Is God real post your thoughts!

[Zierro]

Please don't make up what I believe and what I don't. If you would have asked me I would have told you.

 

 

 

I did not meant to come off as that personal. Sorry if I'm making too many generalizations for you, but I think it's clear that I'm arguing against atheism as a whole - not really at you personally.

 

 

 

When it comes to the supernatural, I'm skeptical because there's no evidence for it and it's too easy a cop-out. I don't believe that supernatural things don't exist because I can't possibly know that. As for natural explanations, there is plenty of evidence for those so generally speaking there will be no faith (let's take these on a case by case basis, though). Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation. I'm inclined to believe that any given phenomenon will have a natural exlanation because of the precedent set by science. I wouldn't call this faith any more than the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith. That's a good word to use, actually.. expectation. If there is something unexplained or unknown I would expect there to be a natural explanation to it. Any rational thinker should.

 

 

 

But you think of the naturalistic answer as the final answer because you 1. Accept something when there is a scientific explanation based on observational proof and 2. Consider something unanswered when the only available explanation is supernatural. That's not skeptical if you ask me - that's being geared towards seeking an answer which is not supernatural.

 

 

 

And what do you mean by it's a cop-out, because I can say the same thing about naturalistic explanations. Any rational thinker should acknowledge the limitations to the human mind - we can't possibly be able to explain everything.

 

 

 

So no, not everyone has faith. I don't.

 

 

 

You're telling me that you think you know everything though. Surely you've believed something and were wrong about it - everyone has done that. If the weather channel tells you it will rain so you bring your umbrella but yet it doesn't rain then you were using faith. You didn't have evidence that it would rain - you had what you thought was evidence.

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you possibly prove that to me without saying, "because it did yesterday". I had chicken for dinner today. Does that suggest that I will have chicken tomorrow?

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that theists think that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are the same thing?

 

 

 

As we've established that theists are the ones who say atheists have faith as well, yes naturally.

 

 

 

Atheists are the ones who've made the word "faith" into a taboo. That's why they use it as an argument against theism and try to avoid it being used against themselves, as if it's a bad thing or something.

[warri0r45]

Please don't make up what I believe and what I don't. If you would have asked me I would have told you.

 

 

 

I did not meant to come off as that personal. Sorry if I'm making too many generalizations for you, but I think it's clear that I'm arguing against atheism as a whole - not really at you personally.

 

 

 

You made your presumptions clear when you said things like this:

 

 

 

I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven.

 

 

 

Next time dont use the word you in front of something like believe x, y, x.

 

 

 

When it comes to the supernatural, I'm skeptical because there's no evidence for it and it's too easy a cop-out. I don't believe that supernatural things don't exist because I can't possibly know that. As for natural explanations, there is plenty of evidence for those so generally speaking there will be no faith (let's take these on a case by case basis, though). Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation. I'm inclined to believe that any given phenomenon will have a natural exlanation because of the precedent set by science. I wouldn't call this faith any more than the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith. That's a good word to use, actually.. expectation. If there is something unexplained or unknown I would expect there to be a natural explanation to it. Any rational thinker should.

 

 

 

But you think of the naturalistic answer as the final answer because you 1. Accept something when there is a scientific explanation based on observational proof and 2. Consider something unanswered when the only available explanation is supernatural. That's not skeptical if you ask me - that's being geared towards seeking an answer which is not supernatural.

 

 

 

And what do you mean by it's a cop-out, because I can say the same thing about naturalistic explanations. Any rational thinker should acknowledge the limitations to the human mind - we can't possibly be able to explain everything.

 

 

 

I mean a cop-out in that you can make up any supernatural explanation you like and you cant possibly test it or find any evidence to support it. You cant say the same thing about natural explanations because they (especially so in the scientific community) demand evidence to have any weight whatsoever. I never said we can explain everything, though. Of course thats beyond the abilities of the human mind, hence why I recognise uncertainty to any explanation (again, it depends on the case).

 

 

 

So no, not everyone has faith. I don't.

