Atheism: A belief?

[filthy tugboat]

I have been. The others tend to agree with each other that it is just merely defined as "lack of belief" rather than disbelief. And I have asked how they use it, and I get the same redundant and inane response, "Lack of belief" is all they say. As if that were truly the case, then they wouldn't care to argue with me. Because obviously saying that you don't believe in the existence of something is a belief, because it is followed and believed to be, until more persuasive or concrete "material" is brought forth.

Ugh:faint:

Atheism is a lack of belief though. I have given you the point that atheist believe they are atheists but that does not relate to the definition of atheism. Atheists are not theists. It is not a belief as much as it is a non-belief, it is a lack of belief. Are people that are not collecting stamps performing an activity to do with stamps?

There is nothing to perpetuate our knowledge besides the dust that will be our legacy.

There is plenty to perpetuate our knowledge, and I listed mine to begin with, my previous experience with definitions has perpetuated my knowledge so that I can be reasonably confident that not knowing is not a definition of God.

And "not knowing" is a definition of "God", in reference to "agnosticism", which closely relates to "atheism".

It is not a definition of God, agnosticism is a religious position not a representation of God. Agnosticism also relates to theism, I know many agnostic theists.

What does my response define of God? What information does it share about the term God? That I personally don't know anything about God? How has that got anything to do with defining God as it only applies to me?

It is simple, responding to the question is an answer, since the first thing that pops up in One's mind is the "Most Supreme", self evident, or uncomprehensible thought, which "God" is an Aspect used to describe.

Could you clarify the above quote? I didn't really understand what you were trying to say.

Sharing anything is giving information about your perception. It lacks nothing except that which you are unable to describe.

Yes, my perception, not the definition of a term.

Yes, the fact that the wall was originally white does remain, but it has changed to the fact that now the wall is red

[/quote]

The wall has changed colour is a fact, the wall was once whit is a fact, the wall is now red, is a fact. Nothing changes here, you are wording the sentences incorrectly. Facts do not change, if they did, then they were never facts in the first place and were falsely labelled. The way it needs to be worded is what the facts truly are, not how they relate to us. The fact is that the wall was white for a period of time. That is the full fact and it doesn't change because it took into account the fact that the wall was eventually painted a different colour.

 

[atanu]

Are people that are not collecting stamps performing an activity to do with stamps?

I don't think that is an accurate analogy.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I don't think that is an accurate analogy.

Why not? As far as I can tell, atheism is a description of something someone is not in the same sense that a non-stamp collector is also a description of what someone is not. If atheism can be considered a belief then not collecting stamps can be considered an activity.

 

[Orias]

Why not? As far as I can tell, atheism is a description of something someone is not in the same sense that a non-stamp collector is also a description of what someone is not. If atheism can be considered a belief then not collecting stamps can be considered an activity.

Actually the definition of "activity" references physiology, so yes, not collecting stamps is an activity.

 

[Orias]

Atheism is a lack of belief though. I have given you the point that atheist believe they are atheists but that does not relate to the definition of atheism. Atheists are not theists. It is not a belief as much as it is a non-belief, it is a lack of belief. Are people that are not collecting stamps performing an activity to do with stamps?

I never related it to "theistic" belief, merely that people believe atheism. Otherwise they wouldn't take the stance unto themselves, or they wouldn't consider the definition to be true.

There is plenty to perpetuate our knowledge, and I listed mine to begin with, my previous experience with definitions has perpetuated my knowledge so that I can be reasonably confident that not knowing is not a definition of God.

I was speaking of perpetuation in a definite sense, not in an analogical sense.

There is no "God" to literally perpetuate any knowledge.

It is not a definition of God, agnosticism is a religious position not a representation of God. Agnosticism also relates to theism, I know many agnostic theists.

The certainty that one cannot "know" the implications of the existence of a "God" is an agnostic standpoint.

"Not knowing" is a definition of "God", simply because you responded to a question, "What is "God""?

What does my response define of God? What information does it share about the term God? That I personally don't know anything about God? How has that got anything to do with defining God as it only applies to me?

Because the definition of "God" asserts that it is personal. You shared that you "know nothing about "God"".

Could you clarify the above quote? I didn't really understand what you were trying to say.

"God" is what people "don't know". "God" is the highest form of conception, beyond us...basically.

Yes, my perception, not the definition of a term.

The definition of the term is perceived.

The wall has changed colour is a fact, the wall was once whit is a fact, the wall is now red, is a fact. Nothing changes here, you are wording the sentences incorrectly. Facts do not change, if they did, then they were never facts in the first place and were falsely labelled. The way it needs to be worded is what the facts truly are, not how they relate to us. The fact is that the wall was white for a period of time. That is the full fact and it doesn't change because it took into account the fact that the wall was eventually painted a different colour.

NO. It was a "fact" that the walls were white, now it is a "fact" that the walls are red.

The pre-existing "fact" is no longer relative, since the walls are now red, instead of white.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I never related it to "theistic" belief, merely that people believe atheism. Otherwise they wouldn't take the stance unto themselves, or they wouldn't consider the definition to be true.

I never suggested you did relate it to theistic belief, people believe atheism in the sense that they can associate themselves as being not a theist.

"Because obviously saying that you don't believe in the existence of something is a belief"

When you said this, you changed the point of believing in atheism. Atheism is not a belief, atheists believe that they are atheists but atheism in itself is not a belief, it is the acknowledgement that one is not a theist.

