"Making babies" just seemed more polite than "F*#^ing" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
:wallbang: LOOK IT UP!!! In a dictionary. A reference book, not a treatise written by 'whoever'. Check my OP. And wiki-waki doesn't count. And the 'A' means 'without'.:bugeye: This is from my computer: atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm| noun the theory or belief that God does not exist. from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’ Version 1.0.2 (1.0.2) Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Emphasis mine
I read the OP. I read this thread. I read your ridiculous assertions. 1st, the word theist, coming from the Greek theos, means someone who believes in a god or gods. Adding the A to theist means without a belief in a god or gods. Or not a theist.
All the dictionaries say in one fashion or another: Atheism is the belief that god does not exist. Also one thing that comes up over and over is the reference to Santa or some other mythical entity which I never claimed. NOT one other person has shown a dictionary citation of so called "soft atheism". Or whatever it's called. Oh wait there was one claim..., but no citation. Not One. I believe in my OP I do reference one, listed under definition #3.
Many people lack any belief in a deity. They do not believe in a deity from a different perspective, nor do they believe in any particular kind of absence of deity, a deity-shaped hole in the universe, with its own properties. They simply have no belief in a deity. It takes no effort to maintain this state, for many of these people. There is no necessary struggle with doubt, or challenges to faith, or any of that, for them. Deities have always seemed like goofy notions, and like the latest shoe fashions continue to seem so regardless of popularity. For others, who wish they could believe in the deity of their culture or neighborhood, there is a struggle - but belief is not as easy to come by as some seem to think. Especially for these latter, the notion that their inability to believe what they really want to believe is some kind of "belief from a different perspective" seems like a joke with a hint of cruelty.
You repeat the same thing over & over that doesn't change facts. I've clearly shown it & you don't want to accept it. Why do people insist on trying to make complicated things simple & simple things complicated???
I'm not with you on that one. I lack a watch. Up until this moment I have clearly lacked a belief that Samual Guber (whom I do not know) wears women's underwear. I continue to lack a belief either way on this issue. One can certainly lack specific beliefs just as one can lack specific items or types of items. I would think that some atheists fit the bill of merely lacking a belief in God. I am not sure if any of the atheists here fit that catergory, however.
I'll keep that in mind. Perhaps we could enter into a philosophical discussion as to what *does* constitute a post. In the short time I've been here I've witnessed replies that were nothing more than profane insults, personal attacks, non-relevant interjected humor, grandstanding etc.... I could go on. Personally, I thought the purpose of having a community was to get to know people in order that we may better understand where they're coming from. My mistake - sorry. Jesse.
Maby not one good dictionary has conformed to your view, but: Source: "atheism" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 16 Sep. 2008 http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014051 Source: "disbelieve, v" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 16 Sep. 2008 http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50065038 Thus the term athiesm is valid for anyone who simply does not believe in god, and is not exclusivly reserved for those who believe that there is no god. End of discussion. -Andrew
Not sure what you mean here, as "my view" was formed by several good dictionaries. In fact, the way I came to it was: one day in a bookstore that had a sitting room and folks would hang out and shoot the breeze, I made a comment defending, more or less, the objectivity of the atheist perspective, even though I am not an atheist. Someone made the comment "Well atheism is as much a position of faith as theism" (maybe he said 'belief', it was about 20 years ago) I looked at him and said "Oh really!?!" He said "Go look it up." So I did, as the owner (who has high scholarly standards, speaks 5 or 6 languages and reads even more, yadda, yadda) had an excellent dictionary available for patrons to use. And, lo and behold "... the belief that God does not exist..." "Well damn, I had no idea. It seems you're right." He smirked, "I told you." Well over the course of the next twenty years every so often I'd look it up in yet another dictionary and there it would be "... the belief that God does not exist..." I would welcome the information from the OED. In fact I have asked posters on more than one occasion if they would please post the definition (verbatim, in its entirety please) from the OED, as it is the gold standard. Not one has. Including you. You, on the other hand, have posted a link to the "Please buy a subscription" page for the OED. Tell me, do you get a cut? And by the way, while you make a half-assed attempt to cite the OED, my spell check found three spelling errors in your post. Normally I wouldn't point out such things, as they are rather trivial, and my spelling, sans spell check, is quite poor. But if you're going to break out an OED reference, ya gotta expect it. *mabe, *athiesm, and *exclusivly. And we're supposed to trust your word savvy and commitment to accuracy? :bugeye: Oh, and I'm sure you'll find some punctuation errors in my post, in case you decide to look. Someone will, I'm sure. What with me picking at your spelling and all. I gotta expect it. Blah, blah, blah.
This looks to me like it's saying - Atheism=No God. cf. abbreviation compare with (used to refer a reader to another written work or another part of the same written work). ORIGIN from Latin confer ‘compare.’ Dictionary Version 1.0.2 (1.0.2) Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc.
I merely implied that I hold the OED to be the final word on any definition. I currently enjoy free access because of the university I attend. I realise the Oxford dictionary is not public domain, and that said link will require a subscription to view. I did not expect it to be usefull to you specificaly. It is however still appropriate to include the link in the citation. Needing to purchase rights to view the link is no different than needing to purchase an article/journal/book to read it; the fact is that allot of the best resources are not in the public domain. If you wish to check my sources, I would sudgest looking for a copy of the 2nd edition in a local library. Being able to use a dictionary does not preclude one making typographical errors, unfortunatly. You can do what you want with your trust; but I the arguments I offered were based upon the linguistic skills of Oxford's finest, not my own, so that's really a red herring. Five or six paragraphs commenting on my citation and typographics; and 1 line of onomonopoea as a rebuttal to my argument? Then I disagree with your analysis. I think it is quite clear that to disbelieve is to NOT Believe, which is to not accept a given proposition (in this case that; "god exists"); which is quite different than accepting the negative of the proposition. For example: let's say a good friend of yours (Bob) is flying in today, and you agreed to pick them up at the airport, even though you dislike waiting there. He said the plane would arrive sometime between 5:00 and 6:00. Now, you want to meet him as soon as Bob arrives, and not leave him waiting, more than you dislike waiting yourself (I don't care if your not like this in real life, but bear with me.) Now, another friend of yours (Jill) tells you that she knows that Bob will arrive at between 5:15 and 5:30... because of a dream she had. Do you believe Jill? If yes, then you would arrive at 5:15 and wait for him to arrive (because you don't want to wait arround for the 15 minuts before hand.) If you disbelieve Jill, would you leave at 5:15 and come back at 5:30, to avoid waiting at the airport for those 15 minuts? By my interpretation of disbelief: By disbelieving in Jill you would merely reject that "Bob will certainly arrive between 5:15 and 5:30", but you will not accept that "he will not arrive between 5:15 and 5:30." Thus, by disbelieving Jill, you come to the airport at 5:00, but don't leave at 5:15. Do you agree with my interpretation? -Andrew
Merriam-Webster Online says disbelief is rejection of something as untrue. If Tht1Gy finds many examples of this, he will reach the wrong conclusion.