 

 

 

You're telling me that you think you know everything though. Surely you've believed something and were wrong about it - everyone has done that. If the weather channel tells you it will rain so you bring your umbrella but yet it doesn't rain then you were using faith. You didn't have evidence that it would rain - you had what you thought was evidence.

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you possibly prove that to me without saying, "because it did yesterday". I had chicken for dinner today. Does that suggest that I will have chicken tomorrow?

 

 

 

Ill have to chalk this up as one of the most ridiculous things Ive ever seen posted on these forums. I never said I think I know everything. How the hell can you come up with this after everything I just said?

 

 

 

Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation.

 

 

 

Ring any bells?

 

 

 

I just love how youre desperately trying to make me out to be just like you and other people of faith, and with weather forecasts no less. If you must know the answer, yes, I believe that the weather forecasts will be accurate most of the time, but I dont believe they will be all of the time. Again, there is a level of uncertainty to the art of weather prediction so I take that into account. There is no faith here to speak of I know through experience that a certain percentage of the time meteorologists will relay accurate information to news organizations.

 

 

 

Im not even going to bother with the chicken analogy because its absolutely unbelievable. How on earth you can stretch the imagination to equate whether you have chicken for dinner and whether the sun will rise tomorrow is amazing. But to answer what evidence I have for the sun rising tomorrow without saying that it always has, well the rotation of the earth ought to do it. Not that you should need any more evidence than an incredibly well established and repeatedly observed cyclical pattern. There is virtually no uncertainty to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that theists think that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are the same thing?

 

 

 

As we've established that theists are the ones who say atheists have faith as well, yes naturally.

 

 

 

Ahh, now we get to the actual crux of the argument. The two quoted statements are obviously different. I might say that I believe Australia will win 40 gold medals at London 2012. To this you could respond I believe that Aus will not win 40 gold medals. Both are beliefs with a certain level of uncertainty to them. But if you were to respond I dont believe you, thats not a belief. Thats the absence of belief and shows skepticism of my claim. Thats exactly what atheism is, in its broadest sense and most basic definition. This isnt a position of faith; its only through an absence of faith that someone will arrive at this position.

[Zierro]

You made your presumptions clear when you said things like this:

 

 

 

I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven.

 

 

 

Next time dont use the word you in front of something like believe x, y, x.

 

 

 

Did you even read what you quoted? Like I just said, this is obviously not meant to be a personal debate - so if things don't apply to you, take them with a grain of salt - don't cry about it, as it's not really as big of a deal as you make it. Stop having faith that I am out to get you. ;) I only said I take you as a skeptic, I never said that you definitely were one.

 

 

 

By the way, that's a pretty bad example to use because it seems to be implying to me that you do not believe that supernatural events never occur - meaning you do believe in them. In that case, you're not a very consistent atheist.

 

 

 

I mean a cop-out in that you can make up any supernatural explanation you like and you cant possibly test it or find any evidence to support it. You cant say the same thing about natural explanations because they (especially so in the scientific community) demand evidence to have any weight whatsoever. I never said we can explain everything, though. Of course thats beyond the abilities of the human mind, hence why I recognise uncertainty to any explanation (again, it depends on the case).

 

 

 

You're confusing seeking supernatural explanations on purpose with the belief that they are possible at all. I prefer naturalistic explanations, but I can acknowledge the existence of things that don't have naturalistic explanations such as the mysteries of life. Like you said we have our limits, so obviously there are going to be things that are impossible to explain.

 

 

 

Ill have to chalk this up as one of the most ridiculous things Ive ever seen posted on these forums. I never said I think I know everything. How the hell can you come up with this after everything I just said?

 

 

 

I can say the same thing about you claiming that you don't have any faith. :lol: But I thought this wasn't supposed to be a personal argument...

 

 

 

Anyways, if you make assumptions then you have faith. That's as simple as it gets. Every single one of your actions doesn't have scientific proof showing that it is the right course of action to take. You act because that's what you believe is the best thing to do - even though you don't have proof that it is. You choose turkey over chicken because you have faith that you are more in the turkey mood - even though it's impossible to know until you taste both of them and find out for yourself (observational evidence).

