually or by category...

And my reply is that you need some way to recognize individuals or categories as belonging on your putative "checklist". You haven't done that, and that is the back door that allows you to squirm out of having to admit that the "god" concept is inherently definable as a type of being.

If there are any gaps at all - if there's so much as one single god-concept that you haven't either explicitly considered or didn't quite include in the categories you rejected - then you have not rejected belief in all gods and therefore you aren't an atheist... by your definition, anyhow.

Now don't confuse your definition with mine. My definition is the set of criteria that allows you to construct your "god checklist". If you reject belief in beings that fit those criteria, then you are an "atheist". Q.E.D.

As you pointed out before, it's not enough to reject belief in some gods to be an atheist, because most (all?) theists do just that. Atheism must require rejection of every single god-belief some way or another.

I do that by supplying explicit criteria for item or category membership on your "god checklist". If I do that, then I do not actually have to examine every item on the list.

 

[Alceste]

And how many people need to explicitly say that "fneeglemorph" is not the universe before we get to take it back out again?

With made up nouns like "fneeglemorph" and "god" that don't refer to something that exists outside the subjective sphere, all subjective definitions are permissible, and all rejections of additional subjective definitions are futile.

IOW, no matter how many people complain about calling the universe "god", it's not going to make a shred of difference to a pantheist. She will continue to define God as "the universe" regardless, therefore a culturally neutral (rather than Euro-centric / Abrahamic religio-centric) definition must include this point of view.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't assign a probability one way or the other on something that I would define as god existing. I would have no rational basis for defining such a probability.

I was using "probability" in the sense of "plausibility", which is one valid word sense. I did not mean it in terms of mathematical precision. Plausibility is based on more subjective criteria, and I would argue that all of us make plausibility judgments. That is the essence of atheism--rejection of gods as plausible beings.

 

[Alceste]

I don't understand why both sides can't just say "Hey, there's two definitions for the word "atheist" that can be used in various circumstances." Because that is what it boils down to.

That IS what we are all saying, except for Copernicus. He is basically denying that weak atheism is still atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

That IS what we are all saying, except for Copernicus. He is basically denying that weak atheism is still atheism.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have given at least two different definitions of "weak atheism". It can be taken as a synonym for "agnostic" (in the sense of someone who is on the fence about the existence of gods) but leans away from belief, or it can refer to an atheist who relies exclusively on "burden of proof" as an argument to deny the existence of gods.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was using "probability" in the sense of "plausibility", which is one valid word sense. I did not mean it in terms of mathematical precision. Plausibility is based on more subjective criteria, and I would argue that all of us make plausibility judgments. That is the essence of atheism--rejection of gods as plausible beings.

Yeah, I don't know how plausible it is that something that I would define as god exists. The essence of my atheism has nothing to do with the plausibility of any such being, but simply that I have no reason to hold a belief that such a being exists.

 

[Orias]

Yet another unsupported claim. It's interesting that you try to support unsupported claims by claiming they've been supported, which is itself an unsupported claim.

I am not at fault for your inability to remember the debate and the points that have followed :help:.

You label yourself a human, like billions of others. You are indeed conforming to a herd. I mean, come on. That's just horrible reasoning. Applying a label to myself to explain something about me is not conforming to a herd. Conforming to a herd is accepting something just so that you can be like others. A professional football player isn't conforming to a herd by calling himself a football player.

Ha, you are incredibely mistaken.

I hold as much trust in our labels as much as I do in Christian waste.

It is unfortunate that it is the only means of communication, for it is horribly misleading.

You are the only handing out labels, only labels can subject oneself to hypocrisy.

So, what you're saying is that if I asked an autotheist whether he believes in God, he wouldn't answer "no"? Then he wouldn't fit into the category of "people who answer 'no' to the question 'Do you believe in God?'".

Not at all, I'm saying if you asked an autotheist whether he believes in God or not, he would ask you to thoroughly define "God", if it is an external vision, then it would be no, if you were to say "God" would be "him", or "you" then perhaps the answer would be yes.

But who knows why don't you ask one?

OK, this is why I said you might want to take some time to gather your thoughts. Either your thoughts are confused or your communication of them is. Either way, it would be good to iron out your confusion before replying.

