Meaning, I don't just apply agnosticism in relation to God.
That's definitely the way to be.
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends
-
SixofNine
-
Quillsky
Great respect to both of you guys, Essan and AllTimeJeff. I still maintain that one can debate semantics without discussing whether or not deities actually exist.
-
binadub
Not sure why the absolute definition of this is important, but the prefix a- simply means "without" or absense of. It does not mean "anit-" as being opposed to. It simply means the absense of belief, as might be differentiated from antitheist. It's like amoral means without morals, not necessarily antimoral or against morals. An amoral person might believe differently than what they practice, so they may not necessarily be anti-moral.
~Bin
(not an atheist) -
AllTimeJeff
bindub, if only you had appeared on page 1 of this thread.... :)
-
Essan
Yeah, I agree Jeff,
Any debate about atheism is going to get heated. But I don't think all the blame lies with Theists, by any means. For instance, in this thread, most of the personal 'heat' came from professed Atheists who were enraged at me for challenging their position and they entered automatically into the age-old bitter Atheist Vs Theist battle, imagining I 'must' be their despised foe, despite the fact that I wasn't even a Theist and had never once espoused or defended belief in God. LOL.
I think that's very revealing.
I see Theists and Atheists as considerably more alike than either group would like to believe, and such a response is indicative of this IMO.
For instance, I could draw several direct parallels between the responses of 'Atheists" here and those of JW's when their belief system is challenged.
I could - but I'd probably be cyber-lynched, and flamed at the steak, which in itself, says a lot.
-
Essan
Bin, if the word atheism had an element which signified belief between 'a' and 'theism' - as in: a-(belief)-theism, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
It's a-the-ism, or "No-God-Doctrine" or "Without-God-ism" Not "No belief in God" nor "Without belief in God".
You have to insert this element to create the doctrine you prefer or already believe, much as the Society illegitimately inserted words into the Bible. I'm not saying that it's impossible to interpret "atheism" as you have, after all we know that "Theist" or "God-ists" believe, I'm just saying you can't claim that the word inherently contains a reference to lack of belief. It certainly doesn't.
A-the-ism is basically a very simple negation or denial of God.
-
AllTimeJeff
Allow me to point out and dispute a couple of your conclusions, though not for the sake of unnecessarily prolonging this discussion.
For instance, in this thread, most of the personal 'heat' came from professed Atheists who were enraged at me for challenging their position and they entered automatically into the age-old bitter Atheist Vs Theist battle, imagining I 'must' be their despised foe, despite the fact that I wasn't even a Theist and had never once espoused or defended belief in God. LOL.
Exactly. Don't think it was lost on atheists that you assumed a contrarian position. May I note your apparent glee at being the 'challenger'. Which is fine. To sit behind your keyboard, knowing you were an agnostic, but morphing into a theistic position for the sake of "argument", is not in of itself a virtue.
As an aside, I am somewhat of a deist who sides with atheists on most of these types of discussions. So I do understand to a point where you reside. I get frustrated at atheists too. But I admit that while their attitude does sometimes piss me off, their facts rarely do.
Lastly, when one leaves everything to the imagination, one deserves what various imaginations casts upon them. In this case, you left no one a choice but to imagine you were a theist apologist in this discussion. What you really were, (with all respect) was a camouflaged debater, hell bent on arguing against atheists, just because, you know, they are so hypocritical. (to that I say, whatever, with all respect)
A more honest path would have been to argue that a third possibility exists. (and it does.) Ironically, it is the position you espouse, that agnosticism, the ugly kissing coursing of atheism, is a superior position to atheism, based both on definition and predisposition. A more fair discussion and debate based on your opinions would have resulted in that.
I see Theists and Atheists as considerably more alike than either group would like to believe, and such a response is indicative of this IMO.
If only for the emotion often expressed, yes, I agree. Lets also include in this group then, Red Sox and Yankees fans, Cowboys and Redskins fans, Liverpool vs Manchester United, where emotion is also expressed at astonishingly loud levels.
The virtue of the atheists position is that the arrows they throw actually have facts attached. And a willingness to be honest. If you were to look at the responses to your rebuttals in this discussion, mine included, you would find that no atheist would argue that if god did exist, and evidence were given, that it would be rejected. Theists on the other hand, cannot claim this willingness to be swayed by available evidence. I would hope you would not disagree on this point.
Lastly, it is my experience that cyber lynching occurs for a variety of reasons. I would take no pleasure in barbecuing your contrarianism for its own sake, but alas, I would indeed skewer such a stance with Heinz 57. :)
Contrarianism is tasty and has a lot of fiber, resulting in very satisfying BM's.
-
SixofNine
Quote:
"For instance, in this thread, most of the personal 'heat' came from professed Atheists who were enraged at me for challenging their position and they entered automatically into the age-old bitter Atheist Vs Theist battle, imagining I 'must' be their despised foe, despite the fact that I wasn't even a Theist and had never once espoused or defended belief in God. LOL."
Yeah, not sure why; I didn't read you all that closely but I had sussed out that you were not a believer. OTOH, you don't seem very agnostic wrt the definition of belief. Do you have aspergers btw?
-
SixofNine
what the holy fuck do you think the "ism" ism?
-
Essan
Jeff: "To sit behind your keyboard, knowing you were an agnostic, but morphing into a theistic position for the sake of "argument", is not in of itself a virtue."
That's nonsense Jeff. What on earth makes you think that any challenge of the definition of "Atheism" means " morphing into a theistic position". This just reveals your own prejudiced assumption that any challenge to Atheism as you define is it a "theistic" thing to do. That's as daft as claiming that anyone who criticizes America in any way has morphed into an "Islamic position", just because you may have identified Islam as a supposed primary enemy. It only reveals your own beliefs. Must all who criticize Atheism or it's claimed definitions be Theists? I never "morphed into a theistic position" in any way, because I never defended or espoused God or belief in God. I only criticized the definition of "Atheism".
Jeff "Lastly, when one leaves everything to the imagination, one deserves what various imaginations casts upon them. In this case, you left no one a choice but to imagine you were a theist apologist in this discussion. What you really were, (with all respect) was a camaflouged debater, hell bent on arguing against atheists, just because, you know, they are so hypocritical. (to that I say, whatever, with all respect)"
Sorry Jeff, but that's bollocks. There is no need to "imagine" anything unless one wants to indulge in the ad hominem, as you did. And frankly, I find the idea of you needing to "imagine" me a bit creepy LOL. It's not relevant to the debate. A pure debate sticks to the data and the facts, it doesn't require a life history or a questioning of imagined motives. Your "imaginings" are your own problem and aren't relevant. But, of course, you had a choice to imagine I was other than a theist - unless your imagination simply cannot handle the concept that anyone other than a Theist would ever question Atheism - which again, would only reveal your own narrow assumptions. It says nothing about me.
"A more honest path would have been to argue that a third possibility exists. (and it does.)"
I did. Reread. I referenced agnosticism constantly as a third, more realistic, option. But I'm not obliged to state my personal position and nor is it relevant to the debate. You are essentially arguing that ad hominem be accepted as the valid basis for debate. It's not.
"The virtue of the atheists position is....Theists on the other hand..."
I'm not really interested in the relative merits of the Atheism and Theism. If you want my opinion, theists cause far more trouble in the world. But this isn't a popularity contest. I see Atheism and Theism as suffering from the same basic error, just to differing degrees.