Augustus
…
The OP should have stated what his particular usage was.
Or people could just have interpreted the spirit of the post and presented their arguments for why we should view the world as being godless.
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The OP should have stated what his particular usage was.
No, that is the definition. One can go by only the etymology of the words and see that.
It is not all that recent. It has been defined that way by atheists for quite some time. But once again until recently it was non-atheists that were defining the term. As the number of atheists have grown so has their voice and they have had an effect on the dictionary definitions.It is a definition.
The etymology would show there are multiple definitions, and that the 'lack of belief' definition is relatively recent and is not the only one in modern common usage.
The etymology does show the definition, the term is atheism (A prefix meaning no or without and theos meaning god) not apistism (A meaning no or without and pistis meaning faith or belief)It is a definition.
The etymology would show there are multiple definitions, and that the 'lack of belief' definition is relatively recent and is not the only one in modern common usage.
It is not all that recent. It has been defined that way by atheists for quite some time. But once again until recently it was non-atheists that were defining the term. As the number of atheists have grown so has their voice and they have had an effect on the dictionary definitions.
In case I missed it, what do you mean by 'traditional definition'?I'm an atheist who prefers the 'traditional' definition, as do many others. Either way it is just a subjective preference and nobody can be deemed to be 'wrong' for using their preferred definition.
I have.
All explained by natural processes.
Being an atheist is either merely believing in gods or not believing in gods. Your argument is rather poor. This is why it is a good idea to understand the meaning of words.
But the atheist "position" doesn't assume anything.Some can be, but I am not. I am strictly agnostic as that I hold that both the positions of theist and atheist are full of it. Both positions assume they know too much.
How do you think this work, exactly? How does a person reject - not just not accept, but reject - all gods? I'm especially interested to hear how someone does this for gods they've never even heard of.Atheism is the view that there is no gods.
In case I missed it, what do you mean by 'traditional definition'?
I understand your position; I'm disagreeing with it.Reread the last six words.
But the atheist "position" doesn't assume anything.
We do not know. I believe it was natural, but I don't know.Not so.......
The Big Bang was as much a natural process as everything and action which followed afterwards, surely?
Now, all you have to decide is whether or not this 'big bang' was caused by or occurred because of some 'thing'...?
well, was it? Yes or No?
It could be a computer simulation.We do not know. I believe it was natural, but I don't know.
Why would it make any sense that it was caused by a 'thing'?
The problem with w 'thing' is...what caused the 'thing'?
The etymology does show the definition, the term is atheism (A prefix meaning no or without and theos meaning god) not apistism (A meaning no or without and pistis meaning faith or belief)
No, it doesn't. It's an acknowledgment that the person is convinced of any gods.It assumes that gods do not exist.
Congratulations: you're a hard agnostic and an atheist.Me being agnostic refuse to make that assumption because:
a.) It's unknowable.
Like clarity and precision in meaning. I tend to hate fuzzy definitions.There are logical reasons to prefer one definition over another
No I am not, I am an agnostic. It's unknowable because no one can accurately define what it is. It is a fuzzy concept that keeps moving around.No, it doesn't. It's an acknowledgment that the person is convinced of any gods.
Congratulations: you're a hard agnostic and an atheist.
How do you know it's unknowable?
Hmm...but who built the computer...It could be a computer simulation.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' the universe is a simulation - ExtremeTech
Atheism and theism form a MECE set: every person belongs to exactly one of the categories.No I am not, I am an agnostic.
Nobody can define what "god" means?It's unknowable because no one can accurately define what it is. It is a fuzzy concept that keeps moving around.