I see no value in atheism

[Willamena]

That is not true. There are many atheists who do not actively believe that God does not exist. They merely have not been prevented with sufficient evdence to convince them to believe God does exist. Also, agnostics do not believe that God exists, but they also do not believe that God does not exist. They are undecided, but they still lack belief in God

The terms are centered around "the belief in the EXISTENCE of God", not "knowing God". One either holds a belief or they do not. Then, further, they are may or may not believe the opposite.

By some books, the opposite of believing is knowing.

 

[leibowde84]

By some books, the opposite of believing is knowing.

But, technically speaking, all knowledge is merely strong belief that has been substantiated. Every piece of knowledge requires faith though, even if it is the faith that your senses provide an accurate picture of the world.

 

[Willamena]

But, technically speaking, all knowledge is merely strong belief that has been substantiated. Every piece of knowledge requires faith though, even if it is the faith that your senses provide an accurate picture of the world.

And for some, technically speaking, knowledge is merely what is true.

 

[Quagmire]

Your sources don't differentiate between weak atheists and strong atheists.

Only because for the most part the sources I gave don't recognize weak atheism at all.

Webster's definition of Atheism:
1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Those are all definitions of strong atheism.

Only wikipedia saying "Most inclusively,

"Most inclusively". Yes, the author of the Wikipedia article felt it necessary to preface that definition with a qualifier that by itself denotes special circumstance, rather than common practice.

Only wikipedia saying "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." has the correct definition of "atheism".

So all of the other definitions, the four offered by the dictionaries (I'm not counting the archaic for obvious reasons) and the other two given by Wiki are incorrect?

Why should we accept the minority definition as correct and reject or ignore the other six?

The rest define "strong atheism".

Which would imply that strong atheism is the default interpretation of the word.

]Because it shows how far back the idea of implicit atheism goes.

We were discussing the commonality of referring to babies as "Atheists", not the longevity of the practice.

Longevity doesn't say anything about the commonality or legitimacy of an idea or the acceptance thereof, it just tells us it's been around for a while.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree that lack of belief does not indicate "a positive belief in the opposite," but simply its negation, and I could quibble about what the opposite of "belief in god" is (namely, "knowing god"), but I won't.

"Belief in god" is the same as "belief in the existence of god". The opposite is "belief in the non-existence of god".

 

[Willamena]

Belief is inherent in knowledge, because belief is what appears to be true, and knowledge is what is true, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is glorified belief. What is true is necessarily what appears to be true, but what appears to be true isn't necessarily true: truth stands between belief and knowledge as a firm distinction.

 

[Willamena]

"Belief in god" is the same as "belief in the existence of god". The opposite is "belief in the non-existence of god".

Belief in anything is belief in existence, Artie. There's no such thing as non-existent things.

 

[leibowde84]

And for some, technically speaking, knowledge is merely what is true.

No, those are "facts". Knowledge is attained ... facts just are what they are.

 

[Willamena]

No, those are "facts". Knowledge is attained ... facts just are what they are.

And for some, facts are knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

That is not true. There are many atheists who do not actively believe that God does not exist. They merely have not been prevented with sufficient evdence to convince them to believe God does exist. Also, agnostics do not believe that God exists, but they also do not believe that God does not exist. They are undecided, but they still lack belief in God

The terms are centered around "the belief in the EXISTENCE of God", not "knowing God". One either holds a belief or they do not. Then, further, they are may or may not believe the opposite.

Just as someone believes themself to be happy or not. But we have been down this road.

Of the former point I would suggest those people actively do not believe in God. This belief may be subject to change but these people believe there is no god until they are presented with evidence to the contrary. And agnostics hold that knowledge of God cannot be known so they are are uncertain as well. For this reason we do not refer to them as atheists but have given them a separate category outside of the atheist umbrella.

 

[leibowde84]

And for some, facts are knowledge.

No, understanding or being aware of facts are knowledge. Not facts themselves. And whenever perception comes in, there is always the possibility that they might be an illusion.

