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 FAQ EXPLICITLY tries to define atheism to support the preferred belief of those atheists who are anti-Theist and do not accept ANY God associated with our Reality. They pretend that their definition does NOT IMPLICITLY demand that it is de rigueur that our Reality does NOT include the existence of God. But there is no question that it definitely implies that demand applies to everyone. This thread has to have a deeper discussion of the definition of atheism or there is no point to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
What has any of that to do with the definition of atheism? What are you trying to argue with quoting me on your false arguments back at me? Please explain exactly what you are trying to prove.
Stop trying to provoke moderator action pretending I or Arach are off-topic simply because you so narrowly want to view your atheism as to make it impervious to refutation or criticism.
The FAQ was written by three of our members, and reviewed for accuracy and readability by all of the R&S moderators at the time it was posted. I personally checked the definitions they used, using two different online dictionary sites. They are not biased, personal definitions. You are simply wrong about that.
I think you misread my post. I have no great issue with the FAQ (although I think anyone would have to agree it's written from a pro-atheist perspective and puts a distinctly happy face on atheism, which is fair enough since it is the A&A forum). What I was highlighting was the disconnect between the FAQ and the posturing by atheists on these forums that is contrary to the FAQ. My two points were simply:
1. The FAQ repeatedly uses phraseology such as "atheists believe" because atheism is, in fact, a belief system - yet the game here is to insist that no, you can't pin down atheists because they don't affirmatively believe anything; they merely "lack belief" in what you believe.
2. As you point out, the percentage of theists and atheists who claim actual knowledge of the truth of their beliefs is extremely small (for good reason, as Bertrand Russell pointed out). The vast majority of both theists and atheists fall somewhere on a spectrum of conviction, the far end of which is still well short of a claim of knowledge. (On a thread I started, I think I claimed something like 95% conviction about theism and 90% conviction about Christianity being the closest approximation of the truth.) My observation was that the graphic included with the FAQ seems to me to overemphasize the "gnostic" segment of both camps and suggest it's larger than it actually is.
What has any of that to do with the definition of atheism? What are you trying to argue with quoting me on your false arguments back at me? Please explain exactly what you are trying to prove.
My arguments are not false arguments at all. I can only go by what you say and do.
I used your exact words trans. I made sure I quoted ( just incase there is any doubt) you and I even double checked to make sure I was quoting you. Thats the scientific method. Is called testing your own hypothesis from all angles.
I think you misread my post. I have no great issue with the FAQ (although I think anyone would have to agree it's written from a pro-atheist perspective and puts a distinctly happy face on atheism, which is fair enough since it is the A&A forum). What I was highlighting was the disconnect between the FAQ and the posturing by atheists on these forums that is contrary to the FAQ. My two points were simply:
1. The FAQ repeatedly uses phraseology such as "atheists believe" because atheism is, in fact, a belief system - yet the game here is to insist that no, you can't pin down atheists because they don't affirmatively believe anything; they merely "lack belief" in what you believe.
2. As you point out, the percentage of theists and atheists who claim actual knowledge of the truth of their beliefs is extremely small (for good reason, as Bertrand Russell pointed out). The vast majority of both theists and atheists fall somewhere on a spectrum of conviction, the far end of which is still well short of a claim of knowledge. (On a thread I started, I think I claimed something like 95% conviction about theism and 90% conviction about Christianity being the closest approximation of the truth.) My observation was that the graphic included with the FAQ seems to me to overemphasize the "gnostic" segment of both camps and suggest it's larger than it actually is.
Remember this. by definition,
most have zero trouble believing in "something more". They are fine saying we are not quite sure what it means and we are still ok with it. They are what trans labels "irreligious" when in fact they are stone cold, definition based, atheist.
that being said. A god sending his son to die for our sins is no where near the best approximation of realty.
most have zero trouble believing in "something more". They are fine saying we are not quite sure what it means and we are still ok with it. They are what trans labels "irreligious" when in fact they are stone cold, definition based, atheist.
that being said. A god sending his son to die for our sins is no where near the best approximation of realty.
You often quote this. Who is asking you to believe it, or are you asking others not to believe it?
most have zero trouble believing in "something more". They are fine saying we are not quite sure what it means and we are still ok with it. They are what trans labels "irreligious" when in fact they are stone cold, definition based, atheist.
that being said. A god sending his son to die for our sins is no where near the best approximation of realty.
For,me there is a world of difference between there may be something more and there is something more .I will not say there is something more implies both I am positive about it and I know what that something is. The meanings of those two sentences are different enough to make a difference. There even may be a God, I don't know but I'm not going to say a something more or else does exist especially with no clue as to what that something may be.