:biglaugh: You're the only one speaking of confusion.

You don't agree with every definition of atheism because, as you say right here, you disagree with the definition "lack of belief in gods". This really shouldn't be that hard. I also explained why using "belief" in the definition doesn't make it a belief. Did you miss that part? When I say "lack of belief", the word "belief" appears, but that doesn't mean it's a belief.

NO. I do agree with every definition of "atheism", for the sixth time. I just disagree with your assertion that somehow "lack of belief" should be used to completely and utterly define atheism, as well as how much it makes it not a belief.

If I asked if you believed in "God", you would say no. That's all thats to it.

I "sport" that fact to discredit the view that that fact is not true.

I didn't figure "atheists" were in the position to make any "truthful" claims.

No, I would consider it apatheism. An apatheist could be an atheist or a theist.

Magical ain't it?

In other words "I don't care what you say, I'm just going to ignore it, and keep stating it's not true". The definition "lack of belief in gods" most certainly does imply that it's not a belief. A lack of belief is not a belief. A belief would be "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". A lack of belief is simply the absence of a belief. Saying someone lacks the belief "God exists" is not saying that person holds the belief "God doesn't exist".

Except for the "fact" that you believe it right? Spare me.

So, what you're doing is completely ignoring the definition we've been using, as if it hasn't even been mentioned. That's hardly a good way of debating. You point about other atheists making the same assertion is silly. So, if a computer expert claims that the processing power of an Integra 2 is better than that of an A4, and I make the same claim, I must be just going along with the herd, even if I understand that the claim is made because the Integra 2 has dual cores rather than the one of the A4? I'm not really sure what the "unchallenged" has to do with anything.

A position that goes unchallenged is the weakest of all, especially when the Opposition has been dealing with such an inconsistency for some time now.

You're trying to hard, I ignore nothing. Every small detail is a fracture, and it is not uncommon to observe people resort to special pleading. Again, I wonder if you are even capable of viewing yourself from a perspective other than your own.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. The reason it's "still a theory" is that a scientific theory explains many observable facts. Scientific theories are not possible laws that lack sufficient evidence. They are different things from laws. We're not talking about a theory like "I have a theory about who committed this crime".

He who speaks of misunderstanding often misunderstands himself.

Sure, a scientific theory explains many "observable facts", scientific laws is proven by the objective material behind it.

Hence the distinction between scientific law and theory. You can prove NOTHING.

That's great. Now if you could go ahead and explain what that has to do with a discussion about definitions of words, I'd be appreciative.

You're arguing a general viewpoint.

Just because it is written, does not make it so, just because everyone agrees with it, does not make it so.

There is nothing to perpetuate such logic.

OK, let's take this slowly. The definition we're talking about is "lack of belief in gods". That definition not only implies, but clearly states that it's not a belief, but a lack of belief.

-1

It says "lack of belief in Gods".

Not just "lack of belief". If this were your argument, sure, but then again, you would still believe in it. So your repetitive descriptions are like spinning wheels in mud.

It's hard to argue one's own position as not being a belief, when they thoroughly and clearly define what it is exactly that they belief the position to be:thud:.

If a room lacks a chair, that means there is no chair there.

Heh, quote of the day

So, the question is then whether or not you agree with that definition. You say that you agree with every one, which would imply that you agree with this one. Therefore you agree that atheism is not a belief. However, since you've clearly stated that you think atheism is a belief, that's not true. We're left with you making contradictory statements.

NO. I said I agree with every definition of atheism, just your unsupportive claim that it is somehow not a belief.

No where...in the dictionary...at all...does it say...that atheism...is...not...a...belief!

So, what's the problem here? Do you not realize that a lack of belief is not a belief? Or is it that you disagree with the definition "a lack of belief in gods"? If you agree with that definition, then you agree that atheism is not a belief. If you disagree with that definition, then you don't agree with every definition of atheism. I'm trying to get you to be clear here.

I am being clear. You're just mucking up my words.

Atheism, obviously stems from, "without God(s)". Apparently to you, one either believes in God or doesn't, with the possible scenerio of evidence one might change, but such a description has a label for itself.