 

[Willamena]

No, understanding or being aware of facts are knowledge. Not facts themselves. And whenever perception comes in, there is always the possibility that they might be an illusion.

As I said, there is no truth for the realist (or so I've come to conclude).

 

[leibowde84]

Just as someone believes themself to be happy or not. But we have been down this road.

Of the former point I would suggest those people actively do not believe in God. This belief may be subject to change but these people believe there is no god until they are presented with evidence to the contrary. And agnostics hold that knowledge of God cannot be known so they are are uncertain as well. For this reason we do not refer to them as atheists but have given them a separate category outside of the atheist umbrella.

Agnostics don't necessarily think it is unattainable. Only some do. And they certainly lack a belief in God's existence, right?

 

[leibowde84]

As I said, there is no truth for the realist (or so I've come to conclude).

I'm not a realist. But certainty is an illusion for everyone, whether they believe it or not.

 

[Willamena]

Agnostics don't necessarily think it is unattainable. Only some do. And they certainly lack a belief in God's existence, right?

There are agnostic theists.

I'm not a realist. But certainty is an illusion for everyone, whether they believe it or not.

As you profess that facts are attained, then that indicates a realist.

 

[ArtieE]

Only because for the most part the sources I gave don't recognize weak atheism at all.

Webster's definition of Atheism:
1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Just write "disbelief definition" in Google. The first definition that comes up lists "lack of belief" as a synonym. This is "weak atheism".

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Strong atheism.

Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Strong atheism.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Just write "disbelief definition" in Google. The first definition that comes up lists "lack of belief" as a synonym. This is "weak atheism".

Those are all definitions of strong atheism.

No they aren't. Webster's 2a and Dictionary.com 2 is the definition of "weak atheism". Lack of belief.

"Most inclusively". Yes, the author of the Wikipedia article felt it necessary to preface that definition with a qualifier that by itself denotes special circumstance, rather than common practice.

LOL. Most inclusive here means that weak atheism covers all atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

There are agnostic theists.


As you profess that facts are attained, then that indicates a realist.

1. "Agnostic Theists" are Theists, as they merely represent a subcategory of theism, which merely requires a belief that God exists. Just as "Agnostic Atheists" or "Weak Atheists" are a subcategory of Atheism. They are all still Atheists by definition.

I never said that facts are attained. I said that knowledge (understanding) of facts is attained. Do you disagree?

 

[leibowde84]

Only because for the most part the sources I gave don't recognize weak atheism at all.

Webster's definition of Atheism:
1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Those are all definitions of strong atheism.



"Most inclusively". Yes, the author of the Wikipedia article felt it necessary to preface that definition with a qualifier that by itself denotes special circumstance, rather than common practice.



So all of the other definitions, the four offered by the dictionaries (I'm not counting the archaic for obvious reasons) and the other two given by Wiki are incorrect?

Why should we accept the minority definition as correct and reject or ignore the other six?



Which would imply that strong atheism is the default interpretation of the word.



We were discussing the commonality of referring to babies as "Atheists", not the longevity of the practice.

Longevity doesn't say anything about the commonality or legitimacy of an idea or the acceptance thereof, it just tells us it's been around for a while.

I think you are mistaken, as "disbelief" does not necessarily mean a belief in the opposite. If you do a quick look up, "disbelief" is defined as a lack of faith or belief. Thus, weak atheists still hold a "disbelief in the existence of God".

 

[Willamena]

1. "Agnostic Theists" are Theists, as they merely represent a subcategory of theism, which merely requires a belief that God exists. Just as "Agnostic Atheists" or "Weak Atheists" are a subcategory of Atheism. They are all still Atheists by definition.

Agnostic theists are indeed theists and agnostics.

I never said that facts are attained. I said that knowledge (understanding) of facts is attained. Do you disagree?

I disagree that facts are distinct from knowledge.

 

[ArtieE]

Belief in anything is belief in existence, Artie. There's no such thing as non-existent things.

Did you just pretend that you didn't get the point? "Belief in god" is the same as "belief that god exists". The opposite is "belief that god doesn't exist".