I was speaking of perpetuation in a definite sense, not in an analogical sense.

There is no "God" to literally perpetuate any knowledge.

You might have to define how you were using perpetuate then.

The certainty that one cannot "know" the implications of the existence of a "God" is an agnostic standpoint.

"Not knowing" is a definition of "God", simply because you responded to a question, "What is "God""?

I never suggested that one cannot know the implications of the existence of God. I simply said that I don't know. If I have made no claims about a God how could I have made a definition of one?

Because the definition of "God" asserts that it is personal. You shared that you "know nothing about "God"".

What is the definition of "God"? How does it assert that it is personal?

"God" is what people "don't know". "God" is the highest form of conception, beyond us...basically.

This is a definition and I associate with nothing you've said as I have absolutely no idea what God could or would be like as far as I'm aware I've never had anything to do with a God, I've never read anything about a God, I've never seen or heard anything to do with a God. Whether that means this God cannot be known or whether I just don't know is inconclusive and any conclusion I would reach by trying to answer would be speculation with no reason behind it.

The definition of the term is perceived.

Yes, that doesn't make my perception a definition however.

NO. It was a "fact" that the walls were white, now it is a "fact" that the walls are red.

The pre-existing "fact" is no longer relative, since the walls are now red, instead of white.

This is much better and now we have stopped suggesting that facts change. Just because a fact is or once was relative to us and that relation changes does not mean the fact changes.

 

[Magic Man]

:biglaugh: Sounds like you need to get over yourself.

Sounds like you need to use better English or better ideas.

Excuse my shortage of time at school, only having ten minutes to make a single post. But you wouldn't happen to know much about that anyways. When you rush things, you tend to make mistakes. And here you are critisizing a simple mistake made by me.

How very mature and on topic you are.

It's not a simple mistake. That's the point. If it was a typo like your misspelling of "criticizing" in this post, it wouldn't be a big deal. However, when it's using the wrong word while also writing an unintelligible clause, it's something different. That's my point. Also, even if it's just a result of rushing, maybe you should stop rushing. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe your inability to communicate well is a result of your rushing, and if you take some time to write a well written post, we could clear some of this up.

It doesn't make sense that people take the label, "atheist" unto themselves and actually use it as a position to both attack and defend themselves?

OK, was that an attempt to make your previous statement make sense?

Sigh...you truly are narrow minded and unable to understand the concept that anything that is thought of as being true is a belief...since like I have stated numerous times, you have failed to prove that you actually know anything.

Go ahead, call POE on what you do not understand, nor care to comprehend. Just remember that it takes one to know one.

For the last time, no where in the definition of "atheism" does it say that it is not a belief. Until you provide any prove (other than what you claim) that atheism flat out says, "Is not a belief" then you are just as fickle as the term itself.

Seriously, now I know that you are not capable of viewing yourself from an outside perspective, and you are COMPLETELY oblivious to your own resourcefulness.

In other words, you're not a Poe, and you're really making these ridiculous claims?

So, just to be clear: in your world, "not a belief" means "belief"? It's no wonder no rational person is having an effective conversation with you. If you want to start using rational ideas, this will be much easier. Also, if you could stop with the nonsensical deepities, and start using meaningful, logical statements, that would go a long way too.

So you are speaking for all atheists. Way to contradict yourself :clap

How can I have an intellectual debate with someone if they can't even remember what they said?

Well, it certainly seems hard for you to have an intellectual debate, but that's only your fault. Those sentences you highlight don't show what you want them to. Explaining that, by definition, an atheist must lack the belief in gods is not speaking for anyone. It's pointing out a definition. You can't be an atheist and believe in God. If you believe in God, you're not an atheist. It's like saying something can be red when it's 100% green. To be a football player, you have to play football. To be an atheist, you have to lack the belief in God. What part of that don't you understand?

That must be why this senseless arguement with you has dragged on for so long.

Actually, it's because very little of what you've said makes any sense, and all you're doing is stubbornly trying to avoid admitting you're wrong with crazy, irrational arguments.

Not at all.

"Assumption if the mother of all ****** ups."-Steven Seagal

I didn't say "Only atheists trust in labels". I said "Trust in labels is a belief(s)". This applies to everyone.

OK, then what's the point? If everyone trusts in labels (including you), then what's the point of bringing it up?

Atheism is a belief because people go out of their way to defend what they believe atheism to be.

OK, but how does that make it a belief? Again, beliefs about atheism don't make atheism itself a belief. You have made this claim many times, but you have yet to support it. As phrased here, it makes no sense. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

Not to mention thousands of people take the label, "atheist" unto themselves

And how does that make atheism a belief?

oh and don't forget, there are atheists that actually agree that atheism is a belief.

I'm not forgetting that. It may be the case, but it's meaningless. What you're saying here is that because some atheists agree that atheism is a belief, it means that atheism is a belief. Some humans think humans aren't animals. Does that mean humans aren't animals? Of course not.

Not just "some part of it", the whole definition of atheism revolutionizes the term "belief", in retrospect it reflects upon Man's ignorance since he truly doesn't know anything outside of himself. Even then, it's a game ghost tag, we search for labels, not necessarily meanings.

You would save yourself a lot of time if you restricted your posts to rational claims that make sense.

I didn't figure competent people were the type for begging for mercy.