I've been doing that all along. The problem is not my reading skills. The problem is, as I outlined above, your communication skills or your ideas.

You must just not be up to par.

The words I speak are "English", how you chose to interperate them is up to you. But then again, you will never understand my side as long as you are oblivious to your own resourcefulness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question here is how one determines "anything validly called a god". Dictionaries may or may not do an adequate job of defining words, and they usually disagree with each other on the details of word senses, if not their substance.

Fair enough, but I think there are also major problems with your definition, as I went into before. Where does this leave us?

That is a reasonable metaphorical extension of usage for "atheist". When you say that, you are not expressing neutrality or ambivalence about the existence of Thor. Most people would understand you to be saying that you hold the opinion that he does not exist. This corroborates my definition of "atheist", not yours.

Except my definition of "atheist" includes your definition as well.

How do you compile the "checklist"? What qualifies something to be an item on that checklist?

Well, that's the question. It may be an impossible task, but doing it isn't my problem.

OK. How do you determine what qualifies as a "proper category"?

I'm not really sure. Again, this isn't my problem.

It's only when you define atheism in terms of rejection of belief that you need to worry about these sorts of issues. If you define it in terms of absence of belief, then the task is much simpler: the checklist is simply the set of beliefs in your own head, and the question you ask when you check them is "is this a belief in a god?" If you can get down the list without checking "yes", then you're an atheist.

So you seem to be saying here that you think pixies, leprechauns, and banshees might exist, right? Or are you saying that you have no opinion on the matter? That is, you have no belief that they exist and no belief that they do not exist. Complete neutrality.

Well, no. I've conceived of all those things and rejected them. However, if you dream up some new mythic creature and don't tell me about it, then I haven't rejected that unless it fits into some class of mythic creatures that I've rejected.

I agree. The idea is so preposterous that you could easily reject belief in such a being.

Yes - rejection of it would be easy, but it'd still be an explicit act. So is someone who's never heard of a flying grizzwhal (which would be almost everyone, since I haven't discussed it outside this thread since I first came up with it) a "flying grizzwhal agnostic"?

Someone might come up with a slightly more believable being that you would be genuinely "agnostic" toward. If the grizzwhal fancier were to call this being a "god", then you would acquire a different understanding of its nature than that of any old mythical being. At that point, you would expect the thing to be the object of worship, to have super powers, and so forth. In other words, the word "god" carries special semantic baggage.

Your approach to defining the concept of a "god" does not seem reasonable to me. I refer specifically to your "checklist" approach.

Oh... yeah; in practical terms, I agree that it's so unworkable that it's likely impossible.

Where does my definition require that gods not get tired or hungry?

The "absolute control" part. If an entity's power is subject to fatigue, then it's not "absolute", is it?

My definition included those gods.

No, it didn't. Greek myths are full of stories of humans and demi-gods doing things like tricking or outsmarting gods to thwart their will. The "control" exercised by the Greek gods wasn't generally "absolute"... and not just because it was usurped by greater gods, but because it was usurped by lesser creatures.

But how do they get on your checklist?

What's wrong with simply naming them explicitly?

But in any case, this is your problem, not mine.

I'm willing to refine my definition, if you think that it's inadequate. Unlike you, I have a viable method for defining what a "god" is. So do all lexicographers. That's why dictionaries provide definitions for the word. You have yet to explain where your checklist comes from.

The same place your definitions come from, ultimately: usage.

However, if you don't like the checklist idea, you don't need to use it. I mainly suggested it as a way for you to "fill in the gaps" of a poor definition of God: i.e. "I reject all gods that meet criteria x, y and z... oh, and also gods A, B and C, evn though they don't meet those criteria."

Maybe so, but we would need to look at whether their usage is consistent with such a claim. In my experience, it almost never is, because they start behaving towards that "life force" as if it were worthy of reverence or prayer. Panentheists almost always allow for a "God" concept that transcends the physical reality that it permeates. I can introduce you to a Christian who claims to be a panentheist, holds prayer services, and passes around a collection plate.

And how does reverence, prayer or tithing necessarily imply that the god being worshipped is intelligent?

