False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[smax]

ideologue08,

meet Statler, proof that not all Theists understand the proper definition of the word: Atheist.

You stand corrected, sir!

[Statler Waldorf]

Provide proof.

Already did, atheism is defined as a positive belief system, that requires proof. Try to keep up please.

According to the definition of the word, look into a dictonary, lexica or just google for the definition.

I already provided definitions of the term, it doesn’t mean what you assert it means.

You and your fellow christian Borg are those who redefine the wort so it fits their pathetic agenda by adding the word "rejection"

Actually the writers of both articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy that agree with me are both atheists.

Nonsence, a person who get`s knowlege from rational empiricism will reject claims of faith and only accept the existance of thing which can be empiricaly proven.

The formal rules of debate do not presuppose empiricism.

For these individuals the burden of proof lies by those who lack empircal evidence.

And for Christians the burden of proof is on those who deny the existence of God, so in a debate dealing with an interrogative both sides equally share the burden of proof; rules are rules!

The definition can be found everywhere and most people who actualy can put up the effort to look it up will find it. You on the other hand seem to be to lazy.

I did look it up and I was even nice enough to post it for you; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (edited by an atheist) makes a clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, definitions matter.

Your definition is faulty and absolutly silly because it defines agnostics through the feelings you assert they may have for atheists.

That was not my definition, it was the definition philosophers are to hold to. Only smax seems to cite his own authority on such matters, not me.

This shows how disconected you are from reality.

Because I care what the actual definitions of terms are? Right.

Make more sence!

Sence? Do you mean sense?

Amongst the definitions you gave are such which aprove his point, and yet you have the audacity to remark that he is redefining the definition!

Not a single one of those sources defines atheism as a mere lack of belief; they all define it as a denial (which is a belief) or a positive belief in the non-existence of god; all of which require proof. I have the dictionary, the construction of the word itself, and encyclopedias of philosophy all on my side, you have smax’s opinion.

Worthless information.

I am not surprised you find one of the world’s most well respected encyclopedias of philosophy to be worthless information, it’s no wonder you cannot define your own position correctly.

[smax]

Well my position is quite clear. I'm not speaking for all atheists. That's not my job.

I don't know if there is a god, but so far, I have found no evidence or argument to convince me that there is a god. So I choose not to believe.

You captured the meaning of the word perfectly.

So far, Theists are not in agreement regarding the definition of the word: Atheist.

Atheists, on the other hand, all seem to have a perfect understanding.

It seems clear that the merits of this thread were valid, as we attempt to clear up the confusion among Theists.

[Statler Waldorf]

meet Statler, proof that not all Theists understand the proper definition of the word: Atheist.

I cited the proper definition of the term, and I cited my sources, you merely cited your own opinion.

---

You captured the meaning of the word perfectly.

So far, Theists are not in agreement regarding the definition of the word: Atheist.

Atheists, on the other hand, all seem to have a perfect understanding.

It seems clear that the merits of this thread were valid, as we attempt to clear up the confusion among Theists.

That’s a fallacious appeal to authority; Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?

[Colanth]

Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different perspective altogether.

And correctly so.

It isn't, and it doesn't. Atheism is simply the answer to a question:

Do you believe in god? No.

According to whom? You?

According to the Greek language. "Theism" is belief in one or more gods. The "a" prefix means "lack of the following". So atheism is lack of belief in one or more gods.

The Atheist does not, by definition, carry some burden of proof that god doesn't exist.

Actually when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?’ the atheist shares an equal amount of the burden of proof as the theist

But since atheism is "do you believe in any god", not "does God exist" (that one can't exist, since Christianity defines it as to be impossible), you're asking for proof of what one thinks. How would you like someone to prove that he lacks belief in gods? fMRI?

you should learn your rules of formal debate before you make such silly claims.

Says someone who violated them in the very post in which he made this assertion (and is debating a subject he evidently knows very little about).

Further more, most Atheists are also Agnostic, as Agnostic is simply the answer to another question:

Do you know that god doesn't exist? No.

Again, according to whom?

Well ...

Since Huxley invented the term, according to him. It's not really the answer to a question, though, it's a position - "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

Agnostics generally do not appreciate being lumped in with atheists, there’s a reason they have chosen to self-identify as agnostic and not atheist.

And not as human? Or not as American? One can self-identify as both an atheist and as an agnostic. (Many here do.) One can also self-identify as a theist and an agnostic.

"You are an Atheist, so prove that god doesn't exist?"

That’s a fair enough challenge.

Since atheism isn't "God doesn't exist", it's a nonsensical challenge. If you're a Christian, "prove that 2 = 3" is about as "fair".

"Atheism"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Wait, so he dismisses the existence of all gods because they are not Yahweh? That doesn’t make much sense.

No, because that's not what it says. He's saying that when you understand why you reject the notions of Isis, Jove, Odin, etc., you'll understand why non-Jews reject the notion of Yahweh and non-Christians reject the notion of God (which is the English name of the Christian god).

I’ll conclude with the actual definition of atheism…

a-the-ism

The word literally breaks down to mean a belief in no god because “a” is modifying “the” rather than “ism”.

To quote someone else in this post, "According to whom? You?" Oh, and you're wrong. The word isn't "the", it's not "ism", it's theism - from the Greek "belief in one god".

