RE: Is atheism a belief?
January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2019 at 5:54 pm by T0 Th3 M4X.)
(January 23, 2019 at 4:56 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:(January 23, 2019 at 4:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It was originally a term used to describe people who didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.We've had this conversation before. The romans were calling christians atheists before christians started calling other pagans atheists.
As an amusing aside, they also -were- the heathens before they decided to take the word and push it back out into the aether..calling others heathens.
When you put it into perspective, the historiy of christianities involvement with other religions is a neverending series of "nu uh, you are!"'s.
: shrugs :
Yes, we went through this before and you didn't have a source that validated your statement. That's when you went on a tangent about how the encyclopedia I cited was wrong. Glad to look at a different citation if you have one now?
(January 23, 2019 at 5:38 pm)PRJA93 Wrote:(January 23, 2019 at 3:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.
The fact that some theists try to use semantics to cloud the waters means nothing. Having a belief in a god or gods is active. NOT having a belief in a god or gods is inactive. It simply isn't there.
Calling oneself an atheist is not equivalent to saying you know there isn't a god. Being an atheist simply means that you, the theist, have proposed there's a god. To date, we have zero evidence to back the proposal. So while what you're proposing might be true, there is not yet enough evidence to decide that it is. It could be true, but it simply hasn't been proven, so a final conclusion is being withheld until evidence for said proposal has been presented.
Atheism is an inactive position.
Let's say, in court, Mark is being charged with murdering Greg. There was enough evidence of Mark being a suspect that he was indicted and brought into court. Maybe there was an eye-witness or something that reported him to the police. But unfortunately, there's no hard evidence that Mark murdered Greg; no gun, no fingerprints, Mark has an alibi, he had no motive to murder Greg, etc. etc. So the case never goes to trial and is dismissed. The court is not saying that Mark didn't murder Greg, that would be an active position on the matter, they're simply saying that there is no evidence, currently, that Mark is the murderer, so, for now, the case is dismissed. If new evidence is presented that changes the circumstances, Mark can be brought up on charges again.
The issue is, the case by theists has never even been brought to court. The atheists haven't even been indicted. You guys haven't even begun the case yet, because there's no evidence to even present a case to the court. So our inactive position is this: When you have some evidence, we can talk about it.
-The problem isn't the "theists", but rather the "atheists" wanting to change it from meaning what it really means. That's why we have a bazillion new definitions that not even the atheists can agree on.
-Your claim of "zero evidence" is nonsense. More likely a lack of your understanding.
-Saying "atheism" is "inactive position" sounds like an empty claim. Maybe expand on it if you believe it to be true. If it's inactive, please also explain why you demanding religious rights? If it's "inactive" why would you need special protections and tax exemptions?
- If the court had no evidence about Mark, then it would be "agnostic" or "ignorant." It doesn't have to necessarily be out of intent. I could be agnostic about a view, but it may be due to unintentional lack of consideration of it because I was focused on something else.
- Your position isn't "inactive" it's competing. Not only that, it's a lot of copying. The difference between atheists and theists is you say "no god", theists say "God" or "gods." Everything else, you pretty much copy. We have churches, you have churches. We have religious rights, you demanded and received religious rights. We sing hymns in churches, you sing hymns in churches. We talk about God, and you do the same. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.