I have no trouble at all with the idea that omnipotence is restricted to logically possible acts. I'm not really sure why it is a problem for you.

It may be a problem because depending on how one defines "absolute control", the constraints of logic could be seen as resulting in a level of control that's less than "absolute".

What would be the "truth of the god-claims that they describe"? I'm not quite sure how to interpret that.

I mean, for example, that if our image of Zeus as a powerful human figure who throws thunderbolts was the result of some human need to relate to the forces of nature, then this speaks against the idea that the image is a result of actually meeting the god Zeus who really is as he's described.

So? Why is that a problem? Are you saying that we cannot name imaginary things and talk about them?

No, I'm saying that simply being able to conceive of a thing doesn't necessarily mean we have to allow for a logical possibility that it exists.

Well, I don't see how that cat doesn't make its way onto your checklist. I'm hoping that you have a good explanation for how you keep it off.

It's not my checklist. I'm not the one defining atheism in terms of rejection of belief, remember?

But do you really think that some person's cat meets a valid definition of God? If so, why do you call yourself an atheist?

Well, nobody said that the life of a lexicographer or lexicologist would be easy! They do have to confront semantic vagueness, and definitions often undergo a lot of refinement before they get published.

I agree it's a difficult task, but you took it on when you defined atheism in terms of rejection of belief in gods, because:

- this requires actual rejection of all god-beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly.
- but this requires actually believing each and every god-belief to be false.
- which requires consideration and evaluation of all god-beliefs, either individually or by class.
- which requires that each god-belief, or class of god-belief, be defined in such a way that it can be evaluated.
- which requires that all terms involved be adequately and validly defined.
- which means you need an adequate and valid definition of "god".

If you lose any link in that chain, then the term "atheist" becomes meaningless.

I disagree. I think that it captures most of them.

And I don't think it does... as I explained above.

I also think that it could stand more work, though. Wordnet mentions the component of "worship", and I believe that that it needs to be added to my definition.

As a side note, while I don't have a complete definition of "god" myself (and actually, I think that it's a bit of a fool's errand to try to come up with a single definition that covers all gods), I do think that the one thing that's common to all of them is that a god is an object of worship. This means to me that when considering the question of whether gods exist, I don't need to consider any hypothetical entities that humanity has never encountered, because none of them are worshipped as a "god".

And my reply is that you need some way to recognize individuals or categories as belonging on your putative "checklist". You haven't done that, and that is the back door that allows you to squirm out of having to admit that the "god" concept is inherently definable as a type of being.

Well, if it's inherently definable, then give us a workable definition.

Now don't confuse your definition with mine. My definition is the set of criteria that allows you to construct your "god checklist". If you reject belief in beings that fit those criteria, then you are an "atheist". Q.E.D.

Okay... so you prefer the second approach. You still haven't met the requirements of it.

I do that by supplying explicit criteria for item or category membership on your "god checklist". If I do that, then I do not actually have to examine every item on the list.

And I never said you had to. If you think I did, you misunderstood me.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Willya look at all this neck?

I might even have an answer: an Atheist believes in the injustice of hell.

 

[Magic Man]

I think that your claim of usage and your actual usage are two different things. The "lacks belief" definition is more of a slogan than a definition.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Copernicus doesn't realize that we do actually use the term this way. We're not just making it up to use for an argument. When I talk about atheists, I'm talking about anyone who lacks belief in gods.

It really is rather arrogant to say "You don't actually use the word that way. You're only doing it in certain cases to support a particular argument. I know what you mean with your words better than you do". I would appreciate it if you would stop this arrogance.

 

[Magic Man]

I am not at fault for your inability to remember the debate and the points that have followed :help:.

He says as he ignores what has recently been said. You just made a bunch of claims that are unsupported. I was pointing out that they're just wild accusations with no actual support. I'm sorry this is the response you choose.

Ha, you are incredibely mistaken.

I hold as much trust in our labels as much as I do in Christian waste.

It is unfortunate that it is the only means of communication, for it is horribly misleading.

You are the only handing out labels, only labels can subject oneself to hypocrisy.

