| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"old hoodoo" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 02:43:49 AM |
| Object: |
definition of "atheist" and sources |
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 06:22:32 AM |
|
|
"old hoodoo" <alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vj9nagc76724@corp.supernews.com...
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
This is what is known as weak atheism.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
This is what is known as strong atheism.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
They are merely two different kinds of atheism, and there's no
need to get rude about about either one. Most people don't know
that there is more than one kind of atheism. These aren't antagonistic
viewpoints; merely different ones. Understanding this could cut down
on some of the unnecessary rudeness.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
Here's the one from American Atheist: A Journal of Atheist News and
Thought (American Atheist Magazine): 'Atheism involves the mental
attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at
establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and
the
scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority
and creeds. An Atheist is free of belief in supernatural entities of all
kinds.'
(It then goes on to define materialism which is more than you asked for.)
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "old hoodoo" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 04:47:05 AM |
|
|
Freedictionary.com:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
also at the same site:
Noun 1.atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2.atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Websters New World Dictionary:
the belief there is no God.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=8&y=10
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity
1) atheism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=enty&query=atheism&db=ahd&Submit=Search
....Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The
doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
Cambridge dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD
atheist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt although I
believe it to be so because there is not a shred of evidence I have ever
seen that points to divine existance. Organized religion seems to point
to the opposite.
I am not agnostic, I don't think, becuase I actually believe there is no
God. I don't hold myself open to the possibility of a God because I see
no possibility in the Universe.
But what of those that become angry when they say they merely have no
belief in God and that Atheism is only "a lack of belief in the
existence of God or gods"? They call themselves atheists also but some
apparently want no association with those who actually belive there is
no God. Perhaps it is that they would rather not debate deists over the
existance or non-existance of God. However, their reliance on the
definition of atheism, as it is now used, appears to be mistaken?
Perhaps they should have another word that they can label themselves.
What would it be. Nontheist? I kind of like that. Not aggressive,
just not a theist, not an atheist.
I think there should be a distinction.
Actually the root words of "a" an "theism" suggest the original
definition should have been without god. However, possibly due to
deist influence, probably Christian, the word has become something
atagonistic to god and has such a negative connotation. However I
don't think that a few atheists are going to convince the majority of
english speaking folks in the world to change the definition.
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder how
that could be done?
old hoodoo wrote:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
31 Jan 2005 06:49:14 PM |
|
|
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary?
Agnosticism is a word, but since the burden of proof is on the theists, just
what exactly agnostics believe is open to question. Theists do not have the
burden of proving that they are theists, neither do they cease being theists
if their statements are not understood. They do have the burden, like everyone
else, of backing up their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is
lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is
addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is really only
applicable to a theist, because only one who knows and believes the claims of
theism can tell what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be said of
agnostics in relation to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics,
but because they can't come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is
ridiculous ), they've thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really
isn't; this describes accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they
wish to be organized like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the
vocabulary to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a
particular point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance of the
evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 08:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
It also doesn't define what most of us are.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt
Only a god can prove that no god exists, so the concept of proving
that there's no god is meaningless.
But what of those that become angry when they say they merely have no
belief in God and that Atheism is only "a lack of belief in the
existence of God or gods"?
A = lack of the following
theism = belief in a god or gods
therefore:
atheism = lack of belief in any god or gods.
They call themselves atheists also but some
apparently want no association with those who actually belive there is
no God.
Not so. Atheism is lack of belief. Belief in lack (or belief in
existence) is gnosticism. So you're a gnostic atheist.
Perhaps they should have another word that they can label themselves.
What would it be. Nontheist?
"Non" (Latin) = "A" (Greek). Different roots.
Actually the root words of "a" an "theism" suggest the original
definition should have been without god.
Theism isn't "god", it's "belief in a god", so the original roots
suggest that atheism = "without belief in any god". (Most Greeks will
dispute the dictionary etymology of "a" + "theos".)
However, possibly due to
deist influence, probably Christian, the word has become something
atagonistic to god
The Romans considered Christians to be atheists, since Christians
didn't believe in the Roman gods. Nothing about antagonism.
