KNOW YOUR AGONUS!
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm 139 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Deputy Dog
bohm
DD: It looks to me, if I understand what you are trying to say, is that without God, YOU can't "know" anything (for sure) and I agree it's silly and irrational. So why do you hold to it?
Where exactly do i say i know anything for sure?
You didn't (except for math), I just wanted to make sure we are clear. This is why we don't understand why you want to open the meaning of the word atheism to include yourself or those like you.
Here's the catch, would you admitt that you start with the presupposition: There is no God? I say this is required for the term atheist to have any meaning.
-
wobble
I think I am related to the little guy in the picture Aggie, I am a bit bull-headed !
-
Terry
Belief in the undemonstrable is a fragile mind state which is profoundly insecure in its tolerance of non-belief.
Cognitive dissonance requires constant maintenance for the equilibrium of opposites. Sanity and Reality are, after all, quite intrusive!
One of the reasons True Believers want to set dates and speculate on End Times is that a great RELIEF OF PROOF would unburden them, finally.
The obsession with defining nay-sayers in pejoratively contrived strawman contexts assuages the tension of self-conflict.
After all, some part of the True Believer is sane and must "inform" however subliminally the ego how deserving of scorn such delusional belief really is.
Self-hatred is untenable and it is converted outward toward the target of whoever manages to create a climate of skepticism.
That's my analysis. Your mileage may vary.
-
Essan
I agree with what Burntheships said:
"The only thing pure reason alone can deliver is agnosticism.
Hard atheism, like theism, requires an element of belief.
That is how it seems to me.
BTS"
But I'd add that as "pure reason delivers agnosticism", therefore any degree of theism or atheism necessarily requires 'impure', flawed reason. The degree of error, and belief, just increases as one moves from soft to hard atheism/theism.
The only time this isn't the case is when the professed 'atheist' isn't actually an atheist at all (which is common) but is an agnostic who either doesn't understand the definition of the label or who simply enjoys attacking theism - despite personally having no belief either way - and the Atheists seem like the 'gang' to join to do that.
-
JWoods
But I'd add that as "pure reason delivers agnosticism", therefore any degree of theism or atheism necessarily requires 'impure', flawed reason. The degree of error just increases as one moves from soft to hard atheism/theism.
The only time this isn't the case is when the professed 'atheist' isn't actually an atheist at all (which is common) but is an agnostic who either doesn't understand the definition of the label or who simply enjoys attacking theism - despite personally having no belief either way - and the Atheists seem like the 'gang' to join to do that.
Again, I agree 100% with BTS and the quote above by Essan. Especially the part I bolded out.
Note that I do not find fault with either Theists or Atheists - but this "self - redefinition" of the word atheist by some is very illogical to me. Especially when they claim they are not using a form of "faith" or "belief" to strongly proclaim unprovable or unknowable things to others.
-
bohm
JWoods: Thats exactly my definitions.
BD: science does not operate with faith, proofs or 100% certainty; nor do the vast majority of atheists. They operate with degrees of belief, see what i and jwoods wrote on page 1.
-
JWoods
JWoods: Thats exactly my definitions.
BD: science does not operate with faith, proofs or 100% certainty; nor do the vast majority of atheists. They operate with degrees of belief, see what i and jwoods wrote on page 1.
Bohm, congratulations. Your thread is the first one out of about 10 on this subject that has started to make any sense and come to a logical consensus.
-
Night Owl
Actually, the atheist makes himself the God.
Now, because being in the position OF God is more powerful, he has also become the "God Maker", if you will.
As the "God Maker" he can actually, if he so chooses, make "science" his God, "reason" his God, Darwin, Dawkins, earth, the chair, the bottle, pot, cocaine...........anything he wants, because, after all, he IS God AND the "God Maker".
Night Owl
-
Essan
Bohm,
Why I asked you those three questions about the OP was that your redefinition of Atheism, ironically, excludes traditional atheists completely and tries to pretend they don't exist and never have. But there have always been many "Atheists" who denied outright the existence of God. This is still the primary definition in most dictionaries and was the original meaning. Their position contradicts yours. You're trying to wipe all that from history. You're pretending this history and a key section of the "Atheist"community doesn't exist. You act as if you speak for all atheists when in fact you are only representing a certain type of "atheist", and you act as if there is only one kind of "atheism" - your atheism - when that simply isn't true. I don't actually consider the "atheism" you present in the OP to even be valid "atheism" at all. You can't complain about misrepresenting Atheists when you yourself try to wipe out other atheists definitions of themselves with your own - especially when your version of atheism is the 'sect' and not the original.
"Atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
"Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
- someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)"
Note the primary meaning. It's the one you deny completely.
Your next claim is that the word "believe" should be specially interpreted. This is bogus for several reasons. Firstly, you contradict yourself. You say: "The dictionary lists "belief" as synonymous with "faith", and it does seem that Essan's main complaint is that atheism in, effect, becomes a faith in no God".
Correct. I f the dictionary says that "belief" is synonymous with "faith" and Atheists say "I believe there is no God", then according to myself and the dictionary , Atheists are employing "faith" - but you then immediately say: "That is a complete misuse of the english language." No it's not. You've just proved it's perfectly accurate.
Actually we don't need to analyze the word "belief" to understand that it means exactly what it usually means because Atheism primarily means to "deny the existence of god/s", as the quoted definitions above show. "Believe" needs to be understood in that context - Denial. To "deny" is clearly to take a definite stand. Denial of God clearly indicates a definite belief that God does not exist, not mere musings on the supposed scientific improbability.
Your claim that the word "belief" is part of some special "scientific" vocabulary employed by "Atheists" is pure fantasy. You haven't proven that the word Atheism arose in a scientific context, you just appealed to some fabricated "archetype" of a "Scientist-Atheist". That was not and is not it's context so there is no reason why "belief" should be specially interpreted for Atheists and rendered immune from the same significance that many Atheists insist it has when others use it. Further, this theory is directly contradicted by the definition of "Atheist" itself, which indicates outright denial.
You're basically trying to argue that the word "belief" doesn't mean belief and that "Atheists" should be able to say "I believe there is no God" without being held responsible for actually holding a belief, which is obviously, rather silly.
You seem to want everyones cake and to it it too.