:areyoucra So, you're saying you wouldn't call yourself a human? What do you think I'm mistaken about? You clearly use the English language. Even in these few sentences you used labels. You used "Christian" and "labels", for example. Both are labels. You call yourself "male" on your profile page. That's a label. This is what Copernicus was talking about with the reductio ad absurdum. Saying you don't call yourself a human is just absurd. To avoid even the most basic labelling like that, you'd have to avoid using language altogether.

Not at all, I'm saying if you asked an autotheist whether he believes in God or not, he would ask you to thoroughly define "God", if it is an external vision, then it would be no, if you were to say "God" would be "him", or "you" then perhaps the answer would be yes.

But who knows why don't you ask one?

You seem to intentionally be missing the point. Would an autotheist say "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God"? If the latter, I would consider him an atheist.

:biglaugh: You're the only one speaking of confusion.

Yes, I'm speaking of your confusion. This is another example of your confusion.

NO. I do agree with every definition of "atheism", for the sixth time. I just disagree with your assertion that somehow "lack of belief" should be used to completely and utterly define atheism, as well as how much it makes it not a belief.

If I asked if you believed in "God", you would say no. That's all thats to it.

OK, again this is very simple. You can't agree that atheism is "lack of belief in gods" and then claim that atheism is a belief. The two statements are mutually exclusive. You can claim, as I have, that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and can be accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist, but that would make atheism a belief.

I didn't figure "atheists" were in the position to make any "truthful" claims.

Well, that's a very odd thing to figure.

Magical ain't it?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. An apatheist can be a theist or an atheist. It says exactly that on that Wiki page for it, so I don't understand why you'd show me a link to it. I also don't understand what this has to do with anything. "Apatheist" doesn't describe someone's belief or lack of belief in God; it just describes their attitude towards God or the belief in God.

Except for the "fact" that you believe it right? Spare me.

Except for the fact that I believe what?

A position that goes unchallenged is the weakest of all, especially when the Opposition has been dealing with such an inconsistency for some time now.

The "challenge" to my position would be whether or not people use atheism to mean "lack of belief in gods". Since I've seen people use it that way many times, it passes the challenge.

You're trying to hard, I ignore nothing. Every small detail is a fracture, and it is not uncommon to observe people resort to special pleading. Again, I wonder if you are even capable of viewing yourself from a perspective other than your own.

So, you decided on this instead of an actual argument. It's not nice to completely ignore what someone has said when they took the time to write it.

He who speaks of misunderstanding often misunderstands himself.

Sure, a scientific theory explains many "observable facts", scientific laws is proven by the objective material behind it.

Hence the distinction between scientific law and theory. You can prove NOTHING.

This isn't hard. A scientific law can be boiled down to an equation. A theory explains many facts, a law is only concerned with one fact, in a manner of speaking. You can read this to educate yourself in more depth.

You're arguing a general viewpoint.

Just because it is written, does not make it so, just because everyone agrees with it, does not make it so.

There is nothing to perpetuate such logic.

Actually, we're talking about definitions. If everyone agrees with a definition, it does kind of make it so. Language is only useful when people agree on the meanings.

-1

It says "lack of belief in Gods".

Not just "lack of belief". If this were your argument, sure, but then again, you would still believe in it. So your repetitive descriptions are like spinning wheels in mud.

It's hard to argue one's own position as not being a belief, when they thoroughly and clearly define what it is exactly that they belief the position to be:thud:.

I really don't get what you're missing here. There is the belief "God exists". Some people hold that belief; some people don't. Those who don't are atheists. A lack of belief is not belief. That's why we say "lack of", to specify the absence of belief.

I realize my repetitive descriptions are like spinning wheels in mud when talking to you, but it's only because I can't figure out why you are trying to claim that lack of belief is belief. Would you say that the absence of a book on my desk is a book on my desk?

Heh, quote of the day

I only wish you would take a minute to understand the quote.

NO. I said I agree with every definition of atheism, just your unsupportive claim that it is somehow not a belief.

No where...in the dictionary...at all...does it say...that atheism...is...not...a...belief!

OK, I guess I should just give up. You agree that atheism is "lack of belief in gods". That right there says quite clearly that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. It really can't be any simpler than that. A lack of a book isn't a book. A lack of belief is not a belief.

