my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
Leolaia, I agree that "philosophical positions on the question of God do not yield a simpistic binary of theism... and... atheism".
That is why Agnosticism exists as a third option. Atheism doesn't need to be redefined because Agnosticism already exists.
my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
Nic, I agree, Atheism is 'common sense'.
Theism - lack of 'common sense'.
Atheism - 'common sense'.
Agnosticism - 'uncommon sense'.
Granite, Garnet, Diamond.
Astrology, Classical Physics, Quantum Physics.
:)
(I'm being playful here but I'm not sure how well it will be received in this atmosphere).
my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
Seeing as we were talking definitions, here are a couple more which demonstrate the hierarchy of meaning historically and presently.
"Atheism (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" - The Dictionary of Philosophy.
"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, [note this defines 'disbelief' as definite denial, not 'lack of belief'. Essan.] whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology." - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
There is no doubt that the secondary meaning is being promoted by a vocal community of Atheists (even here) as they attempt to redefine Atheism and wipe out the original and common primary definition.
Why?
my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
Zid said: "Asking why you are behaving in this manner is not an insult, you MAROON ..."
LOL Zid, while I don't know what a "maroon is" I gather by the context of your recent posts that it's another insult. You need to calm down and quit the personal attacks. You weren't "asking" anything, you were having a meltdown because someone disagrees with your position. In fact, the post I was responding to wasn't even addressed to me so you could hardly have been asking me a question - it was just you bitching about me rudely to someone else.
Zid said: "Essan to AllTimeJeff:
"Stop trying to analyze me. Firstly, you're not very good at it, probably because you have no real data on which to base sound judgmentsand secondly, it's totally irrelevant to the topic..."
Arrogant and condescending, much?? Besides, WHY would you be so sensitive about being "analyzed"??? That sounds like you've got something to hide... A hidden agenda, perhaps???
Zid, I said that to Jeff with understandable frustration after about the third off topic post of his aimed at discussing ME and casting aspersions on my motives rather than addressing the topic, a tactic you have also adopted. It was a response to a lengthy lecture at me by Jeff in which he proclaimed - wrongly - that I was a Theist, because he assumed that anyone critical of atheism must be a theist. So I think I'm absolutely justified in responding that Jeff's attempts to analyze me were wrong, irrelevant and off topic, as are yours, and in asking that he get back to the topic.
Zid said: "Problem is, DUUUDE, you kept denying the FACTS of the accepted definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" - and anyone who doubts that, can go back thru and count the number of posters and times we attempted to get you to accept the definitions as stated in numerous dictionaries..."
OK, well this claim is on topic and can be dealt with factually. Great. Please do go back through the thread to count the references to dictionary definitions and who provides them. In fact, that's my challenge to you Zid, to back up your claim. As I recall, I was referencing and quoting dictionary definitions before other posters, in the first few pages and long before you did on page seven. So I don't think you have a case here.
And I did address dictionary definitions provided. You make it sound as if the dictionary definitions actually weaken my case and strengthen yours. They absolutely don't! In almost all dictionary definitions the PRIMARY meaning of 'Atheism' is the 'DENIAL of the existence of God' and the secondary meaning is "lack of belief in God". So your 'facts' are pretty weak. I already addressed this pages back, acknowledging that common (mis)usage is steadily adulterating the original and still PRIMARY meaning of atheism, as some "atheists" try to redefine "atheism" to suit their agendas, and this was reflected in dictionaries which acknowledge new trends in language as well as recording the original and primary meanings of words. This secondary meaning is being falsely touted by some "atheists" as the primary, and often, ONLY meaning of "atheist" today, which is complete self-serving fraud.
Also, let's look at those "facts" and definitions you and Zoiks provided that you imply disprove my interpretation of atheist and which you claim I later "denied" and "co-opted" (despite the fact that I provided definitions and discussed them long before you did).
Zoiks quoted Wikipedia's reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none". And his quote ends there. But at Wikipedia the quote continues: "Most dictionaries first list one of the more narrow definitions."
I wonder which? In fact this is one of the relatively few dictionaries that list 'lack of belief' first. Generally the primary meaning given is the one that was given in the very definition you provided and which you bizarrely claim I denied because it proved your point. Let's see how honestly you deal with the evidence `(I've underlined to highlight):
Zid said: "On the definition of "atheist" or "atheism", my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1973, states: "atheist - one who denies the existence of God".
Wow. OK, so the first definition you provide as evidence completely destroys your point! Atheists DENY the EXISTENCE of God. This is what I have been saying all along. You continue:
"OK, so Under "atheism", it states: " [MF athéisme, fr athée atheist, Gk atheos godless, fr a- + theos god] 1 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity... b: the doctrine that there is no deity... "
Congratulations, you have one of the minority of dictionaries which inaccurately lists your preferred definition first, and the original and etymologically correct definition second. But let's see how you deal with this definition. You continue:
"So, what part of "a person who... dis-believes the existence of a supreme being or beings... " do you NOT get??? "DIS - belief..." NOT belief..."
What don't I get? Maybe the part where you breeze past and ignore the fact that your own dictionary lists "Atheism" as " the doctrine that there is no deity" and list "Atheist" as " one who denies the existence of God"!
And you claim I've ignored facts???
The etymology, the original usage and the historical common usage and present primary usage and definition of 'Atheist' and "Atheism" all support the argument I am presenting. As I said much earlier in the thread, I KNOW that increasing numbers of professed "Atheists" chose to define the word differently or even fraudulently claim that the recent secondary meaning arising through common (mis)usage is the ONLY real meaning of "Atheist". I just don't agree that this trend reflects accuracy or honesty.
