Augustus
…
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguments for Atheism
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
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.
Augustus
…
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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
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.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
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)
Augustus
…
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.
In case I missed it, what do you mean by 'traditional definition'?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
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?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you? ...... understand the meaning of 'atheist'?
I don't think that you do.......
The Romans used the word for Christians, back in the day, because Christians did not believe in Roman Gods.
Now, how do Christians fit in with your idea about the word 'atheist'?
I am a Deist, believing in the existence of a Deity, but I am an atheist because I don't believe in a Deity who is aware of, interested in or separate from us humans.
How does that fit in with your idea about the word 'atheist'?
But the atheist "position" doesn't assume anything.
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.
Augustus
…
That atheism is disbelief in god(s)/the belief that no gods exist.
I understand your position; I'm disagreeing with it.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
It assumes that gods do not exist. Me being agnostic refuse to make that assumption because:
a.) It's unknowable.
Altfish
Veteran Member
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'?
Viviane LaFrance
Member
It could be a computer simulation.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' the universe is a simulation - ExtremeTech
Augustus
…
The etymology shows how word usage has changed over time, and thus shows multiple definitions. For most of its history it has referred to a stance that someone has taken rather than a state, but the word has had many meanings throughout its history.
We can't say the 'true' definition is fixed by the morphology either as in English morphemes often don't combine in a rational manner and are thus not completely prescriptive. For example, it can't differentiate between a-theism (absence of theism), or athe-ism (a belief in godlessness).
There are logical reasons to prefer one definition over another, but ultimately there is no authority to define 'correct' usage in a way that makes other definition 'wrong'.
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?
Viviane LaFrance
Member
Like clarity and precision in meaning. I tend to hate fuzzy definitions.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
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.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Hmm...but who built the computer...
Atheism and theism form a MECE set: every person belongs to exactly one of the categories.
Nobody can define what "god" means?
Fair enough, but all the more reason to consider you an atheist: we can't believe that which we can't conceive. Anyone who considers "god" so vague that we can't even evaluate the statement "a god exists" is necessarily an atheist.