U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support the right of a Muslim student to pray in public school?
Yes 30 62.50%
No 18 37.50%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2013, 04:40 AM
 
34,508 posts, read 8,896,494 times
Reputation: 4790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
No, no Poppy...no "trickery" here.
As a matter of fact...I see the trickery as those that edit and "cherry pick" portions of definitions to try to avoid associations with certain words out of some headtrip bias toward differing viewpoints. I see those that do that as the ones looking to "gain" something, and trying to make a "point".
I certainly understand the concept of Atheism...I was one for most of my adult life. But I never assumed it wasn't a "belief" I held (the nonexistence of Gods).
Of course I know the difference in the belief that no Gods exist, with a belief that a God or Gods do exist such as Judaism...but it's still ALL "belief" no matter which concept one embraces. No "trick" intended.
It never is intended. But the sad fact is that God -beliefs cherry -pick human learning as it suits them. If a definition seems to impose on atheists a logical position which is actually close but not strictly accurate, then it is to be regarded as holy write. But if it is something that does not suit - say another definition that reflects the correct position (e.g multiple definitions of 'Faith/belief' or 'Theory/hypothesis') then it is ignored.

It is trickery to insist that what we say we think is wrong and what you say we think on the basis of a dictionary entry is correct. It claims that you know our views better than we do. And I learned in my job early on (as a matter of Legal fact - our decisions had to stand up in court) that a dictionary compiles usages and they cannot be taken as always being accurate definitions. One needs to enquire further in disputed questions.

You don't. You stick to your argument, old chum. and will not listen. It isn't intentional or deliberate trickery, old mate, but trickery is what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
That isn't my "logic" at all.

My view is: One can claim or "admit" they know something with 100% certainty all they want...but they really don't. My view is that NOTHING is "for sure"...it's ALL "faith/belief".
The things I say I "know", are the things that I have full faith/belief that my conclusion/determination is correct...while realizing there is the possibility it may not be.
Now here this is quite reasonable. The '100% certainty' point crops up a lot, but is is really irrelevant. We may not have 100% certainty that there are no leprechauns or fiery dragons - such a claim could be made to look false using the 'have you looked everywhere? Do you claim to know everything?' argument. Yet nobody would be considered wrong in claiming that they don't exist.

It is not a matter of believe or not, but a matter of weight of evidence. Now, I can commend you for your reasonable attitude in admitting that your conclusions might be wrong, but you are convinced by them. I have no problem with that at all. (1) So long as you don't insist that others should believe as you do or suggest that we are wrong, irrational or even dishonest for having other views (2) we have nothing to argue about.

(1) I might explain to you what alternative views there were and why you might be wrong, but if you stuck with what you believed, that is up to you.

(2) and I am sure you don't do that - as I recall, our disagreements have been on more practical matters

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-31-2013 at 05:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2013, 05:16 AM
 
7,367 posts, read 6,528,719 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
"Wasted effort" is relative. I was at work, making money...and necessarily at a computer anyway (same as right now)...so it cost me nothing of my life but the response.
I bet most here devote time and effort that is specific to posting to this board. Is that a "wasted effort"?
I guess anything beyond that which is needed for survival is "wasted effort"...and certainly posting to internet forums like this is not something one "must" do...and though I do get that you were only making the "wasted effort" comment to be insulting, I would venture to say I "waste" no more effort than anyone else does posting to this board.

If you do a search for "Websters" under my screen name, you will see I use that as a "go to" for definitions...I guess I'm "old school" and feel most comfortable doing the "Webster says" thing. I mean, if you can't count on Websters to define a word...you can't count on muDefinition of Atheism

...the exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.
ch of anything.
This is the definition I find there: Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It defines "Atheist" as: one who believes that there is no deity...the operative word being "believes".
Atheism is the "belief" that there is no deity.
And you are correct...there is "nothing new" there...because it's always been a "belief".
Since you like Webster so much, I found another definition from Merriam-Webster.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

However, this from Cambridge probably describes it better.
Quote:
Definition of Atheism

...the exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.
Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods.
Actually, speaking for most atheists I know, we're much less definitive than even you want to assign to us. We're merely withholding belief until we are presented with enough evidence to allow us to make a rational judgement. Until then, we default to the reasoned position of non-belief. I haven't heard any atheist here make a statement of certainty about the nonexistence of gods because, as you pointed out, that would be fallacious since this concept cannot be proven. However, many have reasonably made such a statement about the Bible god, even though his nonexistence can be no more proven than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Personally, I have no "belief-phobia" as you claim, because I believe in many things, including the Big Bang, evolution, and science in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Default Absolute beliefs

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
"Wasted effort" is relative. I was at work, making money...and necessarily at a computer anyway (same as right now)...so it cost me nothing of my life but the response.
I bet most here devote time and effort that is specific to posting to this board. Is that a "wasted effort"?
I guess anything beyond that which is needed for survival is "wasted effort"...and certainly posting to internet forums like this is not something one "must" do...and though I do get that you were only making the "wasted effort" comment to be insulting, I would venture to say I "waste" no more effort than anyone else does posting to this board.

