False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Statler Waldorf]

What is funny is that there are 33,000 Christian denominations, each claiming to have the absolute truth.

Yup, there are 2.3 Billion Christians in the World.

Which is only a statement worth paying attention to if you can provide a compelling reason why your definition of atheism should be placed on a pedestal as a template.

It’s not my definition, it’s the definition accepted by philosophers for centuries; the bigger question is why would you accept smax’s self-serving definition that no proper authority agrees with? Simply because you want to?

Living language, words change, why is your definition the one we should all follow? etc etc.

Words change, but the philosophical meaning of the term atheism has not.

Besides, it doesn't matter, which was my initial point; whatever word you want to use, it doesn't alter the beliefs I hold, and nor does it validate your position over mine. I could call myself a Smorkulator, and you still haven't come an inch closer to actually resolving the difference of opinion between yourself and the Smorkulist position.

It does matter; since you are holding the position that affirms the non-existence of God and gods you must therefore prove that all gods do not exist, good luck.

Am I? How do you know? How do you know that my position is different from the one I stated above?

Because you claim to be an atheist, and I know what that term philosophically means, it’s a positive claim concerning the non-existence of gods.

If that's the way you want to play it, then I can end this debate right now; I'm omnipotent and have been to every point in the universe at every point in time at every scale of existence, and I can conclusively state that there is no god. Prove me wrong. If you can't, then my claim has precisely the same weight as yours about the existence of god; after all, we've all got burdens of proof over negative claims, now.

You’re obviously not following what I am saying; neither of us is making a negative claim, that’s why we both share the burden of proof. As for your silly argument about knowing there is no God; it’s easy enough to refute because it’s self-refuting. In order for someone to know that there is no God they themselves would have to be divine because they’d have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and timeless. So a God can know that there are no other gods besides himself, but no being can know that there are no gods at all; so this does nothing to prove atheism which claims there are no gods. I know you’re not omniscient though because you clearly did not know that little detail.

Hell, "god does not exist," isn't even my position, I just needed a positive claim to make the comparison work. A more accurate version would be this: I exist in a world and have compiled, through my experiences, a worldview that prompts me to believe that theists haven't provided me enough evidence to believe their god claims. Prove me wrong.

Then stop identifying as an atheist because that’s not what you are.

Do you see how fucking idiotic the position you're taking is, yet?

I am holding to the position held by philosophers and every encyclopedia of philosophy, I’ll stick to it over your self-refuting position.

We wouldn't have to care if theists would stop quibbling over the definition of the word and instead focus on proving their god claims, ie: the actual debate.

That’s not the actual debate, you have just as much of the burden of proof because of the definition of your position; you see definitions do matter! Additionally, this has nothing to do with theists, both of the articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy were written by atheists and they agree with me on this issue.

Words change. Wow.

Yes, but the philosophical definition of atheism has not, it’s always been a positive claim.

It's not about the definition of words, as proven by the fact that we were all able to come up with competing definitions of the term.

Nobody has provided an encyclopedia of philosophy that defines atheism as a lack of belief, and those are the references philosophers use to define positions accurately. If you want to debate this rationally then that is the definition you are going to have to adhere to, you are not allowed in debate to redefine a position in a manner that is self-serving and not accepted by proper authorities on the matter. I bet you are not even aware of where the “lack of belief” revisionist’s definition came from are you? You’d be surprised.

From the University of Cambridge:

Atheist: "it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'"

Yup, belief in no God.

That's your position. With that, are you conceding that you fit your own definition of an "Atheist"?

I hold the positive position that affirms the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods, so in reference to them I am an atheist.

Absolutely no mention of "Denial of existence", that's interesting.

You’re the one asserting it doesn’t mean what it has always been defined to mean, so I expected you to back it up with at least something other than your personal opinion; I guess I shouldn’t have.

You do whatever you want. It's your ignorance at stake.

Defining a term correctly makes me ignorant? That’s funny. I’d think the person who started a thread about something he was clearly clueless about would be the one who was considered to be ignorant.

The fact is, Christians today reject the term "Atheism" being applied to them in ANY capacity. In fact, William Lane Craig has rejected the notion that even his cat might be Atheist, which is an extremely silly thing to consider in the first place.

That’s funny, given your definition of atheism a cat would be an atheist since it merely lacks a belief in God, not only this but a piece of cat feces would also be an atheist because it too lacks a belief in God. I personally would like to believe that atheists hold a bit more philosophically sophisticated position than a piece of cat dung; but maybe not. When you hold to absurd positions (such as your definition of the term atheism) they are going to lead to such absurd conclusions.

But this was not always the Christian position. Justin Martyr, in his letter to Augustus Caesar, embraced the term Atheism as someone who did not believe in the gods of the state.

Yes, Martyr denied the existence of the Roman Gods, he did not merely lack a belief in them. You’re just proving my point.

Now, why would he make such a concession if the term "Atheist" meant the "denial of the existence of god" in the general sense that you claim it does?

Because he denied the existence of the Roman gods, this isn’t rocket science.

No matter how slice this, your definition is not consistent with the original meaning and perception of the term "Atheism".

It’s not my definition; it’s the philosophically accepted definition.

Clearly Justin Martyr believed that Atheism did not rule out the possibility of god.

Yes it did, he was only an atheist when it came to the Roman gods (“as far as gods of the sort are concerned”), please try to keep up.

So why the dramatic change? Why do Christians now reject the term on ANY level?

I do not, and I know how to define it correctly.

The Greeks created the term, but they are wrong about it's definition, and were in error to apply the term to Christians?

So if the Greeks were wrong about the definition then why are you wasting all of this time appealing to the Greeks?

That makes a lot of sense......

No, your position doesn’t. Next time before you start another one of these ridiculous threads and waste everyone’s time maybe you should actually do some research (like maybe even looking up how a term is defined by encyclopedias of philosophy for starters). I hate being forced to embarrass you.