False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[pocaracas]

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...

[Statler Waldorf]

[pocaracas]

[smax]

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.

You conveniently added the word "such" to your definition, which is a contradiction of your own position that people do not have the authority to modify a definition in any way.

So, which is it:

Belief in no god?

or

Belief in no such god?

And you think my wheels have officially fallen off?

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.”

No, I should change the name of the thread to:

Statler says everyone else is wrong!

[Gilgamesh]

Theism is "I believe in a god" yeah?

The prefix 'a' means 'not' or 'without'

Thus, semantically speaking, atheism means "I don't believe in a god" but the semantics behind it are irrelevant since it still carries the same meaning today.

Wait...

Nope, the “a” does not modify “ism” as you seem to have asserted, it modifies “the”, so the word literally means a belief in no God. That’s still a belief, not a lack of belief.

Can you show this to be true?

Wait again, still doesn't matter. Pulled up the origin of the word and the meanings it carried, originally:
1. without gods
2. denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods

So I'll just call myself the 'godless type' of atheist if the definition is ever brought into question and I'll be completely in the right.

But kudos to statler for destroying fallacious arguments left and right in here. When faced with an argument they can't beat on its own merits; they resort to grasping at straws.

"This is the definition of atheism. Stop getting it wrong, theist's!"
Statler: "Actually, this is the definition"
"Oh but it doesn't matter what the definition is. We still hold our non-belief (as if that's relevant.) Quit whining about it (because when you can't beat your opponent, they're whining.)"

How fast the importance of definitions goes out the window when its not in your favor =/

Atheists, I am disappoint.

[smax]

Theism is "I believe in a god" yeah?

The prefix 'a' means 'not' or 'without'

Thus, semantically speaking, atheism means "I don't believe in a god" but the semantics behind it are irrelevant since it still carries the same meaning today.

Wait...

Nope, the “a” does not modify “ism” as you seem to have asserted, it modifies “the”, so the word literally means a belief in no God. That’s still a belief, not a lack of belief.

Can you show this to be true?

Wait again, still doesn't matter. Pulled up the origin of the word and the meanings it carried, originally:
1. without gods
2. denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods

So it can mean any of those 4. Is it fair to say that the people who define themselves as atheists today should choose the definition? If not; meh. I'll just call myself the 'godless type' of atheist if the definition is ever brought into question.

The greeks used this word to describe a people they knew believed in a deity, just not their deities (plural).

This fact alone proves that the word was not intended to describe people who deny the existence of god in any general sense. The word was intended to describe people who do not accept a particular god (or gods).

Early Christians did not accept the gods of the state.

Atheists simply accept no gods because the evidence hasn't compelled them to.

[Esquilax]

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.

You seem really desperate to win this point, all the while acknowledging that it'll have no discernible impact on the actual core debate at all. I wonder why that is.

Besides which, I'm not changing what I self identify as, nor do I accept your definition; Pocaracas pretty much said what I think in clearer terms. And we've only got the root meaning of the word from its point of origin on our side, but hey!

[whatever76]

So since it’s obvious that you were wrong about the definition of atheism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, where is your proof that God does not exist Mr. Atheist?

What I realized is that faith in God is a projection of myself. For example, if I say that the bible is the revelation of God, I have chosen to believe and give value to the bible. If I believe that the ten commandments are the moral standard, I chose that standard. If I think that the Trinity is the true God, I chose that also. I could just as easily choose another book or standard or concept of God. To not believe in God, I remove the filter through which I am viewing reality. I don't know if the bible is any more valuable than the bhagavad gita or the koran. I don't know if the 10 commandments are the ultimate standard of morality. And I certainly don't know if this or that concept of God exists. To believe in God is to deceive myself.

The fact that my lack of belief leads to a greater clarity about reality and amplifies being true to myself gives credence to the non-existence of God. That is, a positive belief that God does not exist.

[Ryantology]

You seem really desperate to win this point, all the while acknowledging that it'll have no discernible impact on the actual core debate at all. I wonder why that is.

He's desperate to win this point because, on some level, he understands that his absolutely impossible-to-prove gnostic theism puts him on an intellectual tier below agnostic atheism as long as he holds it, which leaves him with two options: abandon a positive assertion he cannot demonstrate to be true, or do his best to redefine our position so it looks like we're all just as fucking stupid as he is.

It's a pattern I notice very frequently with almost every argumentative theist on this site; at least part of their argument almost always involves either equivocating us with their beliefs because there's no other way for them to pretend their argument displays any intellectual weight, or comparing the actions of their allegedly perfect and omnigood god to that of the not-perfect or omnigood humans they, themselves, are taught to believe are nigh-infinitely inferior to their god in every way. I argued from that side of the fence once, I know the mindset.

