Opinion on this Creed

[Cato]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".  No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

I have no problem with the point you are making and have a very simple answer; there is no god. Burden of proof you say? I accept it. At no time has anyone ever perceived any god. Keep in mind that this includes our increasing capability by extending our perception through the use of advancing technology. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the claims suggest that evidence should be available, as is the case with claims of the god of Abraham.

God's have only ever existed in the imagination. Truth claims cannot be contingent on any particular person, meaning that the demonstration must be able to be experienced by any person. The world is full of ignorant people assigning causality to a god when they should exclaim "I don't know", but the god itself is always mysteriously undetectable. You share my exact experience in that you cannot touch, hear, see, taste or smell god. It's all in your head. You can believe in a god all you want, but it's not real.

My conclusion is more reasonable. All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce this god of yours so I can experience it and I'll admit I'm wrong.

[Whateverist]

If you espouse something as false aren't you proposing the opposite to be true?  I've had some atheists tell me that atheism is not a belief system.  But you believe it don't you?

Not every atheist espouses anything at all about gods.  Most of us simply are not persuaded that they exist.  Lacking belief in gods does not equal asserting they do not exist.  Some of us are both unpersuaded and positively believe gods do not exist.

For me what is certain is that god belief exists and has effects.  I go on to ask what are these 'gods' in which theists believe?  To be something which is experienced as dynamic, pervasive and responsive, I assume 'gods' are a construct of the mind.  Not a necessary construction, but possible and for quite a bit of written history pervasive as well.  So I think 'gods' are best understood psychologically.  I don't think theists make them up or foist them on the innocent for nefarious reasons.  I think their beliefs are cultivated along with the structure of their minds to experience a relationship with gods.  The mind is awesome.

[JesusHChrist]

My conclusion is more reasonable. All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce this god of yours so I can experience it and I'll admit I'm wrong.

You just are saying that because you hate God and want to sin (drinkin', whorin', partyin' and a whole bunch of other words without a 'g' on the end that should have a 'g').

Confess!

[Whateverist]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".  No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

[My bold.]

This doesn't seem at all obvious to me.

I don't find the unveiling of the "god concept" by theists all that remarkable or compelling.  What a 'god' even means is a mystery.  Supernatural, what the hell is that?  

I certainly don't believe it, but neither am I inclined to argue that gods do not exist.  Assertions of any kind regarding that which does not exist make no sense, they fail as propositions.  What need have I to go the further step of arguing for the nonexistence of silly stuff?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It certainly doesn't reflect my beliefs.

It does read like a third-rate straw man.

[Jenny A]

Interesting that one of you finds the definitions synonymous and the other does not.  If you espouse something as false aren't you proposing the opposite to be true?  I've had some atheists tell me that atheism is not a belief system.  But you believe it don't you?

---

No, if you mean to say they're are equivalent.

I don't believe there is a god =/= I believe there is no god.

It's the difference in certainty. Most atheistsc will not claim to know there isn't a god, so they will not make claims there isn't one. They will just refuse to accept the claim as true because of lack of evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative...ve_atheism

If you mean to say that both positions are atheism, then yes.

If they make such a claim, they are not atheists, they are agnostic.

Agnostic simply means "I don't know."   Atheist simply means without god.  Agnostic atheists are simply saying I don't know of god therefore I don't believe in god.  I'm also acoldfusionist, it's possible but not here yet. Maybe it won't ever be here.  I don't know is a perfectly valid position.  So is I don't know, but that sounds really unlikely, please explain.  That's my position on god.  The idea is highly unlikely.  Evidence please?

Agnostics can believe.  I really really like the idea of god, so I will make an effort of will (or moral weakness) and believe even though I don't know.  Oh, and I'll pray really hard to believe better.

Atheism is not a philosophy, it's a state of mind on a single issue.  Skeptism is a philosophy that leads to atheism.  I'm a skeptic.