 

 

 

I just love how youre desperately trying to make me out to be just like you and other people of faith, and with weather forecasts no less. If you must know the answer, yes, I believe that the weather forecasts will be accurate most of the time, but I dont believe they will be all of the time. Again, there is a level of uncertainty to the art of weather prediction so I take that into account. There is no faith here to speak of I know through experience that a certain percentage of the time meteorologists will relay accurate information to news organizations.

 

 

 

I love how desperately (and pointlessly) you try to flee from faith even though it's all around you. It's quite funny actually. Atheism makes "faith" into a bad thing because theism has faith, but then theists point out that everyone no matter what religion has faith, and atheists say "nuh-uh!"

 

 

 

If you want to bring up uncertainties, I point you in the direction of the debate between Tryto and I. By your own logic, theists don't have faith either because they do not seek to be 100% convinced - they seek to be 100% committed.

 

 

 

Im not even going to bother with the chicken analogy because its absolutely unbelievable. How on earth you can stretch the imagination to equate whether you have chicken for dinner and whether the sun will rise tomorrow is amazing.

 

 

 

Instead of answering my question which raises a valid point, you call it out on being ridiculous. I'll ask you the generic question with the same point though: If something happens, what makes you sure that it will happen again? Faith does, that's what.

 

 

 

But to answer what evidence I have for the sun rising tomorrow without saying that it always has, well the rotation of the earth ought to do it. Not that you should need any more evidence than an incredibly well established and repeatedly observed cyclical pattern. There is virtually no uncertainty to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

 

 

And what if the sun goes out, blows up, earth gets hit by meteor, etc.? You know, the earth probably isn't going to be around forever and I'm sure you'll agree. One day there will be and end... but it's a common human thing to believe that tomorrow will not be that day. That is a belief based on faith. Nobody wants to live their life in fear that we'll all die tomorrow, so instead we use faith and fill our minds with the happy thought that we won't. And if we are wrong, SO WHAT??? It's not like you get a score for how many times you were right, so I don't see why proof is almost treated as if it's a necessity to life.

 

 

 

Ahh, now we get to the actual crux of the argument. The two quoted statements are obviously different. I might say that I believe Australia will win 40 gold medals at London 2012. To this you could respond I believe that Aus will not win 40 gold medals. Both are beliefs with a certain level of uncertainty to them. But if you were to respond I dont believe you, thats not a belief. Thats the absence of belief and shows skepticism of my claim. Thats exactly what atheism is, in its broadest sense and most basic definition. This isnt a position of faith; its only through an absence of faith that someone will arrive at this position.

 

 

 

Either you believe they are wrong or you believe they are right. For your own sake, stop changing the definition of "belief" to suit your argument and just accept that you have faith as well. What you are doing is defending agnosticism, where they admit that they do not know therefore they have no belief on whether god does or does not exist - as opposed to atheism which states that they believe god doesn't exist.

 

 

 

PS: This is one of the most fun arguments I've had in a while. Thanks.

[wild_goat_14]

Zierro, you are making a fool of yourself. Sure, I believe in God, but for crying out loud, can you just not comprehend his post? Seriously, he is making a very strong point for his side of the argument, and you are just making yourself look completely unintelligent by the way you are responding.

 

 

 

Warrior, I honestly think no one here could beat you at an argument, especially this unwinnable one. I seriously can't recall one you've lost, since you make sure you know what you are talking about before you talk about it, which I credit you for.

 

 

 

BTW, too many posts on an unwinnable topic. If this topic changes anyone's mind, they are too feeble to choose for themself anyways.

[Zierro]

Warrior, I honestly think no one here could beat you at an argument

 

 

 

We're trying to argue here, not give autographs out to fanboys.

 

 

 

BTW, too many posts on an unwinnable topic. If this topic changes anyone's mind, they are too feeble to choose for themself anyways.

 

 

 

This topic formed my beliefs a lot. I used to be an atheist until I realized how foolish I was. And the word you are looking for is open-minded, not feeble.

 

 

 

By the way, you could at least give an explanation as to why you disagree with me instead of using ad hominem.