If you do a search for "Websters" under my screen name, you will see I use that as a "go to" for definitions...I guess I'm "old school" and feel most comfortable doing the "Webster says" thing. I mean, if you can't count on Websters to define a word...you can't count on much of anything.
This is the definition I find there: Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It defines "Atheist" as: one who believes that there is no deity...the operative word being "believes".
Atheism is the "belief" that there is no deity.
And you are correct...there is "nothing new" there...because it's always been a "belief".
You're sayin', Gldn my friend, that my "belief" that the sun is a burning nuclear-fired ball of mostly hydrogen gas with enough grav-factor to keep a large number of planets such as ours {and our moon, which, turns out, as per my long-hed belief, is not made of green cheese, my belief again...) is just a possibility rather than an absolute? Hmmm....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Since you like Webster so much, I found another definition from Merriam-Webster.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

However, this from Cambridge probably describes it better.


Actually, speaking for most atheists I know, we're much less definitive than even you want to assign to us. We're merely withholding belief until we are presented with enough evidence to allow us to make a rational judgement. Until then, we default to the reasoned position of non-belief. I haven't heard any atheist here make a statement of certainty about the nonexistence of gods because, as you pointed out, that would be fallacious since this concept cannot be proven.

However, many have reasonably made such a statement about the Bible god, even though his nonexistence can be no more proven than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Personally, I have no "belief-phobia" as you claim, because I believe in many things, including the Big Bang, evolution, and science in general.
I have made the blue-highlighted statement you refer to above, Gldn, but more out of rational logic-based certainty than in some otherwise defined absolutism. Thing is, if we accept Christianity as not being able to be disproved, and thus being potentially possible, the "intellectual and physical universe" of beliefs gets infinitely large, and swamps out any rational thought by assuming the possibility of, say, 25 legged red-hot flying balsa-wood and honey turtles that have IQs of 450˚ and fully understand all the currently hidden workings of this universe.

Why not? Disprove it! Have we looked everywhere?

So, I prefer to limit myself to rational ideas, and when I do that, God, in all of His versions and all of His convoluted paradigms, must, of needs, evaporate until at least some more solid evidence arises.

After all, to fully justify a nutball belief system based on factual convolution and outright deceit, one must be able, and also WANT TO... believe pretty much anything, no matter how obtuse and impossible. Just to be able to imagine something so kookie in no way makes it even weakly, thinly & potentially a fact.

This is unlike the relentlessly growing body of repeatable, demo'd & documented knowledge that the SM hath unveiled for the more curious, unbiased and intelligent mind. QED

Now then, I believe I'll have another cup of Godly coffee....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 07:39 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Since you like Webster so much, I found another definition from Merriam-Webster.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

However, this from Cambridge probably describes it better.


Actually, speaking for most atheists I know, we're much less definitive than even you want to assign to us. We're merely withholding belief until we are presented with enough evidence to allow us to make a rational judgement. Until then, we default to the reasoned position of non-belief. I haven't heard any atheist here make a statement of certainty about the nonexistence of gods because, as you pointed out, that would be fallacious since this concept cannot be proven. However, many have reasonably made such a statement about the Bible god, even though his nonexistence can be no more proven than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Personally, I have no "belief-phobia" as you claim, because I believe in many things, including the Big Bang, evolution, and science in general.
Hey john...thanx for increasing my understanding...so I can 'splain it to others better.

I checked out that definition you listed...it helped a lot.
Remember in my Post #91 in this thread, how I noted that some will edit and "cherry-pick" portions of definitions, to avoid association with words they have headtrips about? Well...that's just what you did.
Let me help you out...you "forgot" to list the rest of that definition:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity...ANNNNNNND, the part you left out!.....b : the doctrine that there is no deity.
How about THAT?!! It's also defined as a "DOCTRINE"!

Then...to further our understanding...I used the same site to look up the word "doctrine".
Check this out! The definition of "doctrine" includes: *a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma*.
Wow!! "system of belief"!..."dogma"!
That helps A LOT for our understanding!!

Sooooooo...as best as can be concluded by the expert definitions---Atheism is a "doctrine" that is a "dogma" type "system of belief"!

Thanx for that link...it really helped to clear things up.
So...now we are all hip to the real answer of how "Atheism" is defined. Always good to learn and gain knowledge!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:02 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
Thank you all so much for your responses...I was truly a bountiful harvest.

I not only reaped the usual (but always wonderful) "leprechauns", "fiery dragons", "Santa Clause", the "Easter Bunny" and the "moon made of green cheese"...but there must have been some special "seeds" I sowed in my posts...because I got the first ever, "25 legged red-hot flying balsa-wood and honey turtles that have IQs of 450˚".
Wow! JACKPOT!
Ahhhhhh...things like that make it all worthwhile!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:42 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Thank you all so much for your responses...I was truly a bountiful harvest.