[KevinM1]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".  No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

Of course there is.  My lack of belief stems from my disbelief in every god presented to me so far.  However, I reserve the right to change my mind if exposed to new evidence.

Really, if you're going to play word games, you might want to understand the words you're using.  Disbelief doesn't somehow negate a lack of belief.  It often informs it.  Moreover, you haven't explained why anyone should give a crap about a/an encyclopedia(s) written and/or edited by philosophers.  Just because they state the definition is something doesn't make it so.  I'm not convinced of their authority on the issue.

To use your marriage/bachelor analogy correctly, perhaps the definition of marriage is incomplete if most/all bachelors actually claim they're married....  Of course, your analogy fails anyway because, as I said before, disbelief and a lack of belief are not diametrically opposed terms.

But, please, continue to flail at definitions as though you actually have a point.  It's amusing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start.  I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy.  You have given me nothing in return.  Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See!  God does exist!".  No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.  Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

Nonsense. My atheism is the absence of faith in any deities, your flailing notwithstanding.

Say, while you're patting yourself on the back for using a dictionary of philosophy (and I may as well have written a "dictionary of bullshit"), why don't you look up "knowledge" and "belief", because they're germane to this discussion.

[Statler Waldorf]

   

          Irrelevant to the general meaning of the term.  As an aside, I would not that the first use of the word atheist was by pagans to describe Christians, because Christians only believe in one god and not all of the rest of them.

 
How is appealing to philosophical references in order to define a philosophical term irrelevant? 
 
Precisely!  You’re proving my point, early Christians did not merely lack a belief in other gods; they positively affirmed that all other gods did not exist; which is exactly how the term is used today.   
 

    Just the general definition of the word.

 
About.com is a user-generated site.  You’ll have to give me more than that.    
 

    You are mistaking words describing a state of belief or non belief in gods, for claim of proof their beliefs are correct.  A lack of belief in god is a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is no god is also a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is a god is a state of belief, not an argument that there is a god.

 
Where is this rule that a person can arbitrarily redefine a word if it’s a belief but not if it’s an argument?  You cannot have it both ways.
 
Additionally, even if this were the case you would be guilty of breaking your own rule because changing the definition of atheism changes the argument for atheism.  It changes from “Since atheism is the affirmation of the non-existence of god here is my argument to support that affirmation….” to “Since atheism is the lack of belief in a god I am not required to give an argument in order to support my atheism.”  It’s a very sly tactic, but simply not allowed.         
 

    Belief in a claim, any claim, is not either or.  It is always: proven, false, or unproven.  For example, there is a quarter on my computer desk.  I claim it is heads up.  You can believe me, you can think I'm lying, or you can take the rational approach and remain undecided.  Similarly, suppose there is a jar of jelly beans.  I say there are 1003 jelly beans in the jar.  The claim has been made.  You can reject it, agree, or reserve judgment until the jelly beans are counted.

 
Remaining undecided is Huxley’s Agnosticism, not atheism.  If you want to identify as an agnostic I’d have no issue with that.  However, once you identify as an atheist you’re claiming that no god exists.    
 
   

With regard to the god claim:  gnostic atheists would say that there is no god; agnostic atheists (most of us) would say the god claim is unproven.

 
“Agnostic Atheist” is not a term used in any philosophical reference that I am aware of.   In fact, many agnostics that I know would be quite offended to be lumped in with atheists.    
 
 
 
  

 People have been defining and redefining words since the beginning of language.  The meaning of words changes over time.  There's a whole branch of study devoted to that phenomenon.  It's called entomology.

 
This is the is/ought fallacy, whether or not people do something does not demonstrate that they have the right to do said thing.  Additionally, there has been no change to the word atheism within the philosophical community; it seems to be only something that lay persons attempt to get away with.    
 