That is part of the problem when you use a personal definition and personal classification systems. The definitions who've wrote them work for all those who actually want to have two way discussions and exchanges of ideas. Without using agreed upon definitions I could tell everyone I am a Hindu kangaroo native of Norway and I'd no be correct if my definitions of those words meant I'm an atheist from Canada.
You often quote this. Who is asking you to believe it, or are you asking others not to believe it?
Atheism means I don't believe in a deity. Thats the definition.
it doesn't mean we can't believe in anything or that we have to be quite for team unity.
yes, I am going to say to as many people that will listen that even the most basic commonsense and reason proves that the claim that a deity sent his son to die and rise for our sins is clearly less reliable than others, in terms of reality. I will tell them that if I can get you to dump your commonsense and reason and believe a god literally sent his son to died and rise for our sins I can get you to do anything.
People can believe in god and not have to to believe that stuff. people can believe in something more and still be an atheist.
atheist can belief in stuff but they don't believe in a deity. by definition. so no deity sent his son.
I looked at the FAQ in the AA forum (again) to find a pro-atheist perspective. The structure of the FAQ is question and answer, where the majority of the questions seem to come from a defensive position or are meant to sound argumentative. Here is an example.
Quote:
Atheism sounds arrogant. How do you know there are no gods?
I am sure "pro-theism" can write something similar for their side. This ability to write with bias is not a characteristic of theism or atheism. To me, atheism, or "without a god" can imply no belief in a god(s) but can also mean that one has chosen not to be with a god. When I think about it, ancient (Assyrian and Babylonian times) villages had their own village god, which would imply that all other villages were without that god. Then consider powerful states proclaiming that they are with god, e.g. God bless America. Wouldn't this imply that the other side is without god?
So what exactly is the big deal with the atheist who is without any god?
I just looked through all the other forums (Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Paganism) and they don't have a FAQ. Why? They have a system, a religion, to learn.
I looked up the history of the word religion and the different interpretations are quite interesting. The source for all of these origins can be found on https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion
1. re + legere "read again" with lecture being a distant relative.
2. re + ligare "to bind fast" with rely being a distant relative. The re- is an intensifier. This one is cited as being directly linked to a god.
3. religiens "careful," opposite of negligens
4. I thought the history of the English synthesized word was interesting especially when the word was first attested:
Quote:
In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
I found no such thing for atheism.
It is here where you see "system" and then #2 and #4 are directly linked to a god. Therefore, can atheism develop a system like religion that is not linked to a god? I guess but then you won't be going by the English use of the word.
If a person doesn't read a book again, are they atheist? No. They are not religious.
If a person is not bound to god, are they atheist? No. They are not religious.
If a person is not careful, are they atheist? No. They are not religious.
If a person doesn't follow a particular system of faith, are they atheist? No. They are not religious.
P.S. I reposted half of this post from another thread at the request of another member.
For,me there is a world of difference between there may be something more and there is something more .I will not say there is something more implies both I am positive about it and I know what that something is. The meanings of those two sentences are different enough to make a difference. There even may be a God, I don't know but I'm not going to say a something more or else does exist especially with no clue as to what that something may be.
That is part of the problem when you use a personal definition and personal classification systems. The definitions who've wrote them work for all those who actually want to have two way discussions and exchanges of ideas. Without using agreed upon definitions I could tell everyone I am a Hindu kangaroo native of Norway and I'd no be correct if my definitions of those words meant I'm an atheist from Canada.
you have a point. so lets apply it real time.
I am only saying this to show how it fits the definition of atheism. ITS AN EXAMPLE.
I never say the word god or actually anything that you can't do yourself. Its totally in the confines of atheism definition.
The something more is a living system around us. (That we are killing BTW)I say there IS something more because when I compared the biosphere to stuff we know, it matches life more than non life. I compared it to a cell, a virus, and anything non living thing I know.
when we compare an unknown to an known, that is called a measurement. so when I measured it, thats what it showed me. Now take it to as many people as you want.
notice how that belief in something is totally in line with me being an atheist. and I defined the something and I gave the reasons for it.
as an atheist, I can challenge you to tell me were I am wrong. If all you can do is say "I don't believe you". well, in science, if you can't prove the guys wrong, when it is falsible, that claim stands.
thats just using commonsense, logic, and the scientific method.
Then, as atheist, we compare our claims and see who more reliable. We go down the list of life.
notice ... not one word about god because we are atheist. Everything I said fit the definition of atheism.
it was just an example to show how a belief is in line with atheism.
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.
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.