You misunderstood. I was begging for you to restore my faith in humanity by saying you're just kidding. I was really hoping you weren't as far gone as your words make you seem.

Yet another baseless insult that is off topic and has done nothing to provide any doubt in my mind.

You have done nothing but personally attack me and showed disrespect to every single one of my points. Not to mention you have done nothing to provide any evidence that atheism clearly isn't a belief, beside sit there and try and provoke a little anger to show a slight inconsistency.

I see right through you, you know nothing.

As I said, it might be best to wait a few years to have discussions like this. Your comments here indicate you're not ready at this point. It's OK. We were all young once. Just realize that your ideas and/or communication skills need a lot of work.

 

[Magic Man]

I have given you the point that atheist believe they are atheists but that does not relate to the definition of atheism.

Actually, I would point out that an atheist doesn't have to believe he or she is an atheist. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "God", and therefore doesn't believe in God doesn't believe he or she is an atheist. You don't have to realize you're considered an atheist to be an atheist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. The definition of atheism does not say "Is not a belief".

That's because definitions tend not to tell people what a word doesn't mean, otherwise it would be an endless list of explaining every single thing that an Aardvark isn't.

It does say that it is either the absence of belief in a God or the disbelief in a God. By definition, absence of belief and disbelief aren't beliefs.

I also believe that definition to be correct. But it makes your assertion to what atheism is a belief. But that is besides the point.

"It makes your assertion to what atheism is a belief"?

That statement makes no sense. Care to elaborate?

That's exactly the point, even atheists can't agree among their own ranks.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the definition of atheism is the absence of belief and that by that definition you do not need to hold any kind of belief to be an atheist.

If you read through the thread you will find that I will bring up the same points I have brought up to others. Call it a fallacy if you want, but that's just a cheap cop out

No, it isn't. Pointing out that someone is committing a logical fallacy is demonstrating that their logic is flawed, and hence their argument is most likely incorrect due to a misunderstanding of that logic.

You simply asked me to point out where belief fits into the definition. I simply pointed it out.

No, you didn't. All you did was point out that the word "belief" appears in the definition. That does not make it a belief.

Unless of course you are asking me to point out the implication in the definition of atheism, that makes it a belief.

No, I'm asking you how you can assert that atheism is a belief when atheism is [the absence of belief in a God], without asserting anything outside of the brackets.

In that scenario, there is none, just as much as there is no implication that says atheism isn't a belief. So until then, it is believed to be, it is a belief.

There's nothing that says a spoon isn't a spaceship, either. So does that make it so?

Atheism is the absence of belief, therefore being an atheist is not a belief.

Not at all, you tried arguing it and claiming it as relevance. I simply said it wasn't.

No, I said that atheism is the absence of belief in a God. You then said "that is irrelevant", I asked how, and you said "God is irrelevant". I was making the same point I've been making from the start, and for some reason you called it irrelevant.

Do not twist my words.

So what makes atheism a belief? People believe it, they believe in the label. Trust in labels, is a belief.

But how does that make [the absence of belief in a God] a belief?

Once again, you're asserting outside of the brackets.

Though I do realize there are those "atheists" that are doubtful of their own atheism. But those people got the message long, long, ago.

Once again, you're going to have to elaborate.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Actually, I would point out that an atheist doesn't have to believe he or she is an atheist.

I remember being Agnostic, and someone tried to tell me I was an Atheist; and it was on!

There's at least two kinds of belief being bandied about... how about the position of some schools of Philosophy, that consider "Belief" to be the primal set. As in "Knowledge" is a subset of "Belief." In such Philosophical terms, how can Atheism be other than a belief?

Then there's common usage. I talk about "Believers," I'm generally referring to the types, try to come to my door spouting gospel without knowing a lick of scripture. Someone's gotta be believing something, come up with 117 pages of argument.

 

[Sirktas]

Atheists all have their own beliefs based on what they make of existence. Then, could you say that atheism is a belief that there is no god? Having a lack of belief in god seems, to me, the same as believing there is no god.

The absence of believing in god is a belief, because the absence of belief in god means you believe that there is no god. An Atheist believes that there is no god. The notion seems simple enough to me.

 

[Copernicus]

That's because definitions tend not to tell people what a word doesn't mean, otherwise it would be an endless list of explaining every single thing that an Aardvark isn't.

Definitions are constructed so as to tell you the features that distinguish a word from other closely related words. All words have some ambiguity (polysemy/homonymy), and conventional dictionaries frequently divide up definitions into a number of major word senses. Among lexicographers, there is always a debate over whether to go for fewer word senses and broader definitions or more word senses and narrower definitions. Defining words is something of an art, and it takes a lot of skill and training to do it properly.

It does say that it is either the absence of belief in a God or the disbelief in a God. By definition, absence of belief and disbelief aren't beliefs.

Actually that isn't true. If you believe that elves do not exist--i.e. are mythical creatures--then you have an absence of belief or disbelief in their existence. Just declaring that "absence of belief" is not itself a belief misses the point. Belief in a negative proposition always entails absence of belief in the positive proposition, but not vice versa. That is where all the controversy is coming from. A lot of people are using one sense of an ambiguous definition to dictate word usage. The question ultimately comes down to how people use the word. Within our special community of religion-debaters, the "official" definition seems to have shaped how people classify atheists. Hence, there are often heated denials that atheism is a "belief" when, in fact, many (perhaps most) people construe it as a belief in a negative proposition, never mere absence of belief.