   

Setting words aside.  I can't prove there is no god.  I only claim that god remains an unproven claim.  The burden of proving he exists remains on he who claims he does.  What you suggest does away with the burden of proof altogether.  The claim that big foot exists has been made.  It is the burden of those claiming him to show big foot exists.  The fact that most people find their evidence unconvincing does not shift the burden of proof to abigfootists.

 
 
Actually, when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?” the burden of proof is shared equally.  Secondly, one could also make the case that since theism is obviously the default position and the vast majority of people do find the evidence for God’s existence to be more than sufficient that burden of proof rests wholly upon the atheists since they are the ones arguing against the consensus position.  That being said, if I were an atheist I’d be trying to shift the burden of proof as well because that’s an impossible position to defend.    
 
  

          False.
 
    By saying that we lack belief in gods is not an existential claim, like "The true belief that God exists" is.

 
So what? 
 

  So, if I coined my own term "shmatheist", and defined that position as "the lack of belief that gods exist", would you be okay with that?

 
…as long as you did not try to apply it to yourself. 
 

    Even if atheist is defined as "disbelief in the existence of god or gods", atheists still do not have the burden of proof.  

 
Why not?
 
   

Disbelief in a claim is still not a claim.

 
Sure it is. 
 
 
   

 
    Well we'll do our best to help you with that boredom.  But remember we have very little faith and zero belief so it may be hard to find common ground.  Also, you'd be surprised at the low regard in which philosophy is held around here by many.  But you should definitely match light sabers with Nestor.  He is a young firebrand chugging down philosophers like there is no tomorrow.  If you two connect, would someone please PM me to make sure I don't miss the fireworks?

 
Thanks!  You are really going to try to tell me that atheists do not possess faith?  That may be a topic for a different time. 
 
     

    Hey, lookee here.  Waldork must have gotten a discharge from the asylum.
 
    Whatever drugs they gave you didn't work.  You're still a fucking asshole.

I see there’s still internet access available at assisted living.
 
 

Okay waldorf whats your game here? Even if we suddenly agreed to your  definition of atheism what would that achieve? You making an ass of yourself by arguing against a position that no one here actually holds? Why not cut the semantics and get to the chase.

 
No agenda here kind sir, simply correcting error wherever I see it.  You’re welcome.

Hey, Stat's back!
Welcome, welcome!
How are your eyes?
 
Guys, don't multi-quote him... you'll quickly find yourselves in a rabbit hole of quotes in your replies... and it will never end!

 
Yay!  Good to see you my friend.  Eyes are doing well.  You’re an agnostic; does it bother you when atheists try to claim you as one of their own? 

Could it be that the philosophers are wrong with their definitions?
 
All I know is that I actually loathe philosophy.  Had several classes in college, and found them terribly boring.  They always seemed to devolve into masturbatory discussions about words, finding distinctions without meaning.  An over analysis of things that don't actually matter, in most cases.
 
To that end, I could really give a shit with what some philosophers say atheism is.  I know what I do and don't believe, and if that doesn't fit the term, all that means is that I need to find a new word for it.  It says nothing about the veracity of my belief system.

 
If you actually have a means of demonstrating that all of the philosophical literature is wrong and the atheistic internet community is in fact correct with their revisionist’s definition I will entertain the idea…until then however all I have to go by what is the accepted definition of the term.
 
      

 
     Moreover, SW's snide "Why didn't you reference any philosophical works?  Could it be that they disagree with you?" is simply an appeal to authority.  These guys say you're wrong, so you're wrong.  Really?  That's the best you can do?  By what authority are these philosophers correct?  Their own through consensus?
 
    Color me unimpressed.

 
You do realize that appealing to authority is only fallacious if the authority is fallable and not properly qualified in the topic right?  If you want to argue that the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy are not properly qualified authorities on the topic of philosophical terms then good luck.  It is definitely a more appropriate authority than anyone else has appealed to on here (i.e. “because I say so!”, and About.com).
 

Oh, yay. Stat's back /sarcasm.
 
