atheism is a (religious position)

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dozens!-- if you include colloquial, traditional and historic examples. I've even seen one medieval European document describing Mahometans as atheists.
Serious, philosophical discussants these days use the term in the preferred, technical sense.

Yeah, that is subjective. And a belief in your brain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not following.... Do what? Your link distinguished the separate domains of religion and science. Were they in contention?

Well, for what is useful in general. Some people claim it is objective that science is useful.
And further if you are normal then for the non-science you have beliefs without evidence.

 

[Heyo]

There were an awful lot of promiscuous but unmarried priests back in the day. ; )

There were a lot of married priests and bishops in the day. Celibacy was originally vowed by Benedictine monks. (6th c.) Obligatory celibacy for priests was only ordered (and enforced) in the 12th c.

 

[Valjean]

There are several definitions there. So they are meaningless.
BTW, what does this mean: By definition, you are wrong. How does that work? Does the definition make me wrong as a fact, that I am wrong?

The way you're defining it is wrong, at least in this context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The way you're defining it is wrong, at least in this context.

What does it mean to be wrong and how do you know that with evidence? You have no beliefs without evidence, so you know if another person is wrong. So how do you know that with evidence?

 

[Valjean]

I'm going to name my next cat "Non-Conformist".

How about "Dissident, Freethinker, or Iconoclast?

 

[Valjean]

What does it mean to be wrong and how do you know that with evidence? You have no beliefs without evidence, so you know if another person is wrong. So how do you know that with evidence?

Maybe we should move this whole thread to the Nitpickers, Quibblers, Hairsplitters and Bloviators forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe we should move this whole thread to the Nitpickers, Quibblers, Hairsplitters and Bloviators forum.

Well, that is your feelings. I was taught logic, reason and evidence differently that you, since I am a strong skeptic. I mean I debate those knowing they all have limits. You love evidence, I love false and wrong as limits to human knowledge.

So there are at least 3 kinds of humans.
Those who don't understand evidence.
Those who understand evidence, but not the limits.
Those who understand both.

I would guess you are more in the second than the third one. But that is okay, you are a human like the rest of us none the less as per my belief system.

 

[Valjean]

He would believe in jungle spirits and ancestors though, which would function as a God Concept

No, not him. I mean the other tribe, across the river, with no belief in spirits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not him. I mean the other tribe, across the river, with no belief in spirits.

Yes, his brain is different than yours. Because you and him would react differently to the word god. That would show up in brain scans. Learn some science.

 

[PureX]

There Is No Belief! Why is that so hard to understand?

Sure there is. It's the belief that if any gods existed, the theist's could prove it. They can't prove it, so none exist unless and until they do. What the atheist believes is that the theist is wrong until he can prove himself to be right. That is spelled out by the term "a-theism": the antithesis to theism. Theism is a proposition. Atheism is therefor the antithetical (rejection) of that proposition.

 

[PureX]

No, atheism is the complement to theism: anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

That's false. Agnostics and undecideds are neither theists nor atheists.

I don't expect you to care, since I know you're weirdly invested in your view of atheists and accepting the reality of the situation would make it harder for you to hate, so this is really just for the lurkers.

I just don't tolerate fools and liars well. It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another thing to fight to stay that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's false. Agnostics and undecideds are neither theists nor atheists.

Of course they are.

Edit: since you seem to be a bit confused, here's a simple way to figure it out: ask yourself how many gods a person believes in.

- if the answer is zero, they're an atheist.
- if the answer is one or more, they're some sort of theist.

I just don't tolerate fools and liars well.

Aww, come on. Don't be so hard on yourself.

It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another thing to fight to stay that way.

... but you're bound and determined to do it, eh?

 

[PureX]

You know, if you have to invent new definitions for the words to justify your argument, you have a very weak argument.

 

[Valjean]

If you can describe yourself as an atheist, it's certainly not a "non-position", it is a cognitive stance you have taken.

Any stance you hold impacts you, we cannot remain completely unaffected by any stance we take, particularly when that stance comes into frequent contact with information that is impacted by that stance.

In a world significantly shaped by theistic concepts and beliefs, your atheism affects you.

This is what I meant by "except inasmuch as I don't act as a belief in God might dictate?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, not necessarily. If an aborigine deep in the jungle has never heard of God, and has no god concept, he is an atheist -- with no god concept, position or opinion.

I very much doubt you’ll find any society in the world, even in the deepest rainforest, that is without any concept of God.

 

[Valjean]

Well, that is not how I was taught science.

Not science. Semantics.

 

[PureX]

I've provided you with several dictionary definitions which state that, broadly, it is defined as a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

"Broadly", meaning imprecisely. And by people as likely to be looking to muddy up a discussion as clarify it.

 

[PureX]

No, atheism is the complement to theism: anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

Well that's patently wrong. Anyone that is not a theist is called a non-theist. Agnostics are non-theists. Undecideds are non-theists. Atheists are non-theists. Each of these groups, however, have their own reasons for why they are non-theists.

 

[Valjean]

Sure it is. It's the belief that if any gods existed, the theist's could prove it. They can't prove it, so none exist unless and until they do. What the atheist believes is that The theist is wrong until he can prove himself to be right. That is spelled out by the term "atheism": the antithesis to theism. Theism is a proposition. Atheism is therefor the rejection of that proposition.

Hey -- A new idea. I never heard this. Where did you ever hear anyone claim that if God existed, theists could prove it, or the second proposition, which is an argument from ignorance?
Theists believe in some form of deity. Atheists do not. We don't make any epistemic claims except that the concept lacks evidence, making belief logically irrational.