 

[Orias]

That's because definitions tend not to tell people what a word doesn't mean, otherwise it would be an endless list of explaining every single thing that an Aardvark isn't.

So then this somehow tells you that atheism isn't a belief? That's kind of backwards thinking.

It does say that it is either the absence of belief in a God or the disbelief in a God. By definition, absence of belief and disbelief aren't beliefs.

Actually, be definition of belief, both disbelief and "absence of belief" are both beliefs. Since it is viewed/believed that one either doesn't believe (disbelief and lack of belief). Either way, lack of belief is simply not believing. Seriously, I do not understand how the continual references towards belief seems to escapes people's minds.

"It makes your assertion to what atheism is a belief"?

That statement makes no sense. Care to elaborate?

It makes plenty of sense, you assert your belief of what atheism is, conforming to the standards of belief.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the definition of atheism is the absence of belief and that by that definition you do not need to hold any kind of belief to be an atheist.

Except to believe that you are an atheist, and as atheist, you feel the need to propose your belief as a none belief, because then you think you would be like everyone else.

Like it or not, everyone has something they believe in. Labels and conceptions being that, now if atheism were not a belief then it shouldn't be a position used to describe one's opinion/belief in the existence of "God(s)". You would find most people would view this as common sense.

No, it isn't. Pointing out that someone is committing a logical fallacy is demonstrating that their logic is flawed, and hence their argument is most likely incorrect due to a misunderstanding of that logic.

Being narrowminded is a logical fallacy as well. Now distinguish who's argument is incorrect, when even atheists can't agree on whether or not their own belief is a belief.

No, you didn't. All you did was point out that the word "belief" appears in the definition. That does not make it a belief.

Actually, all you asked of me was to point our where belief "fits into the definition", and I clearly pointed it out. If you were trying to get at something else perhaps you should of reworded your question.

No, I'm asking you how you can assert that atheism is a belief when atheism is [the absence of belief in a God], without asserting anything outside of the brackets.

There I bolded it, again. Atheism clearly is the absence of belief in a "God", not in a belief. Again, "God" is irrelevant to this argument.

There's nothing that says a spoon isn't a spaceship, either. So does that make it so?

This is a very inaccurate analogy. Since you cannot touch atheism with your hands, I would suggest coming up with a tangible concept.

Belief is what the world is built off, I can't understand why so many people actually think that they know anything.

Atheism is the absence of belief, therefore being an atheist is not a belief.

This claim is unsupported, and I am sick of hearing people use it as their argument.
Prove that it is not a belief, prove that you actually know something. Until you can prove the latter, it will be dismissed as another baseless belief the subjects it's followers to self deceit, much like Christianity.

No, I said that atheism is the absence of belief in a God. You then said "that is irrelevant", I asked how, and you said "God is irrelevant". I was making the same point I've been making from the start, and for some reason you called it irrelevant.

Do not twist my words.

I only can read what you write. It is irrelevant because it is the same baseless argument everyone else has been using.

But how does that make [the absence of belief in a God] a belief?

Sigh...

Once again, you're asserting outside of the brackets.

No, the word belief is within the brackets. People who trust in labels, believe in labels. The specified definition only determines the absence of belief in the existence in "God(s)", not purely absence of belief. Such a statement would be asinine, since our world is built off of beleif and axioms. Unless of course one could prove that they actually posses some form of perpetuated knowledge, arguments like this will continue to be disassembled.

Once again, you're going to have to elaborate.

"Truth" is in essence a type of "faith" with no doubt. Those who doubt their position are more likely to gain more from it, while those who believe in themselves to absolute certainity subject themselves to narrowminded and self deceitful hypocrisy.

It's not so much as "cheap cop out", merely an empirical determination. One dimensional psychologists are pretty useless, if they can't figure themselves out what makes you think that they would be able to help others out?

Argue something that I haven't heard before, something that isn't one dimensional.

 

[Orias]

I never suggested you did relate it to theistic belief, people believe atheism in the sense that they can associate themselves as being not a theist.

No, there is a difference between being a "non-theist" and an "atheist". Atheism is an acknowledge and provoked position, where the belief of "atheism" attracts those who consider themselves "atheists". If this wasn't the case then people wouldn't consider themselves "atheists", simply because the idea of it is unattracting.

"Because obviously saying that you don't believe in the existence of something is a belief"

When you said this, you changed the point of believing in atheism. Atheism is not a belief, atheists believe that they are atheists but atheism in itself is not a belief, it is the acknowledgement that one is not a theist.

I didn't change the point, belief is the subject at hand here. This is an unsupported claim.

You might have to define how you were using perpetuate then.

I'm speaking of the literal definition of "perpetuate", which is to cause to continue indefinitely, to prolong the existence of, to cause to remember.

Where does all this "knowledge" go when we die? It is obsolete, misleading.

I never suggested that one cannot know the implications of the existence of God. I simply said that I don't know. If I have made no claims about a God how could I have made a definition of one?

You did make a claim, because you responded to a question asking you about "God". If you were to make no claim about "God", you would simply answer, "I'm in no position to determine what "God" is."

But by answering "I don't know", implies that "God" is mysterious and even lacking in his own assertion. There are plenty of religions based off of this concept.