[Lenticular_J]

Ahh, now we get to the actual crux of the argument. The two quoted statements are obviously different. I might say that I believe Australia will win 40 gold medals at London 2012. To this you could respond I believe that Aus will not win 40 gold medals. Both are beliefs with a certain level of uncertainty to them. But if you were to respond I dont believe you, thats not a belief. Thats the absence of belief and shows skepticism of my claim. Thats exactly what atheism is, in its broadest sense and most basic definition. This isnt a position of faith; its only through an absence of faith that someone will arrive at this position.

 

I just wanted to say, I prefer when people who just have an absence of faith say agnostic. Differentiating between agnosticism and atheism seems a big deal to me. Mainly because there are what I'd call agnostics, like you, who are like skeptics and just aren't real into any faith or anything; you just don't have any faith except in yourself and other people. Then there are people who dislike or openly oppose faith period, and there've been plenty of those, who I'd rather recognize as atheists because they deny faith.

 

 

 

I find what you have more of an apathy or skepticism, then what I'd call atheism more of a faith against having faith. Vicious cycle? Maybe, I don't know what that means.

[warri0r45]

Zierro, you're using the word "faith" too liberally. Faith in the context of this topic is believing things without evidence. I don't have faith in things. If you want to continue insisting that I do then I'm not going to bother any more because clearly this will go nowhere. Clearly, you don't want to consider what I'm trying to explain to you. I have a fundamentally different way of thinking about things to you. I demand evidence to accept things as true and if I don't have that evidence then (for the third or fourth time now) I accept uncertainty.

 

 

 

I've tried time and time again to show that atheism is being without belief in god (not just to you, but to other people). If you want to be ignorant about what atheism is and what it means then I can't help you. You have to do that yourself and go look it up.

 

 

 

I've seen it time and time again where people like you try to make yourself feel better about having faith by bringing atheists down to your level. I'm not buying it, because it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to equate anything I take as valid with someone believing god exists with no evidence whatsoever.

 

 

 

Ahh, now we get to the actual crux of the argument. The two quoted statements are obviously different. I might say that I believe Australia will win 40 gold medals at London 2012. To this you could respond I believe that Aus will not win 40 gold medals. Both are beliefs with a certain level of uncertainty to them. But if you were to respond I dont believe you, thats not a belief. Thats the absence of belief and shows skepticism of my claim. Thats exactly what atheism is, in its broadest sense and most basic definition. This isnt a position of faith; its only through an absence of faith that someone will arrive at this position.

 

I just wanted to say, I prefer when people who just have an absence of faith say agnostic. Differentiating between agnosticism and atheism seems a big deal to me. Mainly because there are what I'd call agnostics, like you, who are like skeptics and just aren't real into any faith or anything; you just don't have any faith except in yourself and other people. Then there are people who dislike or openly oppose faith period, and there've been plenty of those, who I'd rather recognize as atheists because they deny faith.

 

 

 

I find what you have more of an apathy or skepticism, then what I'd call atheism more of a faith against having faith. Vicious cycle? Maybe, I don't know what that means.

 

 

 

To be blunt, Lenticular, I don't care what you prefer about how best to define a word. Go and look it up, please. You will find that the most broad valid definition of atheism is an absence of belief in god.

[Zierro]

Zierro, you're using the word "faith" too liberally. Faith in the context of this topic is believing things without evidence. I don't have faith in things. If you want to continue insisting that I do then I'm not going to bother any more because clearly this will go nowhere. Clearly, you don't want to consider what I'm trying to explain to you. I have a fundamentally different way of thinking about things to you. I demand evidence to accept things as true and if I don't have that evidence then (for the third or fourth time now) I accept uncertainty.

 

 

 

Have you really skipped over every last example I've used? Instead of providing a reason for why you disagree that you are not using faith in those certain examples, you say that arguing with me is going to be pointless and it will go nowhere - which you have no evidence for... My last post had logical arguments in it and you've done nothing but ignore all of them and then reply giving no logical rebuttals, but instead a pissed off rant of yours. If you disagree with something, LET ME KNOW WHY, don't just say I'm wrong. Anyone can do that. In fact, "Warrior, you're being ignorant. You're being illogical. You're wrong. I'm right." This doesn't make a discussion, it makes two people saying "yes" and "no" back and forth forever.

