"Atheist"--the term itself

[outhouse]

Who cares whether atheism can apply to babies and toasters? I don't see why that should be a concern to anyone.

Theist have the most issues.

They cannot stand the thought of atheism being the default position in life.

 

[ArtieE]

it says "from", meaning that it's built from the word "gnostikos" that mans "having knowledge". But it doesn't explain the suffix ism that has been added in English. Gnostikos means having knowledge. But gnosis means knowledge. Suffix Ism means belief. So Gnosticism should be the belief in knowledge or belief in having knowledge perhaps, but the belief part has to be in there, don't you agree? What would the suffix -ism mean here otherwise? Just a tag along without meaning?

I don't know much about gnosticism but I found this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gnostic

 

[leibowde84]

Theist have the most issues.

They cannot stand the thought of atheism being the default position in life.

I remember on another thread, someone accused me of broadening the definition in order to "bolster" the amount of atheists in the world today. Considering I am a theist, I found it to be pretty absurd. And, it launched my interest into this subject. Theists are constantly trying to put words/ideas/beliefs into the mouths of self-identifying atheists when the term "theism" is so incredibly vague. I don't get it.

 

[outhouse]

Strong atheism is a belief,

I don't think so.

I am a strong atheist, and I know gods do not exist. I had at one time a belief that gods do not exist. With study I have knowledge that all gods were created by men, and that gods do not even exist scientifically.

Until a god is proven to exist, my claim of knowledge is substantiated.

It is a lot like calling 1 + 1 = 2 a belief. It is not a belief it is knowledge.

 

[leibowde84]

Until a god is proven to exist, my claim of knowledge is substantiated.

Isn't this an argument from ignorance, though?
Ad Ignorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

 

[outhouse]

I remember on another thread, someone accused me of broadening the definition in order to "bolster" the amount of atheists in the world today. Considering I am a theist, I found it to be pretty absurd. And, it launched my interest into this subject. Theists are constantly trying to put words/ideas/beliefs into the mouths of self-identifying atheists when the term "theism" is so incredibly vague. I don't get it.

Star wars metaphor/////// the faith is weak in this one my lord

 

[leibowde84]

Star wars metaphor/////// the faith is weak in this one my lord

My faith is strong, and so is my personal relationship with God. But, when people claim God's existence as indisputable (claiming knowledge), it makes my skin crawl, and cheapens faith in general, imho.

 

[outhouse]

Isn't this an argument from ignorance, though?

Nope.

There is plenty of evidence man creates gods all the time in mythological terms. The living Emperor defined himself as a god and called himself "son of god" before Jesus was even born.

So as an example, we know he was not a god based on evidence alone.


You may misunderstand. No gods exist, not because of a lack of evidence, but because there is nothing to test for. If someone claims purple unicorns with yellow feet and a golden horn exist, it is not a fallacy to claim it does not exist, and to have them support their opinion

 

[outhouse]

My faith is strong, and so is my personal relationship with God. But, when people claim God's existence as indisputable (claiming knowledge), it makes my skin crawl, and cheapens faith in general, imho.

The context only had to do with the atheist. They cannot stand the thought of atheism being the default position in life.

 

[ArtieE]

My faith is strong, and so is my personal relationship with God. But, when people claim God's existence as indisputable (claiming knowledge), it makes my skin crawl, and cheapens faith in general, imho.

If we found enough objective evidence for the existence of God all religions based on him would collapse wouldn't they? What need would there be of faith? "I have faith in God..." "Shut up, he's on Oprah explaining the unified field theory to Stephen Hawking!"

 

[outhouse]

when people claim God's existence as indisputable (claiming knowledge), it makes my skin crawl, and cheapens faith in general, imho.

Theist never bother me when they claim this. It does cheapen it though. I agree.

I think they take it out of context.


Religion does not need a magical man in the sky or a deity, as it is functioning just fine right now without proof of a god. These epic books are about the human condition and explain human nature, more so then any deity. Your right it cheapens the human art, and intellect, and IQ.

 

[outhouse]

If we found enough objective evidence for the existence of God all religions based on him would collapse wouldn't they?

Yes and No. They have refused facts for so long, refusing one more is easy.

Even if a real god was on TV and made a speech, most would probably claim it was the devil or a man made hoax, even if the dude came out of every TV and shook the guys hand on the couch.

 

[outhouse]

My faith is strong, and so is my personal relationship with God.

And if you notice as an atheist, I almost never have a cross word in your direction.

Context is key here. And most of all you have not let religion close your mind, most cannot hold faith and an open mind.

 

[leibowde84]

And if you notice as an atheist, I almost never have a cross word in your direction.

Context is key here. And most of all you have not let religion close your mind, most cannot hold faith and an open mind.

Very true. I am open to the possibility that my belief in God might be misguided, which is why I do my darndest to not allow it to inhibit my search for understanding/knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is absence of belief in the existence of gods.

So strong atheism is not atheism. Strong atheism is a belief in the absence of gods.

Can you see that one is not a belief and the other is?

Yes. That's the problem. You include strong atheism, and so claim atheism is both a belief and not a belief about the existence of gods.

 

[Willamena]

I agree with you here. Strong atheism is a belief, and weak atheism is the withholding of belief either way. But, both are forms of "atheism".

So atheism is neither a belief nor not a belief, that it can contain both?

 

[outhouse]

So atheism is neither a belief nor not a belief

he did not say that.

 

[outhouse]

it can contain both?

Yes it can

 

[Willamena]

he did not say that.

Of course not. I said it.

I guess you weren't listening.

 

[Mister Emu]

I never said that we should identify toasters and babies as atheists. I merely said that, technically, they COULD BE identified as such. And, it is certainly not a legitimate reason to change the meaning of the term atheism, as it doesn't matter one iota whether an infant/toaster can be considered an atheist or atheistic.

We have different ideas of legitimate reasons to reconsider how we use a word then. As I said, you are free to define atheism however you want, and I am free to take my enjoyment whenever it is used like this.

It is an issue belonging to those who complain about identifying toasters as atheists rather than the meaning of the term. Who cares whether atheism can apply to babies and toasters? I don't see why that should be a concern to anyone.

I knew that tree outside my window was a godless *******, I sleep easier knowing that it will burn in hell.

19 pages now, and its not an issue to those who demand that babies be labeled atheist right? Shouldn't that it is no concern go both ways? Why not a simple, you're right there is no imperative for you to label babies as atheists, it is merely a label that I use with no real meaning or logical implications that just happens to be hilarious.

If one is not a theist, one can only be an atheist.

It is as simple as using the term to describe someone who is not a theist. A baby is not a theist.

You didn't answer the main question. If I were to propose a similar definition of implicit theism would you as vigorously defend the notion that babies are theists by definition?