Stat, if the definition of atheism doesn't describe my lack of belief in deities, what is the word that does?

 
Huxley’s Agnosticism would be a better fit-that being said- I am not sure it’s even possible for someone to lack a belief in an existential claim that they’ve been exposed to.  At that point a person has already made a decision, which would be an actual position.
 
 

 
I have no problem with the point you are making and have a very simple answer; there is no god. Burden of proof you say? I accept it. At no time has anyone ever perceived any god. Keep in mind that this includes our increasing capability by extending our perception through the use of advancing technology. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the claims suggest that evidence should be available, as is the case with claims of the god of Abraham.
 
God's have only ever existed in the imagination. Truth claims cannot be contingent on any particular person, meaning that the demonstration must be able to be experienced by any person. The world is full of ignorant people assigning causality to a god when they should exclaim "I don't know", but the god itself is always mysteriously undetectable. You share my exact experience in that you cannot touch, hear, see, taste or smell god. It's all in your head. You can believe in a god all you want, but it's not real.
 
My conclusion is more reasonable. All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce this god of yours so I can experience it and I'll admit I'm wrong.

 
Hello sir!
 
I give you kudos for always bringing a unique perspective to these things.  I have bolded the two points I found most interesting in your response. 
 
The first point seems to be false; millions of people have perceived the presence of god all over the world. 
The second claim seems to be bizarre, are you saying that you do not believe in the existence of light because blind people cannot see it? 
 

 
This doesn't seem at all obvious to me.
 
I don't find the unveiling of the "god concept" by theists all that remarkable or compelling.  What a 'god' even means is a mystery.  Supernatural, what the hell is that? 
 
I certainly don't believe it, but neither am I inclined to argue that gods do not exist.  Assertions of any kind regarding that which does not exist make no sense, they fail as propositions.  What need have I to go the further step of arguing for the nonexistence of silly stuff?

 
This is my point though! : - )  What you have given me above is a position, it is totally different than the person who has never been exposed to the concept of a god.  That person lacks a belief, you are now putting forth positive disbelief. 
 
 

 
Of course there is.  My lack of belief stems from my disbelief in every god presented to me so far.  However, I reserve the right to change my mind if exposed to new evidence.
 
Really, if you're going to play word games, you might want to understand the words you're using.  Disbelief doesn't somehow negate a lack of belief.  It often informs it.  Moreover, you haven't explained why anyone should give a crap about a/an encyclopedia(s) written and/or edited by philosophers.  Just because they state the definition is something doesn't make it so.  I'm not convinced of their authority on the issue.
 
To use your marriage/bachelor analogy correctly, perhaps the definition of marriage is incomplete if most/all bachelors actually claim they're married....  Of course, your analogy fails anyway because, as I said before, disbelief and a lack of belief are not diametrically opposed terms.
 
But, please, continue to flail at definitions as though you actually have a point.  It's amusing.

 
So an encyclopedia of philosophy is not an appropriate authority concerning philosophical terms but your opinion is?  Got it. 
 
So if a majority of married men decide they are bachelors they are incapable of committing adultery?  I have the feeling the majority of married women would disagree.
 
 

 
Nonsense. My atheism is the absence of faith in any deities, your flailing notwithstanding.
 
Say, while you're patting yourself on the back for using a dictionary of philosophy (and I may as well have written a "dictionary of bullshit"), why don't you look up "knowledge" and "belief", because they're germane to this discussion.

 
 
Nice!  Atheism went from a “lack of belief in a god” to a “lack of faith in a god” in the course of one thread!  Well which is it?
 
You do realize that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is edited by an atheist right?  Do not kill the messenger.    

[rexbeccarox]

Please stop telling me what I believe. It's unbecoming. Also the word "agnosticism" has to do with knowledge, not belief, which you would *know* if you were such a great student of philosophy.

Also, what's up with the large font? Feeling angry? Want to yell?