I am being clear. You're just mucking up my words.

You're getting clearer now, but now you're just not admitting a basic concept. I'm not mucking anything up. I just didn't realize that you could possibly try to claim that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

You must just not be up to par.

The words I speak are "English", how you chose to interperate them is up to you. But then again, you will never understand my side as long as you are oblivious to your own resourcefulness.

It's a good thing you put the quotation marks around English. The words are definitely English, but they make little sense. Case in point, your last sentence.

 

[Orias]

He says as he ignores what has recently been said. You just made a bunch of claims that are unsupported. I was pointing out that they're just wild accusations with no actual support. I'm sorry this is the response you choose.

Not at all, we've been replying to each other's post for sometime now. Again, I am not at fault for your inability to remember the points at hand.

:areyoucra So, you're saying you wouldn't call yourself a human? What do you think I'm mistaken about? You clearly use the English language. Even in these few sentences you used labels. You used "Christian" and "labels", for example. Both are labels. You call yourself "male" on your profile page. That's a label. This is what Copernicus was talking about with the reductio ad absurdum. Saying you don't call yourself a human is just absurd. To avoid even the most basic labelling like that, you'd have to avoid using language altogether.

I hold as much trust in our labels as much as I do in Christian waste.

It is unfortunate that it is the only means of communication, for it is horribly misleading.

You are the only handing out labels, only labels can subject oneself to hypocrisy.

Wasn't sure if this got through to you at all.

You seem to intentionally be missing the point. Would an autotheist say "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God"? If the latter, I would consider him an atheist.

Not at all. In order to over come the semantic one must define what it is they are proposing as "God". Otherwise it's just a vague and skewed misrepresentation.

But it is very common to see an autotheist bear the yellow colors.

Yes, I'm speaking of your confusion. This is another example of your confusion.

That's just what you would like to think

OK, again this is very simple. You can't agree that atheism is "lack of belief in gods" and then claim that atheism is a belief. The two statements are mutually exclusive. You can claim, as I have, that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and can be accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist, but that would make atheism a belief.

Actually, no where in the definition of "atheism" does it say that it is not a belief. Until you can prove that it does, you are going no where with your feeble argument.

Lack of belief in "God(s)" is the correct definition, not just merely a lack in belief. Not to mention that you believe it. But I wouldn't expect it to get through to you, your not trying to understand anything.

Now, are you capable of viewing yourself from a perspective other than your own?

Well, that's a very odd thing to figure.

Not really, countless numbers of them have told me that they make no claims, that they are in no position to make any "truthful" assertions.

If one were to do such a thing they would just as propagandistic as a Christian.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. An apatheist can be a theist or an atheist. It says exactly that on that Wiki page for it, so I don't understand why you'd show me a link to it. I also don't understand what this has to do with anything. "Apatheist" doesn't describe someone's belief or lack of belief in God; it just describes their attitude towards God or the belief in God.

It describes their belief in such achieved aspects.

Except for the fact that I believe what?

In your integrity, your definitions of "atheism", your heart felt and continual appeal to what you belief.

Until you can prove that you know anything, you will sit and wither away.

The "challenge" to my position would be whether or not people use atheism to mean "lack of belief in gods". Since I've seen people use it that way many times, it passes the challenge.

You completely misrepresent the point.

I meant challenged by Opposition, not someone who decides to take the concept for a crash course.

So, you decided on this instead of an actual argument. It's not nice to completely ignore what someone has said when they took the time to write it.

I didn't completely ignore what you said, my points are valid, yet it is you who continually avoids the questions that I ask.

Are you capable of such a thing?

This isn't hard. A scientific law can be boiled down to an equation. A theory explains many facts, a law is only concerned with one fact, in a manner of speaking. You can read this to educate yourself in more depth.

I think my two years in A.P physics has lead me to enough formalities.

Actually, we're talking about definitions. If everyone agrees with a definition, it does kind of make it so. Language is only useful when people agree on the meanings.

No, you are completely wrong.

A majority of the Earth's population is Christian, Islamic, animsistic. Are you saying that because a majority agrees that it makes it so?

