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.
The only term I looked us is "atheist." It is a non-belief. Therefore, by definition, it is not a belief. If you must ask, "What is it?" It is nothing.
Here we go again, another semantics argument about the meaning of "atheist". I went round and round about this many moons ago on this forum.
Unfortunately you can find different definitions for the word "atheist", some in conflict.
My personal feeling is that rather than argue the semantics, argue the intent. What is your meaning when you claim to be an atheist? To heck with what the dictionary says. Just state your meaning and intent discuss that and don't rat-hole on whether it agrees with the OED.
My position was (and is) that atheism is an epistemology problem - I say I am an atheist either because of knowledge that there are no gods, or by belief that there are no gods. The second of course is a weaker statement than the first. My preferred statement about god-existence is one of knowledge. I do not have knowledge that there are no gods even though I believe that there are no gods.
Not having knowledge on the existence of gods is the common definition of being agnostic.
You have my statement about gods. You can call me an atheist-agnostic, or simply agnostic. Some people would call me an atheist (my wife does). I personally don't make that claim though.
My personal feeling is that rather than argue the semantics, argue the intent.
I think that wise, 2B4, the fury here is largely over labels, something I tend to resist because once you are defined by a label, then you are boxed into all that the label might imply, whether that is accurate or not.
Nonsense. A belief is a belief . . . whatever its content. Pretending it is not seems to be some sort of whacked out method of confounding the issue in some inexplicable defense of atheism. I just don't get it. What is your problem with your beliefs about anything being beliefs??? What ARE they if they are NOT beliefs?
The problem is I think 'belief' can sometimes be confused with 'faith'
A definition of 'belief' from Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
be·lief
noun \bə-ˈlēf\ : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone
Full Definition of BELIEF
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
By this definition yes I would agree that I believe there is no god especially if you base it on the last sentence here. ^
I believe there is no god in the same way I believe the sun will rise every morning, that two plus two equals four and that my mother was called Doris.
My issue is when people tell you that atheism is a belief, then try to tell you there is no such thing as an atheist because nobody can believe 100% there is no god.
Grr, this really winds me up. You can't have it all ways. I do believe 100% there is no god. It's right there in my own head!!!
I think belief gets tied in with faith, which is basically belief but without the evidence:
Quote:
faith
[feyth]
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
The problem is I think 'belief' can sometimes be confused with 'faith'
<snip>
Atheists "believe" that there is no God. Theists frequently try to make more of that "belief" than is there. One possible reason theists do that is because they have "faith" tied to their "beliefs" so strongly that the two cannot be separated.
I think that wise, 2B4, the fury here is largely over labels, something I tend to resist because once you are defined by a label, then you are boxed into all that the label might imply, whether that is accurate or not.
Atheist is perhaps someone who is either unaware or non-believer of the Pascal's Wager.
I agree.
Way better to be an agnostic.
But, not everybody can do that. Imagine asking a fundamentalist to be an agnostic! They would also reject that. It is either ALL or NOTHING for atheists and fundamentalists.
Nonsense. A belief is a belief . . . whatever its content. Pretending it is not seems to be some sort of whacked out method of confounding the issue in some inexplicable defense of atheism. I just don't get it. What is your problem with your beliefs about anything being beliefs??? What ARE they if they are NOT beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
The problem is I think 'belief' can sometimes be confused with 'faith'
A definition of 'belief' from Merriam-Webster:
By this definition yes I would agree that I believe there is no god especially if you base it on the last sentence here. ^
I believe there is no god in the same way I believe the sun will rise every morning, that two plus two equals four and that my mother was called Doris.
My issue is when people tell you that atheism is a belief, then try to tell you there is no such thing as an atheist because nobody can believe 100% there is no god.
Grr, this really winds me up. You can't have it all ways. I do believe 100% there is no god. It's right there in my own head!!!
I think belief gets tied in with faith, which is basically belief but without the evidence:
I think I follow what you are saying about confusing belief with faith . . . and it seems a legitimate concern. But the likes of Grandstander and others who disavow it as a belief . . . pretending it is a non-belief . . . still confounds me. I don't get the point of such a ridiculous quibble and distinction. I don't see how it advances or in any way aids the cause of atheism.
YOUR morals and ethics might come from religion.
MINE do not.
What some of you religious people continually fail to understand is that some people turn atheist because of the immorality they find in the ethically unsound bible and how they are instructed to live their lives by their religion.
My morals are based on reason, respect, empathy and compassion for other human beings and creatures on this planet. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
Morals and Ethics are learned. They are not natural to humans or any other creature on the planet. If there was no foundation rule book then we'd be no better than animals doing things without any remorse. Even if you take a deity out of the picture and get rid of any formal religion it still is a rule book that most humans follow in one way or another. And most choose the rules that fit their lifestyles today
Take a look at this list that is 1000's of years old. How many of these rules (I consider them opportunities) do you follow?
And there are those who sit in the minority who completely throw out the rule book even though they say it's in the name of religion when in reality its not.
Moderator cut: deleted
Last edited by june 7th; 05-16-2014 at 07:12 AM..
Reason: Link does not adhere to TOS rule that posts be kept "PG-13".
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.