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder how
that could be done?
Dictionaries don't define words, they show common usage. The way to
get a new word into the dictionaries is to get people to use it, not
the other way around.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
30 Jan 2005 02:21:51 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjrnv0tbr05tbtr57gf4sba1ak88gag272@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
It also doesn't define what most of us are.
Words do not "define what you are". You decide your
position yourself, and then try to choose the appropriate
words to convey your position to the rest of the world.
The words belong to the world. You merely use them
to express your point.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt
You could probably disprove the existence of some deity beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Only a god can prove that no god exists, so the concept of proving
that there's no god is meaningless.
Only a god could prove that gravity works in all places and all times,
but we accept the truth of gravity to such an extent that we call it
a Law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
31 Jan 2005 07:08:39 PM |
|
|
Words do not "define what you are".
How could it be said that theists have the burden of proof, if words did not
define what they are? Theists do not have the burden of proving that they are
theists, neither do they cease being theists if their statements are not
understood. They do have the burden, like everyone else, of backing up
their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is lacking, it means that
the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is addressing lack evidence
of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is really only applicable to a theist,
because only one who knows and believes the claims of theism can tell what
a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be said of agnostics in relation
to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics, but because they can't
come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is ridiculous ), they've
thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really isn't; this
describes accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they wish to be
organized like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the vocabulary
to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a particular
point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance of the evidence of
theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
31 Jan 2005 09:44:48 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jan 2005 19:08:39 GMT, pensul <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote:
Words do not "define what you are".
How could it be said that theists have the burden of proof, if words did not
define what they are? Theists do not have the burden of proving that they are
theists, neither do they cease being theists if their statements are not
understood.
Err we know that.
They do have the burden, like everyone else, of backing up
their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is lacking, it means that
the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is addressing lack evidence
of or belief in theism.
Nor does it mean people should accept what they believe simply because
they say so. If you wish me to accept your god it is up to you
demonstrate it exists by providing some evidence. Until you what you
claim is just nonesense.
Thus atheism is really only applicable to a theist,
because only one who knows and believes the claims of theism can tell what
a-theism or non-theism is.
How hard is it to understand that atheism is lack of belief in the
existence of gods? Whatever the theist regards as his god the atheist
does not believe it, the belief may be complex but the lack of belief
is simple for as long as it is belief without any evidence of any kind
of what they believe is irrational and self self-delusion with nothing
to understand other than it is a mere belief.
Your argument therefore is not credible.
Though we do not believe a god does not exists, (that is as irrational
as belief without evidence) ,there is simply no reason to accept there
is one bearing in mind nobody has been able to detect one except in
the self-deluded mind. If you are trying to convince us then it is
quite simple. We want demonstrable evidence. belief, the creations of
a self-deluded mind and opinion is of no value to us. For us there is
just simply nothing there to accept and nothing to deny. The word'
god' is just an ancient concept from a more superstitious age.
The same could be said of agnostics in relation
to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics, but because they can't
come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is ridiculous ), they've
thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really isn't; this
describes accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they wish to be
organized like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the vocabulary
to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a particular
point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance of the evidence of
theism, not theists themselves.
Quite where you get this idea that we would like to be organised 'like
a religion' from I don't know. Clearly we have no opinions concerning
something we do not even believe exists but we are generally
anti-religion because of its baleful effect on the individual and
society in general. We are against it because of its constant
'in-your-face' attitude.. We need to be constantly on our guard lest
religion imposes its will on us as it has done in the past. So the
last things we want is a 'religion'. We are all individuals acting as
individuals. Nobody speaks for me and I speak for nobody. I do not
have a cause and providing they leave me alone I am not interesting in
'converting' anybody. We do not have any creeds, sets of beliefs or
rules. Our only reason to organise is in self defence against the
imposition of religion. Even by setting up our own newsgroup we
find ourselves under a constant barrage by the likes of you, with hate
spite misrepresentation and a constant attemp to revile us.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
01 Feb 2005 01:22:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:51 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjrnv0tbr05tbtr57gf4sba1ak88gag272@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
[]
Only a god can prove that no god exists, so the concept of proving
that there's no god is meaningless.