 

 

 

I've tried time and time again to show that atheism is being without belief in god (not just to you, but to other people). If you want to be ignorant about what atheism is and what it means then I can't help you. You have to do that yourself and go look it up.

 

 

 

You make it seem like it's one of those debates that drag on and on, but it's not even a page long. :lol: You got my hopes up and now you are giving up just like that. Tisk tisk.

 

 

 

I've seen it time and time again where people like you try to make yourself feel better about having faith by bringing atheists down to your level. I'm not buying it, because it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to equate anything I take as valid with someone believing god exists with no evidence whatsoever.

 

 

 

Now you're saying theists are idiots and on a lower level than atheists. Shows a lot about your character, doesn't it? O:)

 

 

 

If you want to argue, do it. Don't post your laments because quite honestly, we don't care. I guess I can't really expect much more from someone who is cornered, especially when it comes to their beliefs which they hold onto so dearly.

[Lenticular_J]

To be blunt, Lenticular, I don't care what you prefer about how best to define a word. Go and look it up, please. You will find that the most broad valid definition of atheism is an absence of belief in god.

 

I don't really care either. I just think that if the whole gang's gonna whine about the proper terms for a general personal belief, especially since the term's been defined at least five different ways in this thread (whether by credible sources or not, I do not know), I'll throw my two cents in. I just find that agnosticism is more what you're talking about, compared to atheism. Also, the two places I looked up atheism, it was ...

 

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

 

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

 

Still pretty vague. I mean, disbelief doesn't mean a lack of belief.

 

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

 

 

 

Whining about a word is really fun. At least you're both admitting you think differently now. And we've reached the "going nowhere" point again. Took longer than I'd like. (Well, edit. Sorta.)

 

 

 

I just don't like atheism being defined as calm skepticism one moment, by one person, and then used as harsh denial the next.

[wild_goat_14]

Warrior, I honestly think no one here could beat you at an argument

 

 

 

We're trying to argue here, not give autographs out to fanboys.

 

 

 

BTW, too many posts on an unwinnable topic. If this topic changes anyone's mind, they are too feeble to choose for themself anyways.

 

 

 

This topic formed my beliefs a lot. I used to be an atheist until I realized how foolish I was. And the word you are looking for is open-minded, not feeble.

 

 

 

By the way, you could at least give an explanation as to why you disagree with me instead of using ad hominem.

 

 

 

I compliment a guy and I am a "fanboy"? Seriously, grow up.

 

 

 

No, I meant feeble. As in, you haven't thought about it enough yourself to decide on your own until this topic.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, I agree with you. I am just stating that you are making a terrible argument about it.

[Zierro]

I compliment a guy and I am a "fanboy"? Seriously, grow up.

 

 

 

It wasn't merely a compliment. It was you praising him on how you think he's always right, in which that case, since you said you believe in god and Warrior is never wrong, then you are wrong. And since you are wrong then that means Warrior can't always be right. Paradox pl0x??

 

 

 

No, I meant feeble. As in, you haven't thought about it enough yourself to decide on your own until this topic.

 

 

 

So an individual human being is expected to have the same knowledge as every human being put together? That doesn't make sense. The purpose of debating is to get other people to think in different lights and get yourself to think in a different light as well.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, I agree with you. I am just stating that you are making a terrible argument about it.

 

 

 

I don't care about ratings - as long as I get the point across, I consider my job done.

 

 

 

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

 

 

 

I wonder why Warrior uses the first definition as opposed to the second one when he argues that atheism is not a belief. :-k

[Deathmath]

This topic is blowing my mind. I understand it but YOU PEOPLE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME! :|

 

 

 

Great arguments though. And break it up guys :shock:

[wild_goat_14]

It wasn't merely a compliment. It was you praising him on how you think he's always right, in which that case, since you said you believe in god and Warrior is never wrong, then you are wrong. And since you are wrong then that means Warrior can't always be right. Paradox pl0x??

 

 

 

I can disagree with someone and they still win an argument.