And, what this all boils down to is that Waldorf's understanding of English is so poor that he doesn't know the difference between the prefixes a- and anti-. Are asexuals positively against sexuality, or do they just not want to have it? If you are amoral, do you hate morality or just lack it? "Theism" is the belief in a god. "Atheism" is lacking that belief. The people who initially coined the term used it improperly, the term 'antitheist' is the accurate word to describe what Waldorf insists is atheism. We're simply fixing their mistake, though Waldorf knows better and uses it incorrectly on purpose.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, I go by the dictionary, not what some philosopher or group of philosophers think a given word means.
And the dictionary I tend to use these past few years is dictionary.com

So you care more about what Noah Webster thought a word meant more than the actual philosophers? Just giving you some grief, at least you are using something as a reference.

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
Note the "OR" in there.

Sure, but denying or disbelieving in the existence of God is not the same thing as merely “lacking a belief” in God or gods, you’re still taking a position. This has been my argument from the beginning; the whole “lacking a belief in god” is not an accepted definition for the term and stems from intellectual laziness more than anything.

Sadly, you do see a lot of gnostic/strong theists

I see no reason why a person having enough intellectual and philosophical fortitude in order to take a position on the matter and defend it is something to be sad about; I wish more non-believers did the same.

You conveniently added the word "such" to your definition, which is a contradiction of your own position that people do not have the authority to modify a definition in any way.

I didn’t modify the definition; I merely clarified what I was talking about, exactly as Martyr did.

Belief in no god?

or

Belief in no such god?

Depends on what I am talking about of course, the term atheism breaks down to mean belief in no god, but when I am using the term in relation to particular gods the term means belief in no such gods. It’s just like the fact that I am a theist in relation to Yahweh, meaning that I believe in such a god. It’s not that complicated really, you’re just grasping at straws because it’s all you’ve got left.

And you think my wheels have officially fallen off?

I don’t think they have, I know they have.

Statler says everyone else is wrong!

And proves it.

You seem really desperate to win this point, all the while acknowledging that it'll have no discernible impact on the actual core debate at all. I wonder why that is.

Why did you ignore my point? Is my hypothetical person a Muslim or not? It has a huge impact on the debate because it means atheists share the burden of proof.

Besides which, I'm not changing what I self identify as, nor do I accept your definition; Pocaracas pretty much said what I think in clearer terms. And we've only got the root meaning of the word from its point of origin on our side, but hey!

You do not have the root meaning of the word on your side at all; it means belief in no god. You’re right about one thing though, I cannot force you to correctly self-identify yourself, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist or Muslim go right ahead, but you’re not any less one of those than you are an atheist in the philosophical sense.

The greeks used this word to describe a people they knew believed in a deity, just not their deities (plural).

So the Greeks used it to mean belief in no such gods, interesting.

This fact alone proves that the word was not intended to describe people who deny the existence of god in any general sense.

No it doesn’t.

The word was intended to describe people who do not accept a particular god (or gods).

Christians do not lack a belief in the Greek gods, Christians affirm their non-existence so you’re really only proving my point.

Early Christians did not accept the gods of the state.

No, early Christians affirmed that those gods do not exist.

Atheists simply accept no gods because the evidence hasn't compelled them to.

Nope, atheists positively believe that no gods exist.

He's desperate to win this point because, on some level, he understands that his absolutely impossible-to-prove gnostic theism puts him on an intellectual tier below agnostic atheism as long as he holds it, which leaves him with two options: abandon a positive assertion he cannot demonstrate to be true, or do his best to redefine our position so it looks like we're all just as fucking stupid as he is.

That’s total non-sense. Christian-theism is provable, but even if it weren’t that does not mean weak-atheism is superior to it because weak atheism is not logically defensible because it incorrectly asserts that there is a default position on such matters. Believe me, fi anything I am doing you a favor by trying to get you to correctly define your position.

It's a pattern I notice very frequently with almost every argumentative theist on this site;

They value the use of correct definitions? I do not blame them.

And, what this all boils down to is that Waldorf's understanding of English is so poor that he doesn't know the difference between the prefixes a- and anti-. Are asexuals positively against sexuality, or do they just not want to have it?

Oh brother, a-sexual-ism would be the belief in no sexuality, just like a-moral-ism would be the belief in no morality. You’re trying to argue that the prefix of the word modifies the suffix of the word rather than the element, which is downright laughable. Learn your English.

"Theism" is the belief in a god. "Atheism" is lacking that belief.

Nope, because the “a” is not modifying belief (-ism), so you still have a belief, it’s a belief in (atheos) no god.

The people who initially coined the term used it improperly, the term 'antitheist' is the accurate word to describe what Waldorf insists is atheism.

According to whom? Your personal opinion won’t get you far with me.

We're simply fixing their mistake, though Waldorf knows better and uses it incorrectly on purpose.

Nope, I adhere to the philosophically accepted definition of the term.