Only a god could prove that gravity works in all places and all times,
but we accept the truth of gravity to such an extent that we call it
a Law.
Yes, but that depends on the gravity of the situation......
(running very fast)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
01 Feb 2005 07:42:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:22:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:51 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjrnv0tbr05tbtr57gf4sba1ak88gag272@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
Only a god can prove that no god exists, so the concept of proving
that there's no god is meaningless.
Only a god could prove that gravity works in all places and all times,
but we accept the truth of gravity to such an extent that we call it
a Law.
Which is the same as calling it a theory. (The words reflect change
in usage, not 2 different things. What used to be called a scientific
law is now called a scientific theory.)
And, no, science can show that whatever the cause of matter attracting
matter (what you refer to as "gravity"), it's universal.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
01 Feb 2005 08:18:33 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tomvv05g9k3rnom2l9ilaom9fj1o2229ve@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:22:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:51 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjrnv0tbr05tbtr57gf4sba1ak88gag272@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
Only a god can prove that no god exists, so the concept of proving
that there's no god is meaningless.
Only a god could prove that gravity works in all places and all times,
but we accept the truth of gravity to such an extent that we call it
a Law.
Which is the same as calling it a theory. (The words reflect change
in usage, not 2 different things. What used to be called a scientific
law is now called a scientific theory.)
Not the issue that I wish to discuss (but according to
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html you are
wrong.)
The issue I was raising is called "the problem of induction".
Have a look at Myth #4 from that same site.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 12:05:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
Freedictionary.com:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
also at the same site:
Noun 1.atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2.atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Websters New World Dictionary:
the belief there is no God.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=8&y=10
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity
1) atheism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=enty&query=atheism&db=ahd&Submit=Search
...Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The
doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
Cambridge dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD
atheist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
The problem with dictionaries regarding these kinds of words is
that it is difficult for the compiler to be unbiassed towards them.
A compiler with a theist mind might find it difficult to accept what
atheism is. Looking at the ratio of theists to atheists in the
English speaking world it is more than likely that the compilers
will be god believers.
The best way I think to approach it is to use the definition
of 'theist' then apply the definition of the prefix 'a' which simply
means 'NOT' or 'without' what follows. NOT theist or Without theisms
'without belief in the existence of god or gods'. Personally
I think we aught to accept that as the standard in this newsgroup.
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt although I
believe it to be so because there is not a shred of evidence I have ever
seen that points to divine existance. Organized religion seems to point
to the opposite.
I am not agnostic, I don't think, becuase I actually believe there is no
God. I don't hold myself open to the possibility of a God because I see
no possibility in the Universe.
As an atheist I see absolutely no reason to believe a god exists. I
You cannot prove non existence so I tend to the view that believing
there is no god is irrational and don't do it but then I think the
whole idea of a god is irrational as well so perhaps it is rational
to be certain their is no god? Dunno, I would rather leave that with
philosophy and stay on the solid ground that is the lack of belief OF
ANY KIND regarding gods.
But what of those that become angry when they say they merely have no
belief in God and that Atheism is only "a lack of belief in the
existence of God or gods"? They call themselves atheists also but some
apparently want no association with those who actually belive there is
no God. Perhaps it is that they would rather not debate deists over the
existance or non-existance of God. However, their reliance on the
definition of atheism, as it is now used, appears to be mistaken?
The key difference is that one is a belief regarding gods the other
isn't. The word 'belief' is key here.
Perhaps they should have another word that they can label themselves.
Yes I agree!
What would it be. Nontheist? I kind of like that. Not aggressive,
just not a theist, not an atheist.
I think there should be a distinction.
Contheist?
Actually the root words of "a" an "theism" suggest the original
definition should have been without god. However, possibly due to
deist influence, probably Christian, the word has become something
atagonistic to god and has such a negative connotation. However I
don't think that a few atheists are going to convince the majority of
english speaking folks in the world to change the definition.
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder how
that could be done?
Through Wikkipedia? :-)
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
30 Jan 2005 11:34:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:05:09 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
Freedictionary.com:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
also at the same site:
Noun 1.atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2.atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
[]
The problem with dictionaries regarding these kinds of words is
that it is difficult for the compiler to be unbiassed towards them.