What is the definition of "God"? How does it assert that it is personal?

Simply because a person subjects "God" to what they want it to be.

This is a definition and I associate with nothing you've said as I have absolutely no idea what God could or would be like as far as I'm aware I've never had anything to do with a God, I've never read anything about a God, I've never seen or heard anything to do with a God. Whether that means this God cannot be known or whether I just don't know is inconclusive and any conclusion I would reach by trying to answer would be speculation with no reason behind it.

So then you don't reason yourself into your position then did you? That explains a lot...

Yes, that doesn't make my perception a definition however.

It does, because some people define "God" as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and even a singular point.

"God" can range anywhere from a chair, to the wind, to the Sun, to you and I. And perceived image defines what we process. That should be a given...

This is much better and now we have stopped suggesting that facts change. Just because a fact is or once was relative to us and that relation changes does not mean the fact changes.

Ah but it does, to past facts remain in irrelevance, as the fact has changed to best suite what we see.

It's all subjective, all of it. Which makes all concepts a belief/believed to be.

 

[Orias]

Sounds like you need to use better English or better ideas.

Language is only as sloppy as the ears (eyes in this case) that follow it. I am not at fault for your lack of perception.

It's not a simple mistake. That's the point. If it was a typo like your misspelling of "criticizing" in this post, it wouldn't be a big deal. However, when it's using the wrong word while also writing an unintelligible clause, it's something different. That's my point. Also, even if it's just a result of rushing, maybe you should stop rushing. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe your inability to communicate well is a result of your rushing, and if you take some time to write a well written post, we could clear some of this up.

Seriously...why are you even here?

OK, was that an attempt to make your previous statement make sense?

No it was an attempt to make you gain sense. Clearly I failed.

In other words, you're not a Poe, and you're really making these ridiculous claims?

It's ridiculous to make oneself belief that a position that they hold in terms of determining a "God" position isn't a belief at all. Since really, you don't know whether a "God" exists or not, so it is not very practical to pass you position off as fact or conclusive. When in fact you know nothing, and as I have said in the past and will continue stating, YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT YOU KNOW ANYTHING.

So, just to be clear: in your world, "not a belief" means "belief"? It's no wonder no rational person is having an effective conversation with you. If you want to start using rational ideas, this will be much easier. Also, if you could stop with the nonsensical deepities, and start using meaningful, logical statements, that would go a long way too.

You sound envious.

No, believing that something isn't a belief is a belief. If something isn't a belief then it wouldn't reference belief.

I don't believe your argument, is that a belief? Sure it is a lack of belief, but I literally do not believe in what you are saying. That is a belief, a person lacking less common sense than you would "know" that...(wait maybe they wouldn't).

The general picture is that most people when asked to define "atheism" respond, "the belief that no "God(s)" exist". Simply because that's what atheism is, if it were any different it would be labled properly so. Even out of conspicuousness one would should be common sensible enough to realize that we only can make beliefs out of we process, because we all process external existences differently.

Well, it certainly seems hard for you to have an intellectual debate, but that's only your fault. Those sentences you highlight don't show what you want them to. Explaining that, by definition, an atheist must lack the belief in gods is not speaking for anyone. It's pointing out a definition. You can't be an atheist and believe in God. If you believe in God, you're not an atheist. It's like saying something can be red when it's 100% green. To be a football player, you have to play football. To be an atheist, you have to lack the belief in God. What part of that don't you understand?

To have an intellectual debate with someone is to realize that both components posses hypocritical consistencies, one who does not view themselves as a hypocrite obviously lacks any formal knowledge of themselves, and more than likely lacks any knowledge of the Opposition.

How do you expect to over come such a mind numbing Aspect if you can't see how much you contradict yourself?

Not much for reading the Art of War are you?

Actually, it's because very little of what you've said makes any sense, and all you're doing is stubbornly trying to avoid admitting you're wrong with crazy, irrational arguments.

I'd actually like to see you support this, and direct the sentence that was above the one you quoted. But your not one for actually making any direct or logical points, just unsupportive and hypocritical denials.

OK, then what's the point? If everyone trusts in labels (including you), then what's the point of bringing it up?

Another baseless assumption.

You must not know me very well.

Atheism is a belief because people go out of their way to defend what they believe atheism to be.

OK, but how does that make it a belief? Again, beliefs about atheism don't make atheism itself a belief. You have made this claim many times, but you have yet to support it. As phrased here, it makes no sense. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

Another point that flew right over your head.

Why would a person who is not an atheist go out of their way to defend it's baseless position?

Not to mention thousands of people take the label, "atheist" unto themselves

And how does that make atheism a belief?

Because it's believed?

I'm not forgetting that. It may be the case, but it's meaningless. What you're saying here is that because some atheists agree that atheism is a belief, it means that atheism is a belief. Some humans think humans aren't animals. Does that mean humans aren't animals? Of course not.

Take time to reflect upon this statement, and perhaps you will realize how much this applies to you as well.

The default position would be a belief, as you have continually ignored my provocation of you trying to prove that you know anything. So I am just going to dismiss you as another person supporting their own belief with their own belief claiming that it actually has a factual basis.

Your presence is no longer needed here.

You would save yourself a lot of time if you restricted your posts to rational claims that make sense.

Just because you lack the sense to see reason out of my posts doesn't mean others do as well.