You continue:
"But I will give you this - you sure sounded like a die-hard Jehovah's Witness... Denying any and all facts that didn't fit YOUR special little mind-set...I used to read your posts with pleasure... But in this thread you've...."
I've disagreed with you and debated your philosophy, that's what "I've". And you clearly can't stand it. Chill out. I didn't attack you personally so why are you and others doing do and trying to make me the focus? You and others have fallen back almost totally on Ad Hominen and false accusations, such as those above, which don't stand up when examined. I must admit I've been shocked at the degree to which some "Atheists" have reacted exactly like Theists when their philosophy was questioned. Not all, but some.
Speaking of which...
Jeff, you said:
"Essan, it is my opinion that you are a poor debater..."
Thanks for that Jeff. You the launch into yet another epic epistle aimed totally at me and totally off topic. You are running on Pure Ad Hominem. And then you criticize me for not being a good debator? The debate is about "atheism" as a belief, non-belief or anti-belief. It's not about me. So how can your long, totally off-topic and irrelevant critiques of me and your 'firehosing' of aspersions about my supposed "motives" etc be "Good debate". You're derailing the debate.
I'm not the topic. Address the thread topic and the data and stop getting personal.
So, Atheism. What that all about then?
i've been away for some time checking in on a few occasions.
i settled in tonight, decided to log in and see what's new and bam!
right on the top of the page is an advertisement for e-watchman.
E-Watchman is dangerous in that he hijacks the "awakening" of JW's and leads them into a lifeless limbo where they are no longer JW's and are isolated from their 'brothers and sisters' but are also isolated from everything and everyone else. It's like someone is about to leave the prison of the Watchtower, are at the front gates, but E-Watchman pops up from a trap door and says "Shh, quick, down here, into the Watchtower cellars, we're all hiding in here, all us 'true' JW's. We're hiding from the regular JW's because they're sinful and we're hiding from the entire world because it's sinful. Come and be my follower in this dank empty WT cellar and we'll wait for Jehovah together! Because he's coming very, very, soon."
It's sick.
E-Watchman is just a small-time 'Rutherford', recreating JWism according to his own egotistical fantasies and luring in the unwary.
there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
LOL. Not sure I will. Let's see if I have the self-control. :)
after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
Bump so Djeggnog gets a chance to see and comment on the evidence that Russell did explicitly predict many things for 1914, something he claims did not occur.
Here is just one example:
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php
there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
PS, I promise not to post as much or at length from now on. Otherwise Six will tell me off. :)
Anyway, I get the impression that few minds are going to be changed here.
there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
Bohm,
Why I asked you those three questions about the OP was that your redefinition of Atheism, ironically, excludes traditional atheists completely and tries to pretend they don't exist and never have. But there have always been many "Atheists" who denied outright the existence of God. This is still the primary definition in most dictionaries and was the original meaning. Their position contradicts yours. You're trying to wipe all that from history. You're pretending this history and a key section of the "Atheist"community doesn't exist. You act as if you speak for all atheists when in fact you are only representing a certain type of "atheist", and you act as if there is only one kind of "atheism" - your atheism - when that simply isn't true. I don't actually consider the "atheism" you present in the OP to even be valid "atheism" at all. You can't complain about misrepresenting Atheists when you yourself try to wipe out other atheists definitions of themselves with your own - especially when your version of atheism is the 'sect' and not the original.
"Atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
"Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
- someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)"
Note the primary meaning. It's the one you deny completely.
Your next claim is that the word "believe" should be specially interpreted. This is bogus for several reasons. Firstly, you contradict yourself. You say: "The dictionary lists "belief" as synonymous with "faith", and it does seem that Essan's main complaint is that atheism in, effect, becomes a faith in no God".
Correct. I f the dictionary says that "belief" is synonymous with "faith" and Atheists say "I believe there is no God", then according to myself and the dictionary , Atheists are employing "faith" - but you then immediately say: "That is a complete misuse of the english language." No it's not. You've just proved it's perfectly accurate.
Actually we don't need to analyze the word "belief" to understand that it means exactly what it usually means because Atheism primarily means to "deny the existence of god/s", as the quoted definitions above show. "Believe" needs to be understood in that context - Denial. To "deny" is clearly to take a definite stand. Denial of God clearly indicates a definite belief that God does not exist, not mere musings on the supposed scientific improbability.
Your claim that the word "belief" is part of some special "scientific" vocabulary employed by "Atheists" is pure fantasy. You haven't proven that the word Atheism arose in a scientific context, you just appealed to some fabricated "archetype" of a "Scientist-Atheist". That was not and is not it's context so there is no reason why "belief" should be specially interpreted for Atheists and rendered immune from the same significance that many Atheists insist it has when others use it. Further, this theory is directly contradicted by the definition of "Atheist" itself, which indicates outright denial.
You're basically trying to argue that the word "belief" doesn't mean belief and that "Atheists" should be able to say "I believe there is no God" without being held responsible for actually holding a belief, which is obviously, rather silly.
You seem to want everyones cake and to it it too.
there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
I agree with what Burntheships said:
"The only thing pure reason alone can deliver is agnosticism.
Hard atheism, like theism, requires an element of belief.
That is how it seems to me.
BTS"
But I'd add that as "pure reason delivers agnosticism", therefore any degree of theism or atheism necessarily requires 'impure', flawed reason. The degree of error, and belief, just increases as one moves from soft to hard atheism/theism.
The only time this isn't the case is when the professed 'atheist' isn't actually an atheist at all (which is common) but is an agnostic who either doesn't understand the definition of the label or who simply enjoys attacking theism - despite personally having no belief either way - and the Atheists seem like the 'gang' to join to do that.