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (Webster’s Dictionary)

Christian sources have Christian definitions.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [emphasis added by SW]

It's not "suspension" of disbelief, it's disbelief itself. This is one of the worst dictionary [mis]definitions of "atheism" I've ever seen - it's not just biased, it's completely incorrect.

Agnosticism

Already defined by Huxley when he coined it (and he gave a full explanation of what he meant by it, and why) - so any definitions that differ from his are merely nonsense (at best).

Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism

It doesn't matter - he created a word and defined it, so that's what it means. You can't argue that "it doesn't mean what he said it means because ..." if you want to be taken seriously.

So since it’s obvious that you were wrong about the definition of atheism

You're reading the wrong part of the script.

and the distinction between atheism and agnosticism

Again, according to whom? Not according to Huxley - whose opinion is the only one that matters here.

---

meet Statler, proof that not all Theists understand the proper definition of the word: Atheist.

I cited the proper definition of the term, and I cited my sources

Really? Evidently we all missed that post. (Dictionaries don't give definitions, they give usage.)

you merely cited your own opinion.

I cited the Greek language, from which the word was taken.

You captured the meaning of the word perfectly.

So far, Theists are not in agreement regarding the definition of the word: Atheist.

Atheists, on the other hand, all seem to have a perfect understanding.

It seems clear that the merits of this thread were valid, as we attempt to clear up the confusion among Theists.

That’s a fallacious appeal to authority

Actually it's a valid appeal to authority, in one sense - that atheists get to define what we are.

Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?

Greek. Your "'a' modifies 'the', not 'ism'" seems to be totally lacking in citation, reference, authority, validity, sense ... However, the etymological definition of atheism says that the 'a' modifies the 'theism'. (It's defined as disbelief, which is defined as lack of belief.)

[smax]

Do I have anything better?

Absolutely. I just didn't think it would come to this! LOL.

The word "Atheist" comes from the greek word "ἄθεος", meaning "Without god, knowing and worshipping no God"

As evidence that this term was meant to, nor did it, denote a denial of god, early Christians were often branded "Atheists" for their LACK OF BELIEF in multiple gods.

Now, before one of these religious fanatics attempts to refute that commonly accepted piece of ancient history, I'll cite the Strongs notation from the Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

ἄθεος, (Θεός) (from Pindar down], without God, knowing and worshipping no God, in which sense Aelian v. h. 2, 31 declares ὅτι μηδείς τῶν βαρβάρων ἄθεος; in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state, in which sense certain Greek philosophers, the Jews (Josephus, contra Apion 2, 14, 4), and subsequently Christians were called ἄθεοι (or Atheists) by the heathen (Justin, Apology 1, 13, etc.).

---

Statler,

With all due respect, man, I suspect you are an educated man. You just got a poor and misguided education. Between this error and the crap you believe about Joseph's father, it's clear to me that you were not educated responsibly.

You are obviously a fairly smart guy, and you owe it to yourself to challenge some of the crap you've been brain washed to believe. This subject alone should be beckoning you to do so. The fact that Christians were called "Atheists" leaves no room for debate on this subject, as it makes clear what the initial meaning behind the word was, and what the long accepted definition of it was.

Don't embarrass yourself any further here. And, like I said, consider the implications regarding how you came to believe that crap in the first place. You are part of a belief system that has been changing, destroying, deceiving, and even killing to stay alive for centuries now. Is that really who you are?

Only you know the answer to that question.

[little_monkey]

Well my position is quite clear. I'm not speaking for all atheists. That's not my job.

I don't know if there is a god, but so far, I have found no evidence or argument to convince me that there is a god. So I choose not to believe.

You captured the meaning of the word perfectly.

So far, Theists are not in agreement regarding the definition of the word: Atheist.

Atheists, on the other hand, all seem to have a perfect understanding.

It seems clear that the merits of this thread were valid, as we attempt to clear up the confusion among Theists.

Most theists see atheists as a threat to their beliefs, so it won't matter how atheists define themselves. It's basically all about power. Theists have had that power for way too long, and now they see the "new" atheists coming out and feel their power threatened, so they will go to great lengths to put atheists in their place. That's why so many appear on atheist forums. But should you go on a theist forum as an atheist, chances are that you will be banned after two or three posts. For many of them, you are the devil incarnate. Discussion with the enemy is taboo or sinful. It's a waste of time to even argue with them. The best is to ignore them when they post here. However, sometimes that's a near impossibility, but if you do, keep in mind that they will never give in to your arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s a fallacious appeal to authority; Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?

Little monkey might be a wafflist instead of an atheist, it hardly matters. Deal with his wafflism - bitching about whether or not his conception of atheism conforms to your definition of it is pointless. Handle the meat, and not the packaging.

-or-
Bitch and moan like an impotent prick because that's all you've got.

Your call.

[little_monkey]

That’s a fallacious appeal to authority; Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?

Well in your case, you failed high school algebra, so you're not in any position to judge who has the credentials or not.

[ideologue08]

Bitch and moan like an impotent prick because that's all you've got.

That sounds an awful lot like what you do, perhaps that's why you're advising others to do it?

---

I suspect you are an educated man. You just got a poor and misguided education.

Well, it definitely looks like he is more educated than yourself, there's no question about that. So if his education is poor and misguided...kinda says a lot about your education. Where were you schooled? In a basement?