 

 

 

And you're not getting your point across. You're refusing to comprehend the points he is making and regurgitating the same argument over and over again.

[warri0r45]

I'm really not interested in continuing our debate, Zierro, so this is just a general post.

 

 

 

I thought I'd clarify exactly how atheism is defined. It's true that a valid definition is lack of belief, disbelief or being without belief in god. All I can say is that in my experience with fellow atheists this is the most common definition used, but obviously I can't speak for everyone. It's also true that the belief/doctrine that god doesn't exist is a valid definition. Here are the top 10 of a list of definitions from this website: http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a

 

 

 

a·the·ism [ áythee ìzz?m ]

 

 

 

noun

 

 

 

Definition:

 

 

 

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

 

 

 

[Late 16th century. < French athéisme< Greek atheos "godless" < theos "god"]

 

Main Entry: athe·ism

 

Pronunciation: \??-th?-?i-z?m\

 

Function: noun

 

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

 

Date: 1546

 

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

 

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

atheist Show phonetics

 

noun [C]

 

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

 

Compare agnostic.

NounSingular

 

atheism

 

Plural

 

atheisms

 

 

 

 

 

atheism (plural atheisms)

 

 

 

Absence of, or rejection of, belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

The belief that there are no gods, the denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

 

 

[edit] Usage notesThe term atheism may refer either to an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (sense 2 above), or to the mere lack of an explicit belief that God or gods do exist (sense 1 above). Some speakers do not distinguish between these senses; others distinguish them by using the terms strong atheism and weak atheism (respectively), or by using atheism to mean strong atheism and agnosticism or nontheism to mean weak atheism. (Similar distinctions may be drawn for related terms, such as atheist.)

 

 

atheism definition

 

athe·ism (??t?h? iz??m)

 

 

 

noun

 

 

 

the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist

 

godlessness

 

 

1. the belief that there is no God.

 

NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

 

ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

 

atheism

 

 

 

 

 

Pronunciation: (?'th?-iz"um), [key]

 

n.

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

atheism - 5 dictionary results

 

New Internationalist

 

Progressive left analysis of global issues from award-winning magazine.

 

Sponsored Results http://www.newint.com.au/shop

 

a?the?ism? ?/?e??i??z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

 

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Origin:

 

158090; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged

 

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

 

Cite This Source |Link To atheism

 

 

 

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »Related Words for : atheism

 

godlessness

 

View more related words »

 

 

 

 

 

a·the·ism (?'th?-?z'?m)

 

n.

 

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

 

 

 

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh?s- in Indo-European roots.]

 

 

 

 

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

 

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Cite This Source

 

Atheism

 

 

 

A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]

 

 

 

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

 

 

 

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.

 

 

 

Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. --Shipley.

 

 

 

2. Godlessness.

 

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

Cite This Source

 

Language Translation for : atheism

 

Spanish: ateísmo, German: der Atheismus,

 

Japanese: ???

 

More Translations »atheism

 

 

 

noun

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant]

 

2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

 

 

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

 

Cite This Source

 

 

 

atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)]

 

 

 

 

 

Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism.)

 

atheism n. ['e??i???z?m]

 

1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God; Synonyms: godlessness.

 

 

 

I'm in support of the suggestion from wiki. We should distinguish between active belief that there is no god (strong atheism) and the lack of belief in a god (weak atheism). At the end of the day I really don't care what you call me. It just so happens that what I am is an atheist, and there's no escaping that fact.

[Zierro]

I can disagree with someone and they still win an argument.

 

 

 

You're contradicting yourself. Why would you disagree on something that they have proven you wrong about? You wouldn't. Besides, 99.99999999% of debates aren't "won" or "lost".

 

 

 

And you're not getting your point across. You're refusing to comprehend the points he is making and regurgitating the same argument over and over again.

 

 

 

Uhh, do me a favor and check our posts. Mine was the last one that actually attempted to have a logical debate instead of say, "You're ridiculous bla bla bla."

 

 

 

This topic is blowing my mind. I understand it but YOU PEOPLE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME! :|

 

 

 

Great arguments though. And break it up guys :shock:

 

 

 

I don't think a subject in the world exists that has better debate potential than this one. :) That probably explains why I have 200+ posts in this thread.

