Poll: I know how to use a dictionary.

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Thread: Atheism is a belief.

  1. #581
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    /sigh

  2. #582
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    /sigh
    I think I know where the confusion lies.
    What I meant was that I reject that the concept (that I know of) pertains to reality. Not that I reject the reality of the concept itself..

  3. #583
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Enmos View Post
    I think I know where the confusion lies.
    What I meant was that I reject that the concept (that I know of) pertains to reality. Not that I reject the reality of the concept itself..


    Can you even hear yourself?

  4. #584
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post


    Can you even hear yourself?
    What ?

    Edit:
    I accept the concept of unicorns, but I reject that the concept pertains to reality i.e. I reject that unicorns exist in reality.

    What is the problem ?

  5. #585
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Yeah, you're explaining atheism to me. That is my definition of it. That atheists do not "lack belief" they reject the theistic notion of God.

  6. #586
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Yeah, you're explaining atheism to me. That is my definition of it. That atheists do not "lack belief" they reject the theistic notion of God.
    What is the difference between rejecting that a concept pertains to reality and lack of belief in the 'reality' that concept describes ?

  7. #587
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    The same between denying what a unicorn is and denying there is a unicorn.

    In any case, you deny a concept that is already defined.

  8. #588
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    The same between denying what a unicorn is and denying there is a unicorn.

    In any case, you deny a concept that is already defined.
    I am not denying any concepts.

    I accept the definition of "unicorn", but I reject that unicorns really exist.

  9. #589
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Yeah, for example if I showed you this:



    as proof that unicorns exist, what would you say?

  10. #590
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Yeah, for example if I showed you this:



    as proof that unicorns exist, what would you say?
    Cool ! But that doesn't fit the definition of unicorn.

  11. #591
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Exactly, which means that you cannot lack a belief in an undefined concept. So when you say you lack belief, you are actually rejecting a defined belief.

  12. #592
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    SAM, would you say that your arguments for being a theist carries more weight that my arguments for being an atheist ?

  13. #593
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Exactly, which means that you cannot lack a belief in an undefined concept. So when you say you lack belief, you are actually rejecting a belief.
    Huh ? It IS defined...

    u·ni·corn
    –noun
    1. a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.

  14. #594
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Enmos View Post
    SAM, would you say that your arguments for being a theist carries more weight that my arguments for being an atheist ?
    Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.

  15. #595
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Depends on your reasons for that argument. For example, if I were to come across a house in a desert, I would not consider it a random formation of molecules that spontaneously generated a house like structure. I would recognise that it showed order and logic and followed known rules of building. Similarly, it seems to me that we take for granted that the universe has rules and laws which we accord to spontaneity or randomness. It makes no sense to me to hold that opinion. If it satisfies you, thats the argument for you. It does not satisfy me.
    So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than my arguments for atheism ?

    Let me rephrase: "So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than any argument for atheism ?"

  16. #596
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,556
    I'm off, good night

  17. #597
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Enmos View Post
    So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than my arguments for atheism ?

    Let me rephrase: "So for you your own arguments for theism carry more weight than any argument for atheism ?"
    Well, clearly, otherwise, it would make very little sense to be a theist.

    Good night.

  18. #598
    Registered Senior Member tim840's Avatar
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Tht1Gy! View Post
    Atheists, and their "Our Lady of the Scientific Method", refuse to see their position as one of faith!
    Not one dictionary supports "soft atheism" or whatever it called.

    If I propose a position based on the definition of a word, and every dictionary in which I look the word up gives a definition other than mine, and they are ALL consistent with each other, tell me, is it sane or rational to continue to assert that the dictionaries are wrong?

    I looked in five major dictionaries and two encyclopedias, and they all said basically the same thing: Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

    They (the dictionaries) do not refer to it as simply a 'Lack Of Belief' in god, that's called agnosticism.

    Show me two or three Reference Books that support Soft Atheism or what ever you call it.
    In english.
    This does not include books by "some guy/gal" or wiki waki pidea.

    Just as a point of reference I'm Wiccan/pantheist:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70409
    for more on my point of view. If you care that is.
    Atheism is not a religion: the prefix "a" means "no" and the root "the" means "God" therefore, atheism is the exact opposite of religion, if religion is defined as a belief in God or the supernatural. For this reason, atheism should not be groupped in the "religion" category. As a good friend of mine once said, "If there was an 'elephants' category, you wouldn't include 'not an elephant' in the category, would you?"

  19. #599
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Apparently according to some atheists, theism != religion, since communism is an atheist religion.

  20. #600
    Valued Senior Member Simon Anders's Avatar
    Posts
    3,535
    Quote Originally Posted by tim840 View Post
    Atheism is not a religion: the prefix "a" means "no" and the root "the" means "God" therefore, atheism is the exact opposite of religion, if religion is defined as a belief in God or the supernatural. For this reason, atheism should not be groupped in the "religion" category. As a good friend of mine once said, "If there was an 'elephants' category, you wouldn't include 'not an elephant' in the category, would you?"
    This is a bad example. A religion is a complicated cognitive/emotional process. It is a dynamic, ongoing way of relating to reality. If a person manages to have that kind of cognitive/emotional dynamic while also having in their head 'I do not believe in God' we don't need to pretend the vast majority of that process is NOT continuing to function.

    There used to be a marsupial wolf. We could walk around saying it was 'not a wolf' until we are blue in the face because it was not a mammal or a canid, but as far as how it functioned in the world........
    Last edited by Simon Anders; 07-14-08 at 09:18 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By pjdude1219 in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 09-05-08, 10:51 PM
    Replies: 68
  2. By Hani in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-19-07, 09:34 AM
    Replies: 78
  3. By James R in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 11-02-07, 08:58 PM
    Replies: 35
  4. By Tiassa in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 09-20-07, 07:05 AM
    Replies: 123
  5. By geeser in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 06-03-06, 09:17 AM
    Replies: 63

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •