False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Statler,

You do realize that the vast majority of the participants here agree with the definition provided in the OP, right?

But, by all means, embarrass the hell out of me!

---

That’s irrelevant, I am sorry but a majority of users on an internet forum do not have the authority to determine the proper definition of a philosophical term, that’s done by philosophical references and they all define it as an affirmation in the non-existence of God. You’re no different than the majority of Christians today believing the Trinity is defined as “God is one person and three persons.”- the majority of people are often wrong.

And my point is, yet again, that the definition does not address the beliefs that I and the others here- that agree with the OP and not with you- hold.

Then they are not atheists, it’s as simple as that, people mislabel their beliefs all the time. If someone says they are a practicing Muslim and they sincerely believe that Christ was the son of God and God incarnate who atoned for the sins of His people on the cross and rose on the third day and that God is three in person and one in essence that person is not a practicing Muslim no matter what they claim to the contrary. You do not get to re-define philosophical terms in order to serve your own purposes.

According to you. And strangely, my beliefs still haven't changed, no matter how hard you quibble over words.

No, according to the philosophical references I cited. If your beliefs do not match the definition of atheism then you are not an atheist, it’s rather simple.

No. No, that's not the position I nor anyone else here holds, and I'm not obligated to defend the strawmen you want to set up. My position is disbelief in god claims until proper evidence is given, and considering you'd rather spend your time dishonestly arguing about words, I'll hazard a guess that you have no evidence at all.

If that’s your belief then you’re not an atheist and you need to change your “religious views” information, it’s misleading.

You don't get to tell me what I believe, Statler. I'll tell you. Anything else is just flat out lying.

I personally do not care what you believe, but if you do not hold to an affirmation in the non-existence of God and gods then you’re not an atheist. If you’re wanting to debate, and you self-identify using that term I am going to adhere to the proper philosophical definition for that position, that’s the rational approach to debate.

Once again, why should I be bound to your definition over anyone else's? Because it's the one you found that's most convenient for your fallacious argument? Wikipedia lists the definition I've cited, does that mean it's equally as valid?

No, Wikipedia is a user-generated site that is never considered to be a scholarly source unlike both encyclopedias of philosophy I have cited. It’s no wonder you had to resort to an un-scholarly source in order to find that definition, scholars do not hold to it.

Just admit you're full of shit, dude. This is getting sad.

Let’s see, I have two of the most prestigious encyclopedias of philosophy, the dictionary, regular encyclopedias, the construction of the word itself, and the historically accepted definition of the term by philosophers all on my side…and you have….Wikipedia? I am not the one full of it here.

That's right, Statler; I'm clearly not omniscient because I don't conform to the made up, unevidenced and baldly asserted criteria you and nobody else is putting on this god thing. Because the only thing that matters about reality is what Statler says, and we're all bound by his proclamations

Unlike you, I’ve never appealed to my own authority on this matter, nice try though.

Statler, all these snivelling demands that we follow your definition because you want us to are only making you look like a goddamn toddler. Stop it.

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

And yet you still can't comprehend that words have multiple meanings, or sometimes the meaning evolves.

Nope, you’re wrong again. Philosophically speaking atheism has always had one meaning. Not only this but your revisionist’s definition derives from Antony Flew’s 1972 book, "The
Presumption of Atheism” (interestingly enough Flew later rejected atheism and became a theist). Both articles I cited postdate that work and still define the term in the historical manner.

“In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a
default position.

Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply
on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves
atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an
attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts
seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they
rejected.”- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s reply to an inquiry about why they define atheism in the way they do.

Words only matter insofar as you are, yet again, deliberately warping the position we actually hold to your own benefit, a thoroughly dishonest tactic.

No, I am telling you what the term atheist means and what that position entails, if that’s not your position then do not call yourself an atheist, it’s not that complicated.

He asserted, baselessly, as though any of us are required to give a shit.

I referenced my sources, now stop whining.

You really wanna talk about self serving redefinitions in a thread where you're attempting to force me to argue a position I don't hold using exactly that? Really?

I am not forcing you to do anything, but if you do not hold to the affirmation of the non-existence of God or gods, then you’re not an atheist.

What, you couldn't even wait until your next post to contradict yourself? You had to do it in the same post.?

Nope, a contradiction has to be at the same time and in the same relationship, in relation to the Greek and Roman Gods I am an atheist (believe in no such god), but in relation to Yahweh I am a theist (believe in such a god), the wheels have officially fallen off of your wagon.

Here's a thought, how about you figure out exactly what is you believe about Atheism before telling Atheists what they believe.

I already have it figured out, but that’s irrelevant either way, my opinion does not change the proper definition of atheism which is the affirmation in the non-existence of God or gods. You should change the name of this thread to “Atheist’s misperceptions about their own position.”

---

Stat, I consider myself an atheist. Here's why.

I do not believe in the existence of any god.
I lead my life in accordance with that... as if there is no god whatsoever.

In practical terms, I assume no god.
Mentally, I leave that option some wiggle room, just in case some god does present itself. Until then, I assume no god.

This does not equal belief in the absence of gods... but I admit it does look a lot like it.

Now, I'm no philosopher, but this is how I describe myself concerning gods. If other philosophers define atheist as something else, I couldn't care less. Maybe they're christians like you and want their opinions to stick, so atheists are seen under a bad light... or something. Human ulterior motives go over my head...

---

Hey bud,

I still do not think that makes you an atheist since philosopher s define atheism as a position of certainty and you have admitted to allowing for wiggle room. I think philosophers would define your position more of agnosticism, practical atheism, or non-theism. I personally have no issues with calling you whatever you wish to be called, but if we were debating the existence of God I’d have to pin you down on your position and call it what it really is. Would you not agree that it is important to define our terms correctly? You’re a fair minded guy, I am sure you agree with at least that. What irks me is atheists starting these threads pretending as if theists’ are always ignorant on such matters when obviously on this matter the theists are being more true to the traditionally accepted definition of the position.