 

 

 

It just so happens that what I am is an atheist, and there's no escaping that fact.

 

 

 

No one's saying you're not. What we were saying is that your argument that atheism doesn't have beliefs only applies to agnosticism, so you are accidentally defending agnosticism instead. Even some of the definitions you've gave say plain out "the belief that there is no god".

[mmmcannibalism]

You're contradicting yourself. Why would you disagree on something that they have proven you wrong about? You wouldn't. Besides, 99.99999999% of debates aren't "won" or "lost".

 

 

 

He said they can win the debate evern though he disagrees

 

 

 

lets say you were arguing over which color was better

 

 

 

you say blue and your reasoning is "because its pretty"; the other person says red because its "very bold and warm, it reminds me of the autumn sun". You disagree with them and they havent proven it, but its pretty clear who made the better argument.

 

 

 

weak and strong atheism, finally someone gave a proper set of labels. I always thought of weak atheism as agnosticism with a feeling god doesnt exist.

[Zierro]

you say blue and your reasoning is "because its pretty"; the other person says red because its "very bold and warm, it reminds me of the autumn sun". You disagree with them and they havent proven it, but its pretty clear who made the better argument.

 

 

 

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate.

 

 

weak and strong atheism, finally someone gave a proper set of labels. I always thought of weak atheism as agnosticism with a feeling god doesnt exist.

 

 

 

Well... you were partially right.

 

 

 

A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

 

 

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

[warri0r45]

you say blue and your reasoning is "because its pretty"; the other person says red because its "very bold and warm, it reminds me of the autumn sun". You disagree with them and they havent proven it, but its pretty clear who made the better argument.

 

 

 

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate.

 

 

weak and strong atheism, finally someone gave a proper set of labels. I always thought of weak atheism as agnosticism with a feeling god doesnt exist.

 

 

 

Well... you were partially right.

 

 

 

A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

 

 

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

 

 

So now you acknowledge that lack of belief is a valid definition of atheism?

[Zierro]

So now you acknowledge that lack of belief is a valid definition of atheism?

 

 

 

When did I say it wasn't lack of belief? I never argued that atheists believe in god.

[mmmcannibalism]

you say blue and your reasoning is "because its pretty"; the other person says red because its "very bold and warm, it reminds me of the autumn sun". You disagree with them and they havent proven it, but its pretty clear who made the better argument.

 

 

 

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate.

 

 

weak and strong atheism, finally someone gave a proper set of labels. I always thought of weak atheism as agnosticism with a feeling god doesnt exist.

 

 

 

Well... you were partially right.

 

 

 

A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

 

 

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

 

 

the argument for red is much more detailed and supported, basic element of a good argument is depth and supporting factors and since I didnt feel like digging up two essays I just used something simple

 

 

 

That definitino for weak atheist is what I said, semantic differences aside.

[Zierro]

I see. So you are saying someone can "win" an argument only based on their argumentative skills regardless of if they are actually right or not?

[warri0r45]

So now you acknowledge that lack of belief is a valid definition of atheism?

 

 

 

When did I say it wasn't lack of belief? I never argued that atheists believe in god.

 

 

 

You seem to think lack of belief means agnosticism, not a valid definition of atheism.

 

 

 

Let me show you:

 

It just so happens that what I am is an atheist, and there's no escaping that fact.

 

 

 

No one's saying you're not. What we were saying is that your argument that atheism doesn't have beliefs only applies to agnosticism, so you are accidentally defending agnosticism instead. Even some of the definitions you've gave say plain out "the belief that there is no god".

 

 

 

How was I accidentally defending agnosticism if I was arguing with the following definition of atheism: "a lack of belief in god"?

[Zierro]

Atheism is a lack of a belief and a belief at the same time. It is a lack of belief because atheists do not believe the fact that god exists. It is also a belief (not a lack of) because atheists believe that god does not exist. Theists have a lack of belief too though - they lack the belief that there is no god.