A compiler with a theist mind might find it difficult to accept what
atheism is. Looking at the ratio of theists to atheists in the
English speaking world it is more than likely that the compilers
will be god believers.
The best way I think to approach it is to use the definition
of 'theist' then apply the definition of the prefix 'a' which simply
means 'NOT' or 'without' what follows. NOT theist or Without theisms
'without belief in the existence of god or gods'. Personally
I think we aught to accept that as the standard in this newsgroup.
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt although I
believe it to be so because there is not a shred of evidence I have ever
seen that points to divine existance. Organized religion seems to point
to the opposite.
I am not agnostic, I don't think, becuase I actually believe there is no
God. I don't hold myself open to the possibility of a God because I see
no possibility in the Universe.
As an atheist I see absolutely no reason to believe a god exists. I
You cannot prove non existence so I tend to the view that believing
there is no god is irrational and don't do it but then I think the
whole idea of a god is irrational as well so perhaps it is rational
to be certain their is no god? Dunno, I would rather leave that with
philosophy and stay on the solid ground that is the lack of belief OF
ANY KIND regarding gods.
But what of those that become angry when they say they merely have no
belief in God and that Atheism is only "a lack of belief in the
existence of God or gods"? They call themselves atheists also but some
apparently want no association with those who actually belive there is
no God. Perhaps it is that they would rather not debate deists over the
existance or non-existance of God. However, their reliance on the
definition of atheism, as it is now used, appears to be mistaken?
The key difference is that one is a belief regarding gods the other
isn't. The word 'belief' is key here.
Perhaps they should have another word that they can label themselves.
Yes I agree!
No need. Atheism=without theos/theism is quite appropriate.
I'm not interested in debate. Discussion can be interesting.
Discussion is pretty non-threatening and if any change is done it is
done by the individual him or her self. Generally, such is a slow
process which remains within the persons comfort levels.
Debate generally involves catastrophic change. If I 'kick the walker'
out from under the mental cripple it becomes my responsibility to
support him or her until s/he 'finds their feet.' I'm not willing to
do that.
Trolls and proselytizers get their drivel dismantled. That doesn't
matter as they aren't listening. However, since the abruptness is
aimed at someone else, I see the result read by another as being taken
as reading or listening to a discussion. To me, there's a subtle but
important difference.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 07:11:03 AM |
|
|
old hoodoo wrote:
Freedictionary.com:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
also at the same site:
Noun 1.atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2.atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Websters New World Dictionary:
the belief there is no God.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Datheism&x=3D8&=
y=3D10
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that
there
is no deity
1) atheism. The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English
Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=3Dent=
y&query=3Datheism&db=3Dahd&Submit=3DSearch
...Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The
doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
Cambridge dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3D4607&dict=3DCALD
atheist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
In my opinion, those "atheists" that were jumping my case about
suggesting that Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, want to
recreate the accepted definition of the word. Perhaps this is
because
the the accepted definition of the word has theistic roots. The word
clearly also has dual meaning which is unfortunate.
While I am comfortable with being called an atheist becuase I do not
believe in the existance of any deities, I acknowledge I can't
disprove
the existance of some deity beyond a shadow of a doubt although I
believe it to be so because there is not a shred of evidence I have
ever
seen that points to divine existance. Organized religion seems to
point
to the opposite.
I am not agnostic, I don't think, becuase I actually believe there is
no
God. I don't hold myself open to the possibility of a God because I
see
no possibility in the Universe.
But what of those that become angry when they say they merely have no
belief in God and that Atheism is only "a lack of belief in the
existence of God or gods"? They call themselves atheists also but
some
apparently want no association with those who actually belive there
is
no God. Perhaps it is that they would rather not debate deists over
the
existance or non-existance of God. However, their reliance on the
definition of atheism, as it is now used, appears to be mistaken?
The new definition has been around for years. As for why they get
angry, I'll leave that up to you to decide. They admit that they know
of the old definition. It could be dogma, politics, etc.
Perhaps they should have another word that they can label themselves.