I think not.

I really don't get what you're missing here. There is the belief "God exists". Some people hold that belief; some people don't. Those who don't are atheists. A lack of belief is not belief. That's why we say "lack of", to specify the absence of belief.

I don't really get what you're missing here. You completely believe in your own argument.

I realize my repetitive descriptions are like spinning wheels in mud when talking to you, but it's only because I can't figure out why you are trying to claim that lack of belief is belief.

And you said I was the one ignoring you.

Would you say that the absence of a book on my desk is a book on my desk?

Not at all, but then again you are comparing a concrete physical and objective material to an abstract and always changing concept.

I only wish you would take a minute to understand the quote.

I understand it completey, it is blown way out of proportion. You're comparing something that is tangible and something that isn't. It's not very practical.

OK, I guess I should just give up. You agree that atheism is "lack of belief in gods". That right there says quite clearly that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. It really can't be any simpler than that. A lack of a book isn't a book. A lack of belief is not a belief.

Where in the definition of "atheism" does it say that it is not a belief? You can make all of the assumptions and implications you want, but it does not prove anything.

If it is not so much as a belief, then it shouldn't be defined with belief. Not only that, if it wasn't a belief we wouldn't of gone through 800 different posts of you describing to me what you belief atheism is.

Clearly you are very oblivious to your own resourcefulness.

You're getting clearer now, but now you're just not admitting a basic concept. I'm not mucking anything up. I just didn't realize that you could possibly try to claim that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

If it is so basic then how come nothing has been proven? It is far beyond "basic" actually, it is extremely abstract.

It's a good thing you put the quotation marks around English. The words are definitely English, but they make little sense. Case in point, your last sentence.

Again, you are extremely oblivious to your own resourcefulness.

It wouldn't make sense to you, since you don't care to understand it.

Of course, people condemn that which they do not understand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, in conclusion, no, atheism is not a belief.

You can all go home now.

 

[Orias]

So, in conclusion, no, atheism is not a belief.

You can all go home now.

Thanks for supporting your belief

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it is not so much as a belief, then it shouldn't be defined with belief. Not only that, if it wasn't a belief we wouldn't of gone through 800 different posts of you describing to me what you belief atheism is.

Would you mind explaining how this statement makes sense logically? Because so far, I can't see how it does.

Are you saying that we can only have beliefs about beliefs? If so, then I think you're flat-out wrong. If not, then I think you're not doing a very good job of explaining your position.

 

[Orias]

Are you saying that we can only have beliefs about beliefs?

The world is built off of axioms.

Most people are completely oblivious to their own resourcefulness.

If so, then I think you're flat-out wrong. If not, then I think you're not doing a very good job of explaining your position.

What position?

Apparently I am an atheist, which isn't a position at all.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thanks for supporting your belief

Actually, everyone arguing that atheism is a belief has done all the work - seeing that not one of them has put forth any cogent argument defining what belief atheism actually is (you know, a belief specific to atheists which applies to all atheists). If they haven't done it by now, it ain't being done.

 

[Orias]

Actually, everyone arguing that atheism is a belief has done all the work - seeing that not one of them has put forth any cogent argument defining what belief atheism actually is (you know, a belief specific to atheists which applies to all atheists). If they haven't done it by now, it ain't being done.

If you can provide a belief specific to any "belief" or ontological stance then maybe you would be able to see.

For example, provide a belief specific to Christianity that applies to all Christians.

The chips are on this side of the table, completely.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you saying that we can only have beliefs about beliefs? If so, then I think you're flat-out wrong. If not, then I think you're not doing a very good job of explaining your position.

Don't read too much into it. In his attempt to show atheism is a debate, he incorrectly makes the argument that since we're discussing the word "belief" in relation to atheism, that atheism must be a belief. Also, he seems to think that expressing an opinion about atheism makes you an atheist. I thought he was doing these bizarre things purposefully earlier in the thread, but now I'm wondering whether he actually thinks they are meaningful arguments.

I think many people get stuck on an argument, and in a vain attempt to protect their ego, they start down a path of more and more convoluted arguments, until they get to the point that they don't even know they're not making sense any more.