Another unsupported and baseless claims. I don't see you doing anything to prove me wrong besides saying, "That's not right, that's irrational, that makes no sense."

You misunderstood. I was begging for you to restore my faith in humanity by saying you're just kidding. I was really hoping you weren't as far gone as your words make you seem.

Competent people beg for nothing.

As I said, it might be best to wait a few years to have discussions like this. Your comments here indicate you're not ready at this point. It's OK. We were all young once. Just realize that your ideas and/or communication skills need a lot of work.

You clearly lack the maturity to reason yourself into positions. You see with your eyes, you are easy to fool.

Begone with you.

 

[filthy tugboat]

No, there is a difference between being a "non-theist" and an "atheist". Atheism is an acknowledge and provoked position, where the belief of "atheism" attracts those who consider themselves "atheists". If this wasn't the case then people wouldn't consider themselves "atheists", simply because the idea of it is unattracting.

How is there a difference between a non-theist and an atheist? Atheist literally defined is someone who is not a theist people may have tried to add more to that or explain it differently but that is it's base definition. I don't really follow the rest of the paragraph...

I didn't change the point, belief is the subject at hand here. This is an unsupported claim.

You certainly did change your original point, you were originally discussing whether people believe that they are atheists, then you changed that to suggest that atheism is subsequently a belief simply because people believe that they are atheists.

I'm speaking of the literal definition of "perpetuate", which is to cause to continue indefinitely, to prolong the existence of, to cause to remember.

Where does all this "knowledge" go when we die? It is obsolete, misleading.

So hang on,

"Pretty sure isn't good enough because there is nothing to perpetuate our knowledge."

I don't understand what you mean by this?

You did make a claim, because you responded to a question asking you about "God". If you were to make no claim about "God", you would simply answer, "I'm in no position to determine what "God" is."

I was and still am fairly confident that the response "I don't know" is effectively the same answer as the one in the above quote.

But by answering "I don't know", implies that "God" is mysterious and even lacking in his own assertion. There are plenty of religions based off of this concept.

You may have reached that conclusion off of my answer but it was by no mean implied by me. I also don't understand how you got a he out of my "definition".

Simply because a person subjects "God" to what they want it to be.

So God is essentially nothing more than a concept that fits whatever a human wants?

So then you don't reason yourself into your position then did you? That explains a lot...

Which position?

It does, because some people define "God" as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and even a singular point.

"God" can range anywhere from a chair, to the wind, to the Sun, to you and I. And perceived image defines what we process. That should be a given...

Yes but I am yet to perceive God in any light so that is why my answer is still "I don't know" and as far as I'm aware this shows my perception but does not give a definition.

Ah but it does, to past facts remain in irrelevance, as the fact has changed to best suite what we see.

It's all subjective, all of it. Which makes all concepts a belief/believed to be.

You are focused too much on how the facts relate to us and move the facts independence. If you consider the perception of facts as facts then of course you would think facts can change.

 

[Orias]

How is there a difference between a non-theist and an atheist? Atheist literally defined is someone who is not a theist people may have tried to add more to that or explain it differently but that is it's base definition. I don't really follow the rest of the paragraph...

Non-theist is a broad term, which does encompass atheism, agnosticism, etc. etc. But it is the part of the non-theist to not take labels unto themselves. Non-theists can be neither a theist nor an atheist, simply because they realize that labels subjective oneself to hypocrisy, when in fact human nature encompasses all of itself.

You certainly did change your original point, you were originally discussing whether people believe that they are atheists, then you changed that to suggest that atheism is subsequently a belief simply because people believe that they are atheists.

No, belief has been the subject at hand throughout the entirety of this thread.

So hang on,

"Pretty sure isn't good enough because there is nothing to perpetuate our knowledge."

I don't understand what you mean by this?

Essentially it means that we know nothing, because all we know is all we perceive.

I was and still am fairly confident that the response "I don't know" is effectively the same answer as the one in the above quote.

But it's not, otherwise it would be the same. There is a big difference between saying "I don't know", and "I'm in no position to make a conclusion".

You may have reached that conclusion off of my answer but it was by no mean implied by me. I also don't understand how you got a he out of my "definition".

I find it easier to refer to "God" as "He", but that is besides the point.

And that is exactly the point, you make conclusions without realizing you make conclusions. Consider it part of self reflection, it may take an onus of time to accomplish.

So God is essentially nothing more than a concept that fits whatever a human wants?

Exactly :yes:

Humans created and comprehended the concept of "Gods", it would only make sense to view this as humans being "Gods" in themselves.

So then you don't reason yourself into your position then did you? That explains a lot...

Which position?

Then one you are inherently trying to understand.

Yes but I am yet to perceive God in any light so that is why my answer is still "I don't know" and as far as I'm aware this shows my perception but does not give a definition.

Like it or not, it does

You are focused too much on how the facts relate to us and move the facts independence. If you consider the perception of facts as facts then of course you would think facts can change.

Tis merely because I chose not subject myself to any formalities like any every day jerk off. (Not saying that you or anyone else here is one of course )

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So then this somehow tells you that atheism isn't a belief? That's kind of backwards thinking.

Er, nope. The fact that the dictionary defines atheism as either a lack of belief or the disbelief of God tells me atheism isn't a belief.