What would it be. Nontheist? I kind of like that. Not
aggressive,
just not a theist, not an atheist.
I think there should be a distinction.
Actually the root words of "a" an "theism" suggest the original
definition should have been without god. However, possibly due to
deist influence, probably Christian, the word has become something
atagonistic to god and has such a negative connotation. However I
don't think that a few atheists are going to convince the majority of
english speaking folks in the world to change the definition.
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder
how
that could be done?
Many words have more than one meaning. You or I could even add a third
I guess..
old hoodoo wrote:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism
is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief
in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a
denial of
God.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a
list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see
above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine
and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it
on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then
they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from
there.
If you want to read a discussion on this check out this topic:
"Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist")"
Its in alt.atheism.
-E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 05:10:42 AM |
|
|
old hoodoo wrote:
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder how
that could be done?
As someone else mentioned, there are weak and strong atheists. You
are a strong atheist, others are weak. I'm a strong atheist also, but
I know that there is always a chance that a god thingy will appear, so
my strong atheism is conditional.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
30 Jan 2005 08:03:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:10:42 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
old hoodoo wrote:
However, perhaps we can get a new word in the dictionary? I wonder how
that could be done?
As someone else mentioned, there are weak and strong atheists. You
are a strong atheist, others are weak. I'm a strong atheist also, but
I know that there is always a chance that a god thingy will appear, so
my strong atheism is conditional.
I don't use the subsectors as they are not communication enhancers.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 07:38:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
That's the Christian definition of atheism and, since Christians don't
get to tell us what we are, it's meaningless.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "old hoodoo" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
Which one is the Christian definition?
By the way, I consider myself an atheist, but
under the definition in the dictionary. I happen to
believe in both meanings given in the sources and quite frankly
I believe that most atheists, who live in a world
surrounded by religious folks who are consistently beating their
bibles actually believe that God does not
exist.
What gives
you the right to tell me what the word means...just
because you don't like the customary meaning and usage?
Our language is democratic. The majority of people decide
what meanings to attach to the words. The majority of
people believe in a deity, ok but the words still have
meanings.
Its kind of ridiculous sticking your head in the sand
and pretending any word means what YOU want it to mean.
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
That's the Christian definition of atheism and, since Christians don't
get to tell us what we are, it's meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
31 Jan 2005 07:42:55 PM |
|
|
Which one is the Christian definition?
No matter what they believe, they must provide evidence for their statements.
Theists do not have the burden of proving that they are theists, neither do
they cease being theists if their statements are not understood. They do have
the burden, like everyone else, of backing up their statements with evidence,
and if the evidence is lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence,
not that those he is addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism. Thus
atheism is really only applicable to a theist, because only one who knows and
believes the claims of theism can tell what a-theism or non-theism is. The
same could be said of agnostics in relation to gnosis. Atheists are really
disaffected gnostics, but because they can't come up with a catchy phrase like
agnosis, ( which is ridiculous ), they've thought up atheism, which sounds like
a belief but really isn't; this describes accurately what they resent about
gnosis. Briefly, they wish to be organized like a religion in order to fight
religion, but lack the vocabulary to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist"
really only describes a particular point of view of theists which indicates
their ignorance of the evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
30 Jan 2005 01:11:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:59:37 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> said in alt.atheism:
Which one is the Christian definition?
Any one having atheists rejecting a god, or any one referring to
"God".
By the way, I consider myself an atheist, but
under the definition in the dictionary. I happen to
believe in both meanings given in the sources and quite frankly
I believe that most atheists, who live in a world
surrounded by religious folks who are consistently beating their
bibles actually believe that God does not
exist.
That's gnostic atheism. Agnostic atheists don't make statements about
things for which we have no evidence - like whether gods exist or not.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 10:41:50 PM |
|
|
old hoodoo wrote:
Which one is the Christian definition?
By the way, I consider myself an atheist, but
under the definition in the dictionary. I happen to
believe in both meanings given in the sources and quite frankly
I believe that most atheists, who live in a world
surrounded by religious folks who are consistently beating their
bibles actually believe that God does not
exist.