 

 

 

Both atheism and theism have a belief and a lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the only one with no beliefs - unless you count not having sufficient information to form an opinion as a belief.

 

 

 

Going back to the "crux" of the argument - it is neither possible to prove or disprove god so there is no evidence. And since atheists and theists alike have beliefs, but they are beliefs that have no evidence, they are beliefs which are based on faith.

[warri0r45]

Atheism is a lack of a belief and a belief at the same time. It is a lack of belief because atheists do not believe the fact that god exists. It is also belief (not a lack of) that god does not exist. Theists have a lack of belief too though - they lack the belief that there is no god.

 

 

 

Both atheism and theism have a belief and a lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the only one with no beliefs - unless you count not having sufficient information to form an opinion as a belief.

 

 

 

So for some reason you think different meanings for the same word have to be mushed together to form the true meaning? Zierro, you really have no idea what you're talking about. I can't believe you're this damn stubborn. Actually, after our little debate about the whole 50/50 thing I can well understand your reluctance to pay attention to anything I'm saying at all. You even quoted something which said "A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less."

 

 

 

So you don't think this is what a weak atheist is any more? Have you even paid attention to this whole weak/strong atheist thing at all? What about all the definitions I went to the trouble (stupidly) to copy out in one of my posts? Can't you see the different definitions for atheism?

[Zierro]

And here we go again with the, "I can't logically prove it to you so I think I'll flame you instead." I pinch myself for calling you one of my favorite TIFers. Thanks a lot.

 

 

 

Here is the argument again:

 

 

 

Atheism is a lack of a belief and a belief at the same time. It is a lack of belief because atheists do not believe the fact that god exists. It is also a belief (not a lack of) because atheists believe that god does not exist. Theists have a lack of belief too though - they lack the belief that there is no god.

 

 

 

Both atheism and theism have a belief and a lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the only one with no beliefs - unless you count not having sufficient information to form an opinion as a belief.

 

 

 

Going back to the "crux" of the argument - it is neither possible to prove or disprove god so there is no evidence. And since atheists and theists alike have beliefs, but they are beliefs that have no evidence, they are beliefs which are based on faith.

 

 

 

Either respond to it or ignore it. But I don't want to hear a grown man cry about it. It makes me feel like a bad person.

 

 

 

Everyone is born a weak atheist because they lack the belief in god. However, once you hear about god you can no longer be only a weak atheist. You can either believe god is true (theist), believe god is not true (strong atheist), or be indifferent (agnostic). You can still be a weak atheist, but once you've heard of god you cannot be a weak atheist alone. Weak atheism goes hand and hand with strong atheism and agnosticism - if you believe god doesn't exist then that is the lack of belief in god and if you don't have an opinion on it then that is also a lack of belief in god. By "atheists", I'm talking about strong atheists from now on because I've already established that if you are a weak atheist then either 1. you are also a strong atheist 2. you are also an agnostic or 3. you have never heard of god before.

 

 

 

There are three possible things you can do to a statement. 1. Believe 2. Not believe 3. Be indifferent/hold no opinion

 

 

 

"There is no god." Atheists believe this. Theists do not believe this. Agnostics hold no opinion.

 

"There is a god." Atheists do not believe this. Theists do believe this. Agnostics hold no opinion.

 

 

 

What do you know? Theists and atheists both have beliefs and lacks of beliefs. The only one with no beliefs at all are the agnostics, which you seemed to be defending with your talk about not having any beliefs whatsoever.

 

 

 

Do I seriously need to find a definition for the word belief for you because that seems a little kindergarten if you ask me. Like I said from the start, you are so set on pushing yourself as far from theism as possible that you go to the ridiculous extent of claiming that you have no beliefs at all. I could spend my time flaming you creatively like you've tried doing to me, but your argument really speaks for itself. I mean I've had some pretty dumb debates before, but saying that believing god doesn't exist is not a belief?

 

 

 

In fact, let's try a whole new approach altogether! Do you believe that theists are wrong? If so, where is your proof? If you don't have any then you believe they are wrong off the basis of - oooo, get ready for it, I'm gonna say that forbidden word you're so afraid of - FAITH!