Atheism is a belief.

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 05:41 PM

/sigh

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

/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..

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Enmos

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?

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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 ?

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 05:51 PM

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.

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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 ?

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 05:54 PM

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.

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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.

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 05:59 PM

Yeah, for example if I showed you this:

as proof that unicorns exist, what would you say?

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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.

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 06:02 PM

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.

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 06:02 PM

SAM, would you say that your arguments for being a theist carries more weight that my arguments for being an atheist ?

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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.

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Enmos

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.

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by S.A.M.

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 ?"

**Enmos** · 07-14-08, 06:17 PM

I'm off, good night

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Enmos

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.

**tim840** · 07-14-08, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tht1Gy!

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?"

**S.A.M.** · 07-14-08, 07:01 PM

Apparently according to some atheists, theism != religion, since communism is an atheist religion.

**Simon Anders** · 07-14-08, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by tim840

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........