What gives
you the right to tell me what the word means...just
because you don't like the customary meaning and usage?
Our language is democratic. The majority of people decide
what meanings to attach to the words. The majority of
people believe in a deity, ok but the words still have
meanings.
Its kind of ridiculous sticking your head in the sand
and pretending any word means what YOU want it to mean.
But, as you say, word usage is democratic. You have no control over
how anybody else uses any particular word, and you are free to use any
word to mean anything you wish. It is only if you do not want to have
to explain what you mean by particular words that it is at all
important to worry about if you are using those words in a common
way. We voluntarily give up inventing new uses for old words as a
compromise in favor of more effective communication.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 11:27:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
Not a .denial' of the existence of a god but an assertion it does not
exists.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they a
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
Whatever makes a person a theist, an atheist is without it.
the prefix 'a' says it all, it means 'NOT' or 'without' whatever
follows thus NOT theist or without theism. Thus whatever a theist
believes concerning supernatural beings an atheist is without that
belief.
Somebody who believes there is no god is clearly not a theist but
is not an atheist either because he is not without belief regarding
gods, he believes they do not exists.
A:)With belief
Theist - one who believes in the existence of god or gods
? - one who believes that gods do not exist
If either of these believers claim knowledge to justify their
belief then they will need to demonstrate that knowledge should
they seek to convince those without such beliefs. Pure belief,
ie belief without any rational claims of knowledge*, needs no
justification
as its irrationality speaks for itself.
B:) Without belief
Atheist one WITHOUT belief in the existence of god or gods
ie no belief OF ANY KIND regarding gods either for or not.
No belief or knowledge to explain!
*such as an invisible totally undetectable god whose concept
must be pure invention declared invisible to justify the belief.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 08:50:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
To the atheists themselves.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
To the theist majority who feel they get to define common usage of a
word outside their expertise, plus too many agnostics and even some
atheists who have fallen for the common usage chestnut.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/cliff015.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
http://www.alt-atheism.org/faqs/onatheism.php
Dan Barker is a former evangelist minister and composer of Christian
musicals, who became an atheist.
This is copied without permission from "Inaccurate conception", one of
his essays published in "Losing Faith in Faith"; any typos are my own:
[begin insert]
I thought I had understood the words atheism and agnosticism until I
embraced them both and discovered they are pregnant with significance.
In conversations with Christians I have found that most words need to
be carefully defined before we can have a meaningful dialog.
People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist
and an agnostic. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you
a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts
and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism describes knowledge in
general; atheism addresses belief in a god specifically.
.....
One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house
between theism and atheism. It cannot be, since it performs in a
different arena and since the question, "Do you have a belief in a
god?" can only be answered with a yes or no. ("Maybe" or "I don't
know" are simply delays. They do not answer the question. A person who
deliberately avoids the issue in this manner should not be called
agnostic, but rather something like indecisive or unprepared. Of
course it is not dishonest to delay answering the question for want of
clarification of terms; but the question, when answered, can only
prompt a yes or no response).
.....
It turns out the word atheism means much less that I had thought
[previously when he was theist]. It is merely the lack of theism. It
is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It betrays
nothing of morality or motives. In my case, becoming an atheist was a
positive move - the removal of the negative baggage of religious
fallacy. But that is rather like having a large debt cancelled. It has
brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Being a
freethinker is potentially quite positive. (See "What is a
freethinker? [another essay in the same book])
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a
difference between believing there is no god and not believing there
is a god - both are atheistic, though common usage has ignored the
latter. (George Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God, examines this
distinction as the difference between "explicit" (or "critical" and
"implicit" atheism.) Atheism is the absence of belief in a god, or
gods, whether that absence is due to a critical rejection of theistic
assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject (as with a baby, or a
non-theistic culture), or to noncommittal agnostic/skeptic principles.
