Essan

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 624 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Essan

• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Nic said: Well I reject the definition of 'atheist' as someone who definitely 'believes' that there is no god and, more to the point, so do almost all atheists!

  Then why not select the right label to identify yourself with, or create a new one if a suitable one does not already exist? Why try to change the meaning of an already well established label but which doesn't suit you? If you have no belief either way, why not call yourself "agnostic"? Why create a scenario in which you have real atheists who say "God does not exist" alongside faux atheists, essentially 'stealing' their label, saying "Well, I don't know for sure"?

  These are two quite different viewpoints aren't they? Why have them quashed up together cheek by jowel under a label which doesn't describe them both.

  It's almost like some have an emotional attachment to the label "atheist" and don't want to give it up even though they clearly don't fit the definition of an "atheist".
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Terry, I'm defending the original meaning and primary definition of "Atheist". I'm not imposing "other" definitions, you are.

  "Atheist

  1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."'

  Atheists themselves can't agree on a definition because they have all been so busy redefining it any which way they please that it has become virtually meaningless and ridiculously broad (even including all new born babies, according to you) so that there is no consensus anymore, so it is impossible to "agree on a definition" beforehand. Actually, I already posted the definitions I was working from pages ago, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the entire thread.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Do babies "deny God/s" Terry?

  Do you?
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Yes Zid, atheism is a word, words have definitions and the primary and original definition is "the belief that God doesn't exist". You don't need to "pull anything out" because there's no contradiction.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Nic said: Is it really so difficult to understand?

  It's incredibly easy to understand. just not to accept, because it isn't true. It's a radical redefinition of 'atheist" and an attempt to rewrite the history of a philosophy.

  Nic said: Jesus wept! Who do you creationist morons think you are telling me I have 'faith' and 'belief'?!

  Why do you assume I'm a creationist?
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Yep, you did just stray into ad hominem Zid.

  I'm not the issue and your guesses and insinuations (way, waaaay off, BTW) about my supposed motives have no bearing on the argument or the issues we're discussing. Stick to debating the issues and not the man.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Zid said: "Essan, you are painting all Atheists with the same broad brush-stroke. You are looking at everything as though it were "black-and-white"

  No, I'm not. I just tried to explain that but perhaps I wasn't clear.

  "Atheism" is a word. Words have definitions. They were created for very specific purposes. The definition of Atheism was and is "black and white". Therefore if everyone who chose the label atheist did so because they actually fit the established definition then atheists would indeed be "painted with the same brush stroke". It's only because people have adopted the label illegitimately that it's not "black and white".

  I'm addressing the definition, not the countless people who have wrongly called themselves atheists and the countless misinterpretations of the label.

  The definition is "black and white". People aren't. I'm interested in the facts regarding the true definition.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  CyberJesus it's not arrogance it's just a fact.

  There are only two elements to the word, a negation and God. No God. People have to insert "belief" to make atheist mean "No belief in God".

  A- the-ism - the philosophy of God negation. No-God-ism.

  This was it's original meaning and is still it's primary meaning. I know some people want to use it differently and get upset that I consider such redefinition illegitimate but.... so what? LOL
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  It's not a faith that he doesn't exist...it's the obvservation, or lack thereof actually, of the non-evidence of his existence.

  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You're using a logical fallacy. Argument from Ignorance.

  It is faith to conclude that God does not exist, which is why Agnostics refrain from making that judgement.

  Theists do have basis for their belief, it just isn't conclusive. They bridge the gap with faith.

  Atheists do have basis for their belief, it just is not conclusive. They bridge the gap with faith.

  Agnostics accept that the basis for both beliefs is inconclusive. So they withhold judgement.

  A negative claim must also meet the burden of proof. Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist any more than Theists can prove he does. Therefore for the claim to be accepted it requires............ faith.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Hi Zoiks.

  As I've said already in this thread, I'm aware that the original definition of 'atheist' has become adulterated and that some atheists are intentionally trying to redefine the meaning of the word to suit their own agenda. I'm also aware that this attempt is having some success, although the original definition - which Terry dismissively calls a "misidentification" - is still the primary meaning. But I just don't feel this process of blurring meaning and redefinition is legitimate or helpful.

  You said:

  "I find it interesting that you also characterize atheists as not only taking "a stance against the concept of god", but "against those who believe in god" as well. You seem very keen on defining atheism as not only a belief but perhaps as a behavior as well. Maybe I have misread you, but that statement sounds fairly defensive in nature."

  This is where confusion can arise because of this blurring of labels. When I refer to the attitude and actions of "atheists" I'm referring to the original and primary - the real, IMO - definition, I'm not referring to people who call themselves atheists, most of whom aren't actually atheists anyway, while the rest appear to be defining it any way the choose.

  The label determines the belief because it was and is clearly defined. The 'ism' determines the philosophy. So when I describe what "atheists" do, I am usually referring to that label. I can't help it if people wrongly adopt the label and don't hold the belief which is inherent in the label or that they get irritated when I point out what the label actually means. Do you see what I'm saying?

  Atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of God/s and stance taken against Theism (and hence, Theists). It's reactionary. If people call themselves "atheists" and yet do not hold the positions I just described, then they are not actually atheists, and so my comments don't apply to them. They would know this if they actually knew what "atheist" meant. But it appears that "atheism" now has an many definitions as claimants to the label. It's ridiculous.

  And yes, you do misread me, and are in danger of straying into ad hominem :)

  (That last line sounds abrupt. It wasn't intended that way. Lol)