Does this idea really seem stupid?

[Dawud]

Right - so atheism is by something people can value and it can't be important in someone's life.

I'll just leave this debate and direct you to Stanford OEP which shows clearly that in philosophy there is a clear definition for English speaking philosophers regarding belief "holding something to be true".

You may wish to reject this mainstream definition but you will be departing from mainstream English speaking philosophy by using your definition which doesn't make sense in everyday language ( e.g. "I know I am 28 but I don't believe I am 28").

I'm not demanding you 'fall in line' with academic philosophers but Id advise you get to know why this definition has generally be chosen above the rest.

Peace m8!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

---

I've not put atheism as a value system - that would be stupid..

But I'm that kinda crazy guy that believes a person can value it and know that they are agnostic regarding god something.

This knowledge can lead to action.

Deny it if you wish.

[thesummerqueen]

In essence, all you are saying is that knowledge changes our behavior.

Well, duh.

One wonders at the word soup he uses to get to these "duh" moments.

[Dawud]

So you agree with me too TSQ?

[thesummerqueen]

Of course knowledge affects behavior. I didn't read the rest of your post to see what you were getting at though.

---

And I don't know why you would ask if I agree with you or not - shouldn't your argument be able to stand by itself?

[Dawud]

I was saying people have knowledge that they are atheist (an awareness of an atheist identity)

I say that this knowledge like all knowledge can affect people.

---

Others had denied this - hence me making it as obvious as I could

[thesummerqueen]

No, they were denying that it might have changed them as a person, which is legit if they were never theists to begin with. You seem to fail to grasp this point.

[frz]

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe in God/s, etc. Seeing as how I'm not very good with words, there was a time when I didn't know the word atheist exist until I looked it up very much later, although I was already a non-believer. The ones described in your religious does not apply like infidel and heathens, etc, since they imply a belief of your demons in your own stories that I also don't believe in.

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps Dawud will be satisfied with an admission that an awareness of one's atheism could affect one's behavior in combination with other motivations like curiosity, outspokenness, and so on.

Trivially. knowing I'm an atheist makes it more likely that I'll say 'yes' if asked if I'm an atheist, for instance.

Is that sufficient, Dawud? If not, why not?

[Ben Davis]

Right - so atheism is by something people can value and it can't be important in someone's life.

You're misrepresenting my point; that's clearly not what I said. To clarify (in terms of the first half of your sentence), atheism is something that a person might value but if they do it's because thay have a value system which causes them to value atheism, it's not a result of the atheism itself. In terms of the second half of your sentence, atheism can't be important in someone's life unless they hold a value system which would lead to its importance, it has no importance in and of itself.

I'll just leave this debate and direct you to Stanford OEP which shows clearly that in philosophy there is a clear definition for English speaking philosophers regarding belief "holding something to be true".

What's that got to do with this discussion? I've picked you up on the errors in your argument. It seems you have no rebuttal.

You may wish to reject this mainstream definition but you will be departing from mainstream English speaking philosophy by using your definition which doesn't make sense in everyday language ( e.g. "I know I am 28 but I don't believe I am 28").

I've made no statement on this, either for or against so how can you claim that I reject the definition? Further, as I've said, it has nothing to do with our discussion, the topic of which is your assertion that atheism and/or agnosticism are value systems.

I'm not demanding you 'fall in line' with academic philosophers but Id advise you get to know why this definition has generally be chosen above the rest.

It seems you have a source of knowledge above the common! You don't know what I do or don't know regarding a topic we've not discussed.

I've not put atheism as a value system - that would be stupid..

Yes you have. Clearly & without equivocation.

But I'm that kinda crazy guy that believes a person can value it and know that they are agnostic regarding god something. This knowledge can lead to action.

Once again, no: the action can only arise when the knowledge is coupled with value systems which cause someone to act on the knowledge. Awareness alone is not enough.

Deny it if you wish.

I don't deny that you're "that crazy kinda guy...", I'm simply pointing out that your argument is flawed.