Actually, be definition of belief, both disbelief and "absence of belief" are both beliefs. Since it is viewed/believed that one either doesn't believe (disbelief and lack of belief). Either way, lack of belief is simply not believing. Seriously, I do not understand how the continual references towards belief seems to escapes people's minds.

And you don't seem to understand difference between "position X" and "I hold that position X is true".

It makes plenty of sense, you assert your belief of what atheism is, conforming to the standards of belief.

But that doesn't make atheism itself a belief.

Except to believe that you are an atheist, and as atheist, you feel the need to propose your belief as a none belief, because then you think you would be like everyone else.

Nope, that's not it. I don't like people saying atheism - be it my atheism or atheism in general - is a belief because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means. Nothing else.

Like it or not, everyone has something they believe in. Labels and conceptions being that, now if atheism were not a belief then it shouldn't be a position used to describe one's opinion/belief in the existence of "God(s)". You would find most people would view this as common sense.

No, it's not. It's equivocation, and hence a logical fallacy.

Being narrowminded is a logical fallacy as well. Now distinguish who's argument is incorrect, when even atheists can't agree on whether or not their own belief is a belief.

It doesn't matter if some atheists disagree - the definition is in the dictionary and it is very clear what the word itself means. "Absence of God belief".

Actually, all you asked of me was to point our where belief "fits into the definition", and I clearly pointed it out. If you were trying to get at something else perhaps you should of reworded your question.

Or maybe you can stop playing dumb and answer the question.

There I bolded it, again. Atheism clearly is the absence of belief in a "God", not in a belief. Again, "God" is irrelevant to this argument.

So, you admit that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God"?

This is a very inaccurate analogy. Since you cannot touch atheism with your hands, I would suggest coming up with a tangible concept.

How does that make it an inaccurate analogy? Your argument employed the exact same logic.

Belief is what the world is built off, I can't understand why so many people actually think that they know anything.

Because if we start from the supposition that we don't know anything then all discussion is meaningless.

This claim is unsupported, and I am sick of hearing people use it as their argument.
Prove that it is not a belief, prove that you actually know something. Until you can prove the latter, it will be dismissed as another baseless belief the subjects it's followers to self deceit, much like Christianity.

Now you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts again. A moment ago we were debating definitions, and now you're asking me to debate epistemology with you. Sorry, it's pointless. If you're convinced that you don't or can't know anything, go ahead and fill your boots, but I'd rather do something far more productive and useful. Like eating my own hands.

I only can read what you write. It is irrelevant because it is the same baseless argument everyone else has been using.

Except it does have a basis - the actual definition of atheism.

Sigh...

I have asked you this dozens of times already, and you have not once replied. Don't pretend like you're the one getting frustrated.

No, the word belief is within the brackets. People who trust in labels, believe in labels. The specified definition only determines the absence of belief in the existence in "God(s)", not purely absence of belief.

Exactly. All atheism describes is the "absence of belief" of a specific thing. Aside from lacking that specific lack of belief, an atheist can believe whatever they want. Once again, you seem to be arguing that I said atheist means "a lack of belief in anything". No, it isn't, and I never said it was.

Such a statement would be asinine, since our world is built off of beleif and axioms. Unless of course one could prove that they actually posses some form of perpetuated knowledge, arguments like this will continue to be disassembled.

Once again, equivocation and moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter if we understand things in terms of labels and beliefs - that doesn't make the specific concept [a lack of belief in a God] a belief.

"Truth" is in essence a type of "faith" with no doubt. Those who doubt their position are more likely to gain more from it, while those who believe in themselves to absolute certainity subject themselves to narrowminded and self deceitful hypocrisy.

It's not so much as "cheap cop out", merely an empirical determination. One dimensional psychologists are pretty useless, if they can't figure themselves out what makes you think that they would be able to help others out?

Argue something that I haven't heard before, something that isn't one dimensional.

Sorry, but you're not convincing me that you're an intellectual with this "philosophy 101" stuff.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Non-theist is a broad term, which does encompass atheism, agnosticism, etc. etc. But it is the part of the non-theist to not take labels unto themselves. Non-theists can be neither a theist nor an atheist, simply because they realize that labels subjective oneself to hypocrisy, when in fact human nature encompasses all of itself.

This basically ignored the point of atheist and non-theist being the exact same thing. Even grammatically speaking atheist means not a theist or without theism as the prefix 'a' means without.

Check here for more info.

I do not follow the rest of the paragraph.

No, belief has been the subject at hand throughout the entirety of this thread.

Belief has but the subject of that belief is what changed, it went from 'atheists believe they are atheists' to 'atheism is a belief'.

Essentially it means that we know nothing, because all we know is all we perceive.

So not only is pretty sure not good enough, nothing is good enough? Why did you say it like you did if this was what you were trying to convey?

But it's not, otherwise it would be the same. There is a big difference between saying "I don't know", and "I'm in no position to make a conclusion".

There is a difference in words but the meaning is the same as saying "I don't know" is not coming to a conclusion on the matter, it is just an expression of a lack of knowledge.

I find it easier to refer to "God" as "He", but that is besides the point.

And that is exactly the point, you make conclusions without realizing you make conclusions. Consider it part of self reflection, it may take an onus of time to accomplish.

That may be true but that doesn't mean that whatever I am unaware of is a conclusion.

Exactly :yes:

Humans created and comprehended the concept of "Gods", it would only make sense to view this as humans being "Gods" in themselves.