If you have a belief in a god you are a theist, otherwise you are
atheist. Atheist and nontheist are the same word, though of course
they may carry a different stigma in today's society. Smith suggests
the term anti-theist for the small subset of atheists who positively
deny the existence of a god. Of course, most atheists will sometimes
speak of "denying" god, or state that "there is no god" informally; it
may not be unjustifiable to think of a "lack of belief in god" as a
relaxed "belief that there is no god" when repeated attempts to prove
theism continually fail. All of us agree that it is permissable to say
"there is no Santa Claus" even though such a statement can't be
proved. HOWEVER, EVEN THE ATHEISTS WHO "DENY" THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD
(WHICH I SOMETIMES DO IN CASUAL CONVERSATION), WILL HAVE TO BACK OFF
WHEN PRESSED AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHICAL WALL, AND ADMIT THAT A LACK OF
BELIEF IS NOT A BELIEF[my emphasis].
[end insert]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 10:49:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I see a major controversy on this group regarding just what atheism is:
Where?
It appears that some say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a
diety.
Others say atheism is the actual belief that no God exists, a denial of
God.
Apparently there is a major perceived difference as some folks are
getting downright rude about it.
The two definitions above are complementary, not exclusive, so there
should be no controversy there. This is not a matter of opinion, but
of logic. The people here refer to the mere "lack" as "weak", and the
belief in nonexistence as "strong" atheism.
On this thread at least, please don't put your "opinion". I want a list
of scholarly definitions, which may even differ than what you see above.
The two definitions I used above in this group come from books.
Specifically, I believe they are used in Smith's "atheism: the case
against god". He talks about "positive" and "negative" atheism here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
(link through the wiki article posted by Chris Fleming)
See for more:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
A broader discussion of contemporary atheism and what it means is
contained in the Britannica entry, for which you'd have to pay.
Luckily people have posted excerpts here, e.g.:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e6f73b6e1c656321
State your definition(s) and state your sources. Opinions are fine and
can be addressed later after a list is started. Just don't put it on
this thread please, it will just create chaos.
You think you can avoid chaos? This is usenet.
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism. Of course those sources can be
each be judged later, but let's get them out there first so then they
can be debated.
Let's get a solid list of definitions and sources and then go from there.
Well, did that. Now for quoting myself (joy!) (w. slight cosmetics):
--
Good. Here I can make a point, then. I assert that there is no popular
usage in English for the word atheist. Do normal people often drop the
word atheist in their everyday chatter? Do 'atheists' and 'theists'
often feature as character types without a moral load in mainstream
fiction? I say they don't. More than 90% of the usage occurs in the
specialised, politicised discourse of atheists, of religionists and in
the discussions between the two.
The definitions within these groups have differences that are relevant
to the position of the two groups in the debate between them. Any
attempt to claim a popular definition of atheism must therefore be
seen as propaganda for one of the sides. -- DJ Nozem 11/24/2002.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 08:37:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
28 Jan 2005 11:52:38 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ot8kv0l8mrnil2d2k7ftf2d8skvclkp2ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
That allows the possibility that the particular "atheist" misunderstands
the term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
(Analogy: Anorexic people consider themselves to be fat, but that
doesn't mean they are in fact fat, and they don't make good
authorities on fatness.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 08:13:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:52:38 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@optSPAMBLOCKonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ot8kv0l8mrnil2d2k7ftf2d8skvclkp2ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
That allows the possibility that the particular "atheist" misunderstands
the term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
Since most atheists apply it that way, that would be unlikely. Unless
you're suggesting that most atheists don't know what we are.
(Analogy: Anorexic people consider themselves to be fat, but that
doesn't mean they are in fact fat, and they don't make good
authorities on fatness.)
Bad analogy. Fat in comparison to what? Atheism isn't relative.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 10:07:10 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dhrnv0ln7glbvu32ac3hceagkgvn2aat09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:52:38 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@optSPAMBLOCKonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ot8kv0l8mrnil2d2k7ftf2d8skvclkp2ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
Raven1 wrote:
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
ScotMc wrote:
That allows the possibility that the particular "atheist" misunderstands
the term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
Al Klein wrote:
Since most atheists apply it that way, that would be unlikely.
Raven1 didn't mention how the word "atheism" was used. Raven1 only
suggested "How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?"
But the usage of "atheism" wasn't and still isn't my point.
