Some atheists have proposed unbeliever but that implies that 1 once believed which doesn't apply to all atheists. Nonbeliever was proposed in this thread & doesn't seem too bad to me. Trouble is that eventually people will try to change the meaning of that & some theists will always claim not believing their way is a belief. I think maybe that was nontheist rather than nonbeliever but the above still stands.
I agree. :bugeye:. "Fair use" should cover it. Dude, my spelling, typing and punctuation are deplorable. That's why I read, preview post, spell check then re-read. So, no slack there. It's just I've heard it all before and all it is, is opinion. I don't think it's correct to use the word 'disbelief'. The word 'accept' might be better. Do I believe Jill? Well, I would believe she had said dream. However I would not change plans because of it. Dreams mostly tell us about ourselves, and are rarely prophetic. Also, this is a highly contrived scenario, up there with the "teapot in space".
Hey Jesse, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The way to handle this is thru the PM function in one's profile. I was going to pm you by way of example but it seems you've deactivated it and have a link to a web site in its place. However when I clicked it, I got an error msg.
Would not -- disbelief in god = existence of god untrue = god does not exist? If one rejects the existence of god, then one accepts the non-existence of god = god doesn't exist. Pls elaborate. I.e. What do you mean?
Well, here's the full entry for 'Atheism', as was requested. In image form becaus copying non-ascii charachters is a bitch. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Source: "atheism" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 16 Sep. 2008 http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014051 Alright, it was a bad example (contrived or not.) Il leave you with the definition for now. -Andrew
First off, thank you. But that only takes me back to my post #1045. It doesn't say anything even close to this "soft atheism" folks go on about. One thing I gotta agree with you tho, I need to go to the library, as I am sure the print version is more in depth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In fact, I'm surprised at the entry's brevity.
Divisions within atheism are fallacious. It's simple, you are either an atheist, or you are not. There is no 'soft' or 'hard' atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. If people want a word for people who actively think there is no God, it should be called 'anti-theist'.
That is absolutely the most retarded and devolved statement I have ever read. It is unequivocally impossible to "not believe" any stance which cannot be proved in a repeatable controlled experiment. That's a fact. Philosophy, and indeed any stance as to whether God exists or not, are pre enacted beliefs. Period. Certainly these beliefs can be systematically enacted after the fact, but that does not make them fact because they are beliefs to begin with. No system of self determined and aligned measurement, wherein a point of reference may be defined, can establish and attribute a potential greater than the basic mind itself prior to a state of conceived belief. In order for ANY atheist to deny the existence of God, or propose the non existence of God, God must therefore exist as a post conceptual belief in the mind of another. For every action, there can ONLY be an equal and opposite reaction when comparing relative sources. The atheist merely believes the opposite of the believer in God. End of story. Without first the belief in a God, no matter how primitive, the atheist has no contention or context whatsoever. The term atheist is in fact meaningless. All else is just proverbial flapping of the gums in that it is mankind's nature to justify his/her beliefs because of their instinctual alignment with said human's survival.
You are incorrect. It is fairly standard philosophical practice to recognize at least two forms of atheism, sometimes called weak and strong, sometimes hard and soft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism If you are no fan of Wikipedia, just google either weak or strong atheism and you will see the usage is rather common. further given that the two forms are in fact distinct it is useful to distinguish them. One is describing a lack and the other is describing a belief.
Sir, it matters not what you express or reference. Only a fool would contend that atheism would exist at all if it were not for those expressing a belief in God to begin with. The very root of human consciousness is the ability to justifiably align existence with an acted upon belief system. This is beyond silly and indeed just one more example of man's (humanity) inability to escape the black hole likened pull of the ego with respect to reasoning. Stop making matters more complex than they really are.
A widely held misconception is still a misconception. You cannot 'not believe' in something weakly or strongly. It is an absence of something, and therefore cannot possess properties! I don't care how the apathetic have allowed the term to become bastardised, it's a nice simple word. Like I said, if a word is needed for those that make the claim god not exists, use 'anti-theist' and leave us atheists alone.
Of course atheism would exist, it's just that you may never have got round to giving it a name! Everybody would be an atheist in your scenario, technically!
Well, someone said there was no such division. They said this in a philosophy forum. They are incorrect. It is both common philosophical usage and also a real life distinction. Some atheists simply lack a belief. Some believe there is no God. The latter is a claim to knowledge. The issue is relevent, given it is a philosophy forum and given the philosophical issues raised by it. Well, when you find such a fool, you can present your arguments to them. I really don't know what you are trying to say above. do you really mean 'consciousness'? I am not sure what 'this' is referring to and the rest of that sentence makes no sense to me at all. I am not. It is in fact correct that there are two types of atheist. I did not create them. This fact is reflected in the philosophical terminology used referring to these positions. If you think I am 'making matter more complex than they really are', you can ignore me, and keep things simple for yourself. In any case I can see absolutely no reason to listen to your order.
You used a lot of word salad to arrive at; Which is just plain wrong. 'a' lack of, 'anti' opposite to. 'atheist' someone who lacks belief. To assert that an atheist is the polar opposite to a theist is absurd! So the Old Testament Theists say that eating shellfish is an abomination, so therefore, according to you, I must love shellfish! ABSURD LITTLE MAN! SILLY LITTLE MAN!
It is not a misconception. We use the word atheist to describe people who simply lack a belief in God and we use it to refer to people who believe there is no God. Some people use it only for one of these, but in general he word is used to describe both positions. And this is irrelevent since that is not the distinction. When did this bastardization take place? As far as I can tell the prefix 'A' means 'without' and has been used for a long time - certainly my lifetime - and it seems to me since its origins, to include both kinds of atheists. Anti-theist would be misleading. It generally means 'opposed' which would not be the case for many atheists who really couldn't give a shit what other people believe. I have friends who are like this.
Well, it seems you also would have a problem with your suggested 'anti-theist'. I know that some of my strong atheist friends - IOW they believe there is no God - think that it is bad to bear false witness as one example amongst many.
I'm not keen on absolutes, and a belief there is no god is an absolute, without evidence, like the pro position, albeit far more rational. But an 'anti-theist' does not hold the opposite views to a believer, just that they believe God does not exist. electrafixtion cast his net too wide with his opposites! This is a religious debate, and the ritual needs separating from the deity.
And when you use it in the latter manner you use the term incorrectly. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, and no more. Generally, the word is used incorrectly. So what. I'm correcting that, as are many other atheists. What 'both kinds'? Atheism is simply the lack of faith in god. There are not two kinds. The diversion happened fairly recently when fundies started accusing atheism of being a belief proposition, and people have fallen for fundie rhetoric. Opposite to, not 'opposed', like the antipodes are not against the podes, for instance, but opposite to. Anti-inflammatories reduce inflammation, they do not demonstrate against it. You have to separate the idea ideas from the people that hold them, something electrafixtion struggles with too it seems.
Atheism is a belief. Period. There is no such thing as an absence in, or of belief, concerning anything. There are two distinct motives. Need Desire Apart from these motives, to which an act can only be attributed, what else is there? We use "belief" to rationally attach ourselves to whatever means or ends the aforementioned motives yield. How can one claim an "absence of belief" in anything or from/of anything? It's not possible.
What else is there you say??? I have no need or desire to believe in the existence or nonexistence of something for which there is no evidence. I don't believe ghosts exist & I don't believe ghosts don't exist. I don't believe there's ESP & I don't believe there's not ESP. I don't believe there are gods & I don't believe there are not gods. I don't believe there's life after death & I don't believe there's not life after death. I can say I DON'T KNOW! Can you??? My BELIEF is that I DON'T KNOW!
