The simple lack of belief in God is not Atheism. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. The use of the term "atheism" to signify those who lack the belief in God is a Faux Pas proliferated throughout the internet. Such use for "atheism" is invalid. An "ism" cannot signify somebody that lacks in a belief in something. For example, everybody would probably lack the belief in a FSM. You cannot categorize them under an "ism". Such use of the term "atheism" to signify a lack of belief in something is and has always been invalid.
and then what would happen is the usual fundaligionist crowd would accuse nontheism of being a beleif system - as well as atheism
Contrary to what you seem to believe, the "ism" suffix does not simply denote positive beliefs about things. It is also a generic suffix for turning states or qualities into nouns. "Heroism" is not a belief in being a hero or the belief that heroes exist, but rather the noun for the state of being heroic. Similarly, atheism is the noun for the state of being without theism. “Atheist” literally simply means “without a belief in gods,” from the Greek word "theos" (god) the suffix "ist" (meaning one who believes, practices, or associates with) and the prefix "a" meaning "without"). Atheism, then, is the state of being without theism. The "a" prefix has a definite meaning of "lacking" or "without". Just like someone who is amoral lacks morals, someone who is apolitical lacks politics, and someone who is asexual lacks a sex, someone who is atheist lacks theism. There are plenty of other prefixes that denote active opposition, like "anti" or "contra," but those aren't the ones that are used to construct the word.
Atheism is from atheos not from theos atheos = to deny the gods, or godless Probably based on goddess Thea. To say atheists lack belief is to imply that they lack a concept of God. And yet, atheists cannot possibly "lack" belief without acknowledging a concept that they reject. To assume otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Thats okay, I believe all atheists are highly confused. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, in its earliest usage it simply meant "godless". There was no connotation of "denying". That connotation was added later, which only seems to prove that theists have been playing this same stupid game of trying to convince themselves that there is no difference between not being convinced that a god exists and believing that a god definitely does not exist for a very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology The Oxford English Dictionary agrees that it can either mean "to deny god" or can simply mean "godless" or "without god". One can acknowledge that a concept exists but still lack a belief in it.
Eh, nothing compares to a man who lacks belief. It makes no sense otherwise. Do atheists "lack belief" in all known and unknown concepts of any God, past present and future? Note that belief requires no evidence.
But if you do not believe in God, your reality is imminently different from that of all those who do. And if you are an empiricist, it would mean you lack all beliefs. Which is impossible. So your reality is flawed and your failure to recognise that godlessness does not exist without the theists, is logically flawed as well.
Only if you can convince yourself that there is no difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief, which you have obviously managed to do. Yes.
Not it isn't. What if you believe I am an atheist, but I'm really not because I've been fooling you all this time ? What is the reality then ?
Huh ? Are you serious ? lol So if no one in the entire world ever had any hair, no one would be bald ? :bugeye:
You cannot lack belief of a concept. Once there is a concept, you can affirm or deny it or have no position either way, but you cannot pretend the concept does not exist. Exactly. :shrug:
That is not an answer. You know the answer is that I am not an atheist. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe I am..
