Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  nicolaou

  ". . atheism is a word, words have definitions and the primary and original definition is "the belief that God doesn't exist". You don't need to "pull anything out" because there's no contradiction."

  In ordinary usage I fully accept that theist = believer in God, and atheist = disbelieves god's existence. We all know that words and their meanings evolve and drift over time and currently many dictionaries will define these words in the way commonly understood. Fine.
  
  But think about this, what if a dictionary defined 'Christian' as "a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren." (see here) I bet most of you Christians would reject that definition point blank.
  Well I reject the definition of 'atheist' as someone who definitely 'believes' that there is no god and, more to the point, so do almost all atheists!

  Take the moon landings as an example. Many Americans believe that the moon landings were faked - let's call them moonists (I was tempted to say lunatics). Moonists are currently in the minority, though a sizable one it must be said. If the issue of the moon landings ever moved from the trivial to the serious you might be forced to declare your view on the matter whereas at present you do not define yourself by this irrelevant (to you) issue. However, if pressed you would have to declare yourself to be a moonist or not. Would you actually use the word amoonist if you believed that the moon landings in all likelihood did happen just as the history books record? I doubt it.
  
  So why should men & women who are not theists be forced to attach labels like atheist to themselves? Only because the idiocy of god-belief has become so widespread that rational human beings are forced to say "sorry, I don't share your belief, I'm an atheist".

  Again, atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief that god does exist.
• 

  Essan

  Terry, I'm defending the original meaning and primary definition of "Atheist". I'm not imposing "other" definitions, you are.

  "Atheist

  1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."'

  Atheists themselves can't agree on a definition because they have all been so busy redefining it any which way they please that it has become virtually meaningless and ridiculously broad (even including all new born babies, according to you) so that there is no consensus anymore, so it is impossible to "agree on a definition" beforehand. Actually, I already posted the definitions I was working from pages ago, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the entire thread.
• 

  Terry

  
• 

  Terry

  Atheists themselves can't agree on a definition because they have all been so busy redefining it any which way they please that it has become practically meaningless and there is no consensus anymore, so it is impossible to "agree on a definition" beforehand. Actually, I already posted the definitions I was working from pages ago, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the entire thread.

  We are not passively at the mercy of history in giving us what IS in word use.

  A dictionary REFLECTS the current trend in writing as to use.

  In a DEBATE (which is really what this discussion is) the agreement on definition of important terms is vital or THERE CAN BE NO VALID EXCHANGE.

  We are allowed to set a specific defintion to the use of technical terminology. Theology is technical terminology. Special definitions abound.

  Grace isn't just Grace. There are kinds of Grace and various dissonances among denominations.

  Consequently, you have to AGREE on the definition BEFORE you can discuss or debate.

  Atheists don't have to AGREE with each other. Why would they?

  Christians don't agree with each other either. Duh!

  How can you miss this point?

  In order to discuss MY VIEWS on what I think you have to accept that I have thought carefully about my definitions. You don't have to agree with my definitions as a matter of adopting them---but--you must agree to work within the limits of my terminology as a matter of course.

  Otherwise you are merely ranting.
• 

  SixofNine

  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You're using a logical fallacy. Argument from Ignorance.

  The phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be a rebuttal to an argument from ignorance; but just because someone is arguing that "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" does not mean that they are making an argument from ignorance.

  Because indeed a bsence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence. Even Carl Sagan knows that ;) Real things leave real evidence.

  ---

  From: The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 - The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)

  "Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

  In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes:

  "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." (Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95)

  Therefore, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability.

  ---

  Likewise, absence of evidence that supernatural forces have changed anything on planet earth may be considered as positive evidence that no supernatural forces exist. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability. ;)
• 

  zoiks

  Thanks for your response, Essan. I'm still very new at the "vigorously defend your position while listening to an opposing viewpoint without taking it personally" skill. I see that this is a touchy subject for many, myself included. Good stuff, though! Even if it is just a word...

  Edit: I still disagree with your insisting on sticking to the original, narrow definition - though I am trying to understand the stance that you take. But at the end of the day, it won't make much difference either way. I'm still going to consider myself a dead sexy atheist.
• 

  Essan

  Nic said: Well I reject the definition of 'atheist' as someone who definitely 'believes' that there is no god and, more to the point, so do almost all atheists!

  Then why not select the right label to identify yourself with, or create a new one if a suitable one does not already exist? Why try to change the meaning of an already well established label but which doesn't suit you? If you have no belief either way, why not call yourself "agnostic"? Why create a scenario in which you have real atheists who say "God does not exist" alongside faux atheists, essentially 'stealing' their label, saying "Well, I don't know for sure"?

  These are two quite different viewpoints aren't they? Why have them quashed up together cheek by jowel under a label which doesn't describe them both.

  It's almost like some have an emotional attachment to the label "atheist" and don't want to give it up even though they clearly don't fit the definition of an "atheist".
• 

  Essan

  SixofNine sid: likewise, absence of evidence that supernatural forces have changed anything on planet earth may be considered as positive evidence that no supernatural forces exist.

  Agreed, but the "evidence" does not constitute proof. There is a difference. Both sides can present "evidence". Neither can prove it. Probability establishes likelihood, not fact. And in a scenario which, if it were to be true, so much would remain unknown (as in the case of God) the probability cannot be accurately measured.

  For instance it is considered "highly probable" that we are living in a Matrix-like simulation, in which the "Creator" (God?) is part of some "advanced civilization".

  http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

  What can we conclude from that? Not a hell of a lot. We can't prove it.
• 

  cyberjesus

  Atheist: A group of sad, self righteous, bitterly angry people that believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

  ok now wisdom is flowing :-)

  Theos = God

  Theist = someone who believes in God

  Theism = Belief in God

  a = non, with out

  A theos = without God

  a theist = someone without belief in God

  A theism = without belief in God
• 

  Essan

  Thanks Zoiks. I enjoy a good robust debate. As long as everyone tries not to take it too seriously :)

  My main irritation with the ever broadening (re)definition of "atheist" is that in many cases I see the process as rather dishonest and a bit self serving. Also because this continual broadening of the definition eventually pushes into and blurs the lines of other labels, to the extent that some "atheists", like Nic, attempt a 'coup' on other labels, like "agnostic", trying to wipe the term out and 'swallow' it within atheism. Nic argues that there is no such thing as an agnostic. Imagine that. Thousands of years of philosophical tradition wiped out at the whim of an expansionist "atheist"? LOL

  Broadening definitions eventually become meaningless. "Atheism" is becoming a cool club (or religion Lol) that it seems everyone wants to join, even though they can't agree on anything except that a significant number of them don't actually want to abide by the established definition of "atheist".