My point is a general point and I'm saying:
Just because you find a person (or a group of people) who says "I am *X*"
doesn't mean that you have found a person who actually understands
what *X* is. The possibility remains that the person misunderstands the
term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
As DJ Nozem points out in his post, the person claiming "I know what *X*
is because I am an *X*" is commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii or
Begging the Question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
31 Jan 2005 07:29:15 PM |
|
|
As DJ Nozem points out in his post, the person claiming "I know what *X*
is because I am an *X*" is commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii or
Begging the Question.
On the other hand, "I know what man is because I am a man" is not fallacious,
because animals have no idea of what man is. Theists, likewise, do not have the
burden of proving that they are theists, neither do they cease being theists if
their statements are not understood. They do have the burden, like everyone
else, of backing up their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is
lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is
addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is really only
applicable to a theist, because only one who knows and believes the claims of
theism can tell what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be said of
agnostics in relation to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics,
but because they can't come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is
ridiculous ), they've thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really
isn't; this describes accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they
wish to be organized like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the
vocabulary to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a
particular point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance of the
evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
29 Jan 2005 10:52:55 PM |
|
|
In article <FOTKd.2638$6d6.1603@fe12.lga>,
"ScotMc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dhrnv0ln7glbvu32ac3hceagkgvn2aat09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:52:38 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@optSPAMBLOCKonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ot8kv0l8mrnil2d2k7ftf2d8skvclkp2ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
Raven1 wrote:
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
ScotMc wrote:
That allows the possibility that the particular "atheist" misunderstands
the term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
Al Klein wrote:
Since most atheists apply it that way, that would be unlikely.
Raven1 didn't mention how the word "atheism" was used. Raven1 only
suggested "How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?"
But the usage of "atheism" wasn't and still isn't my point.
My point is a general point and I'm saying:
Just because you find a person (or a group of people) who says "I am *X*"
doesn't mean that you have found a person who actually understands
what *X* is. The possibility remains that the person misunderstands the
term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
As DJ Nozem points out in his post, the person claiming "I know what *X*
is because I am an *X*" is commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii or
Begging the Question.
But it seems to me that it would beg the question at least as much to
allow those who deny being atheists to define what the word means if
their definition runs counter to the meaning that the majority of those
who claim to be atheists agree on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: definition of "atheist" and sources |
30 Jan 2005 02:09:21 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0A0A43.15525529012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <FOTKd.2638$6d6.1603@fe12.lga>,
"ScotMc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dhrnv0ln7glbvu32ac3hceagkgvn2aat09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:52:38 -0500, "ScotMc"
<scotmc@optSPAMBLOCKonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ot8kv0l8mrnil2d2k7ftf2d8skvclkp2ui@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0600, old hoodoo
<alflags@cox-internet.com> wrote:
I would just like to see if a comparison can be made as to what the
scholarly sources state is atheism.
Raven1 wrote:
How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?
ScotMc wrote:
That allows the possibility that the particular "atheist"
misunderstands
the term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
Al Klein wrote:
Since most atheists apply it that way, that would be unlikely.
Raven1 didn't mention how the word "atheism" was used. Raven1 only
suggested "How about looking at what actual atheists say it is instead?"
But the usage of "atheism" wasn't and still isn't my point.
My point is a general point and I'm saying:
Just because you find a person (or a group of people) who says "I am
*X*"
doesn't mean that you have found a person who actually understands
what *X* is. The possibility remains that the person misunderstands
the
term and incorrectly applies it to himself.
As DJ Nozem points out in his post, the person claiming "I know what *X*
is because I am an *X*" is commiting the fallacy of Petitio Principii or
Begging the Question.
But it seems to me that it would beg the question at least as much to
allow those who deny being atheists to define what the word means if
their definition runs counter to the meaning that the majority of those
who claim to be atheists agree on.
I don't think you have identified an error of "begging the question".
"Begging the question" has to do with circular logic and assuming
the conclusion as being true.
I think the issue you are raising is whether words are defined by the
majority of all people or defined by a minority. More specifically, whether
words are defined by the majority of all people [whether those people
would apply the term to themselves] or defined by a minority [who would
apply the term to themselves].
The issue I have addressed (above) is distinct from that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
