False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, it says so in the dictionary that it is a credible reference... isn't that the same standard you hold for your holy book?

Touché, but no

Actually.... disbelief has two parts dis- which means negation, or a simple not, and -belief... .... put them together and you get what? no belief, absence of belief.... lacking belief...
"Lacking a belief" seems a lot like disbelief to me.

No, disbelief is not the same as lacking belief (unbelief), it’s simply a refusal to believe or even a negative belief. It’s still a position and therefore bears proof. That’s even if we’re using the simple dictionary to define these philosophical terms, which philosophers don’t use.

So -ism means belief... does it?....

Yes, in regards to philosophical terms it means a doctrine, system of beliefs, or belief (i.e. empiricism, rationalism, and pragmatism). There is nothing in the word atheism itself to indicate it means a lack of belief because the “a” is modifying “the” (from theos), not ism (from ismos). Another way you can put it is that “ism” is modifying “atheos”.

Then, I expect you'll have no trouble proving it for everybody. I'll wait.

I wouldn’t, but that’s not the point of this thread.

Why is the assertion that atheism is a default position incorrect? Demonstrate the fact that people have religious beliefs at birth.

Because there is no default position on such matters because there’s no neutrality. Additionally, we do not determine what ought to be the philosophical default positon on matters by what newborns believe, that’d be absurd.

You value the use of an uncommon definition, and only because it supports your position.

Please try to keep up, the definition I adhere to is the traditionally accepted definition of the term, and is currently still supported by all encyclopedias of philosophy. You’re accepting a revisionist’s definition that no philosophical reference accepts; you use this definition simply because it’s self-serving and you’re too intellectually lazy to do the necessary groundwork in order to support your own position.

'Atheism' is the lack of belief in gods or practice of believing in them.

Not according to all of the appropriate authorities on the matter, but nice try.

Lack of belief in God. No belief in God. The prefix a- does not indicate a definite belief in a lack of god.

Why do you keep pretending that “a” has anything to do with “ism” (belief)? It modifies “the” (from theos), so atheism is every bit as much of a belief as theism because nothing changes in regards to “ism” in either term; so if theism is a belief then so is atheism.

Going by this, neither of us may be wrong, though your attempt to deny our self-definition is evidence that your goal is to define us according to your own opinions rather than to clarify the term. Language evolves, after all. Does the term 'gay' not mean 'homosexual' just because it once didn't?

You really believe that the definition of the term “atheist” is solely up to atheists? Ok, how do you know who the atheists are so we can ask them what the term means?

Why are you so desperate for everyone to have an answer, any answer, even if we don't have enough information to formulate one that has even the vaguest hopes of being correct? What's so wrong about admitting we don't know? Why is brashly sticking to one answer without sufficient information a positive trait, to you?

I am not desperate for everyone to have an answer, agnostics do not have an answer and that’s completely fine. However, you’re an atheist, you’re not an agnostic; so that term has a particular meaning and that meaning requires you to provide proof. If you want to still identify as an atheist but do not provide support for your position then you’re just being intellectually lazy.

What this is is having an open mind, Statler. You say you can prove your position, and my position is that I'll weigh the evidence and see if it convinces me. Given that as of yet nobody has been able to prove a god to me, isn't this position where I might be convinced better- both in general and for you specifically- than one where I assert there is no god?

It’s impossible to have an open mind, that’s the old fallacy of pretended neutrality. The atheist is just as close minded as the theist, that’s why a lack of belief on this issue is not possible.

No, your hypothetical person wouldn't be a muslim,

Wait, why not? I thought you said that as a Muslim he is allowed to define his own position, what changed? Why are atheists allowed to define their own position but not our poor Muslim?

So argue against the Smorkulist position. Like I said, the word isn't the key part of the debate.

No, but the position the word describes is. If I am debating an empiricist, I expect to be debating someone who actually hold’s to empiricism; the same goes for if I am debating a self-described atheist. What you claim to believe is not atheism.

Hey, Waldork...

You proclaim to have cited two sources, yet have actually never cited any source. You throw around the term 'encyclopedia of philosophy', but never invoke one. Stanfords?

If it's Stanford's, then it is clear that you have never read the articles starting with the word 'evidence'.

If you’re going to assert that I have never done something in this thread at least show the common courtesy to actually read all of my posts in this thread. In Post # 25 I directly quoted both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Post # 52 I quoted a letter from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy again. Why would you reference Stanford’s article on Evidence (an article that ironically never references atheism) if you’re not going to accept their definition of atheism?

Okay, on your authority, Waldorf, suppose I put aside the word "atheist". Does it make any difference if we come up with a new word to mean someone who has no belief in gods? I'm willing to call myself a don't-give-a-shit'ist. Definition: a "dontgiveashitist" holds no belief in gods and can't be bothered to explain why its okay not to believe in something that, so far as any sane person can tell, doesn't exist. Dontgiveashitists do not believe gods positively do not exist. As a highly questionable concept, there really isn't anything to say for or against gods, and dontgiveashitists realize this. Of course some people are naive enough to get caught up in arguing that whatever gods may be, they certainly don't exist. I guess these will be the only ones that can go on using the A word. Of course when you start counting what % of the population is theist and what % is not, guess which group dontgiveashitists will be grouped with?

Are you suggesting that you’re just ignorant on the issue? That you’ve never given it thought so you do not know what you believe? Claiming that only those who are insane believe in the existence of a god or gods is an absurd statement by the way.

---

Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of "atheism," including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]

---

Gordon Stein (a Biologist) does not have the proper credentials to define a philosophical term. His ignorance on the matter was well evidenced when he tried to debate his position at U. C. Irvine.

Hey Statler, good to see you back.

How's that whole anisotropic light propagation thing going?

Hey Bud,

Still going good! How’s life been treating you? I hope well.