I not only reaped the usual (but always wonderful) "leprechauns", "fiery dragons", "Santa Clause", the "Easter Bunny" and the "moon made of green cheese"...but there must have been some special "seeds" I sowed in my posts...because I got the first ever, "25 legged red-hot flying balsa-wood and honey turtles that have IQs of 450˚".
Wow! JACKPOT!
Ahhhhhh...things like that make it all worthwhile!
I'm so sorry that I forgot Poppyseads contribution of "aliens" and "my little ponies" to the harvest.
I love ya Poppy!

But...you guys are slippin'! Where were the obligatory Invisible Pink Unicorns, Garden Gnomes, Fairy Princesses...and most importantly, The Flying Spaghetti Monster?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 09:50 PM
 
7,367 posts, read 6,528,719 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Hey john...thanx for increasing my understanding...so I can 'splain it to others better.

I checked out that definition you listed...it helped a lot.
Remember in my Post #91 in this thread, how I noted that some will edit and "cherry-pick" portions of definitions, to avoid association with words they have headtrips about? Well...that's just what you did.
Let me help you out...you "forgot" to list the rest of that definition:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity...ANNNNNNND, the part you left out!.....b : the doctrine that there is no deity.
How about THAT?!! It's also defined as a "DOCTRINE"!

Then...to further our understanding...I used the same site to look up the word "doctrine".
Check this out! The definition of "doctrine" includes: *a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma*.
Wow!! "system of belief"!..."dogma"!
That helps A LOT for our understanding!!

Sooooooo...as best as can be concluded by the expert definitions---Atheism is a "doctrine" that is a "dogma" type "system of belief"!

Thanx for that link...it really helped to clear things up.
So...now we are all hip to the real answer of how "Atheism" is defined. Always good to learn and gain knowledge!!
You certainly are in need of some understanding, but your need should be more focused on knowledge of semantics. Multiple definitions of a word are "or" statements, not "and". Your game-playing serves no purpose but to demonstrate your insecurities in your belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 09:54 PM
Status: "Amused by BF." (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
23,312 posts, read 12,067,777 times
Reputation: 10639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
You certainly are in need of some understanding, but your need should be more focused on knowledge of semantics. Multiple definitions of a word are "or" statements, not "and". Your game-playing serves no purpose but to demonstrate your insecurities in your belief.
Truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 09:00 PM
 
34,508 posts, read 8,896,494 times
Reputation: 4790
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Thank you all so much for your responses...I was truly a bountiful harvest.

I not only reaped the usual (but always wonderful) "leprechauns", "fiery dragons", "Santa Clause", the "Easter Bunny" and the "moon made of green cheese"...but there must have been some special "seeds" I sowed in my posts...because I got the first ever, "25 legged red-hot flying balsa-wood and honey turtles that have IQs of 450˚".
Wow! JACKPOT!
Ahhhhhh...things like that make it all worthwhile!
What would make it worthwhile, old chum, is if you looked past the list of mythical beings you collated to the points we made rather than use your chuckling at our mythical bestiary as a pretext not to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 10:19 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
You certainly are in need of some understanding, but your need should be more focused on knowledge of semantics. Multiple definitions of a word are "or" statements, not "and". Your game-playing serves no purpose but to demonstrate your insecurities in your belief.
Semantics?! Yeah...I only have a general knowledge of semantics...and I don't try to use it to try to disassociate myself from things.
Kinda like Bill Clinton using semantic cha-cha to try to narrow down the meaning of the word "is", so to avoid having to cop to lying about messing around with Monica L.
His famous statement, "It depends on the what the meaning of the word "is" is", was really something. Trouble for him was...nobody bought it that time either...and it got him impeached.

In some situations, multiple word definitions are a matter of "or", not "and".
Such as, if you were using the word "ball" to describe a gala with music and dancing...the definition that notes it as being a round type of toy would not fit at all, and could be ignored.
BUT!!...BOTH the meanings within the definition of the word "Atheist" you linked were totally applicable to the matter under discussion.
So, why did you only note the one that said " a disbelief in the existence of deity"...but left out the also completely "semantically relevant" one that said it was, "the doctrine that there is no deity"? Why'd you do that? Ohhhhhhh...I bet it was that "doctrine" association, wasn't it!!

You know why you, et al, do that...and you also know I, et al, are fully hip to why you do that.
The same reason some narrow down the definition of "God" to only be characters like "Thor", "Zeus", "Jehovah", "Allah", etc...and refuse to acknowledge the more basic and generic definitions of God.
If they were to acknowledge the more broad definitions of God, they'd have to admit that there exists that which fits that definition, and thus, God exists...just like if you acknowledged the full definition of "Atheist", you'd have to go with it being a "belief".

YOU, et al, are the ones with the insecurities about your beliefs...to the point that you get so twisted up, you can't even bring yourself to get a clue that it IS a "belief".

Here's how it REALLY is...AGAIN:
Since one cannot be 100% infallibly sure (nothing is 100% infallibly sure) of the view they embrace relative to the matter...it is necessarily a BELIEF either way...thus:
"Theism" is the BELIEF that God(s) exist.
"Atheism" is the BELIEF that God(s) don't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top