If a term is entirely subjective and has no objective meaning does that not subjugate it to the imagination alone? How can something with no objective definition be apart of reality beyond the subjective interpretation of individuals?

Then one you are inherently trying to understand.

Which position am I inherently trying to understand?

Like it or not, it does

You might need to clarify rather than re-assert.

Tis merely because I chose not subject myself to any formalities like any every day jerk off. (Not saying that you or anyone else here is one of course )

I don't really follow, you suggested that facts can change when you were really talking about the perception of facts? And now you are suggesting you did this because you didn't want to subject yourself to formalities? Which formalities were you trying to avoid? Why?

 

[Orias]

Er, nope. The fact that the dictionary defines atheism as either a lack of belief or the disbelief of God tells me atheism isn't a belief.

Even though if I asked an atheist if they believed in the existence of "God", they would respond, "No, I do not believe in the existence of "God". It is the along the same lines of, "I believe no "God" exists", it's just that the frist sentence is more accuratly describes the position.

Disbelief is a belief that something isn't.

And you don't seem to understand difference between "position X" and "I hold that position X is true".

The two have a connection that is clearly obvious to others and escape the sense of atheists.

But that doesn't make atheism itself a belief.

This is an unsupported claim, a belief is a belief, period.

Nope, that's not it. I don't like people saying atheism - be it my atheism or atheism in general - is a belief because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means. Nothing else.

Actually it doesn't. It shows the fundmental understanding that the world's logic is based upon belief.

Your statement shows that you don't understand the fundamental logic of "belief", since it applies to everyone, and everything. Prove that you can prove knowledge, then I would consider your argument.

No, it's not. It's equivocation, and hence a logical fallacy.

Yet another unsupported claim.

A logical fallacy would just be saying "That's not right", and that's what you among most other atheists in this thread are doing.

Support your statements, prove that atheism isn't a belief, besides asserting your beleif of what atheism is.

I see no empirical propagation to believe in your standard and sensible logic of what you believe atheism to be.

It doesn't matter if some atheists disagree - the definition is in the dictionary and it is very clear what the word itself means. "Absence of God belief".

Absence of belief in "God", does not insinuate down right absence of belief, since your rhetoric states that you believe this statement to be true, and you to consider yourself an atheist. You belief you are an atheist, with regards that you believe your assertion to be true. That is a belief, whether you like it or not, you cannot prove that atheism has a sound basis for determining prove, since it is an abstract and untangible concept.

Or maybe you can stop playing dumb and answer the question.

Again, if you want a specific answer you should ask a question specific to the answer you desire, instead of continually resorting to special pleading.

So, you admit that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God"?

Clearly I do.

No where in this definition does it say strictly, "Absence of belief". Again, "God" is irrelative to this debate.

How does that make it an inaccurate analogy? Your argument employed the exact same logic.

No, your comparing a concrete and objectional material with an abstract and specious lable. It's not practical at all.

Because if we start from the supposition that we don't know anything then all discussion is meaningless.

That's the point...all propositions are one's based of off axioms, what one beliefs to be true. Any amount of doubt leaves one to be uncertain hence dwelling in the cess pool of belief. Those that are "certain" have not cared enough to even question their own judgement, this is probably one of the biggest mistakes one can make while trying to reach Xeper.

Now you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts again. A moment ago we were debating definitions, and now you're asking me to debate epistemology with you. Sorry, it's pointless. If you're convinced that you don't or can't know anything, go ahead and fill your boots, but I'd rather do something far more productive and useful. Like eating my own hands.

Thank you for proving my point. I will now render all discussion with you baseless, since you have failed to provide any evidence against my claims besides asserting that I am incorrect.

Except it does have a basis - the actual definition of atheism.

No, it doesn't. The denotative definition simply implies "Lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)", or disbelief and denial and deities." You're using a conotative definition, just like everyone else. And it is not practical at all. The denotation does not imply anywhere, that atheism is purely lack of belief, because clearly people follow atheism, they believe in atheism, they defend atheism, and they attempt to propagate atheism.

Even if you may not fit in any of these catagories, like it or not people that take lables unto themselves tend to want to lable others as well. It's self deceit.

I have asked you this dozens of times already, and you have not once replied. Don't pretend like you're the one getting frustrated.

I have answered this question more times than you have asked it. You just shoot it down and say it's incorrect without supporting it, just like everyone else that disagrees with.

Exactly. All atheism describes is the "absence of belief" of a specific thing. Aside from lacking that specific lack of belief, an atheist can believe whatever they want. Once again, you seem to be arguing that I said atheist means "a lack of belief in anything". No, it isn't, and I never said it was.

:no: I didn't think you were arguing that at all. If that were the case then this wouldn't be a debate.

Once again, equivocation and moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter if we understand things in terms of labels and beliefs - that doesn't make the specific concept [a lack of belief in a God] a belief.

It must escape your mind that you truly believe that.

And again, the goalposts have all been the same, since the term "belief" is the subject at hand. If you did not realize this then you should not have posted.

Sorry, but you're not convincing me that you're an intellectual with this "philosophy 101" stuff.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what you can prove, and so far you have failed.

All you do is support your belief with more beliefs, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to see countless atheists not recognize themselves.

And to think I once considered myself part of your "flock".

Again, I will give you another chance. Prove that you know anything, and your argument will be considered as "truthful". Until then, it's just like debating with another Christian.