Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Of course you can, but stated either way, for the most part it will be taken to mean some variation of a statement that, "I am not an atheist."
Yes, yes it should.
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!
Of course you can, but stated either way, for the most part it will be taken to mean some variation of a statement that, "I am not an atheist."
Good, because belief doesn't involve a "God" (not all the time at least). Had you actually read the post you would know that. You do hold a convicted truth, whether or not God is essential to it is irrelevant, since it is believed that no God exists.
"Belief" stands in contrast to "knowledge," but not in some relationship of mutual exclusivity. Knowledge is a belief that has been justified, but it doesn't stop being believed.
Seems to me the mistake made is one of exclusion, not inclusion.Indeed, belief, like many other words, has different sense and contexts. The mistake is when people incorrectly apply all senses of a word in all contexts that the word is used.
Seems to me the mistake made is one of exclusion, not inclusion.
The significant distinction seems to be in what the part in blue implies.
Would it be safe to interpret that as that there is a world view that deities play a part in, and that "atheist" is the world view that stands in contrast to it?Yes, but "atheistic" as an adjective describes nothing about a world view except that deities play no part in it. Therefore, by itself, "atheist" does not describe a particular belief system or world view.
This is wrong, but a problem inherent with unspoken language. Emphasis can alter the meaning of two sentences with the same wording.
One can say "I don't believe I'm an atheist," with the meaning I am not of the opinion that I'm an atheist.
But, one can also say" I don't believe I'm an atheist" - the emphasis on the word believe implying that the person is stating that the definition of believe isn't applicable to their being an atheist.
This is why, when dealing with written language, it's good to develop the skill of being able to understand the larger context in which somebody is making a statement, so that you are better able to understand what they actually mean.
Would you consider it tacky to call a baby "apolitical"?
Two points Eliot
First, you said 'One can certainly hold the position that gods might exist ----' and also implied that you are such one. But , at least by the 3 definitions of Wikipedia, you are not an atheist.
Second, ateism is defined as 'absence of belief in deities' and not mere absence of belief.
...
Would it be safe to interpret that as that there is a world view that deities play a part in, and that "atheist" is the world view that stands in contrast to it?
Isn't that what I said?No. It would be safe to interpret that to mean that, of the six-odd billion human world views on this planet, the ones that include deities can be accurately described as "theistic" and all the rest can be accurately described as "atheistic".
Isn't that what I said?
Does something that stands "in contrast" to something else necessarily stand in a position of opposition?No, you said atheism is "in opposition" to theism. That implies knowledge and rejection of theistic world views, doesn't it?
Does something that stands "in contrast" to something else necessarily stand in a position of opposition?
Being both, and neither, I've no argument with that.It's wrong-footed to interpret "theism" and "atheism" as opposites.
Isn't that "opposition"?Theism actually describes something. Atheism is the word that applies whenever that particular "something" is not present.
You have atheistic Buddhists and theistic Buddhists, for example. It would be misleading to say they "oppose" one another: their world views are more similar than not.
Two points Eliot
First, you said 'One can certainly hold the position that gods might exist ----' and also implied that you are such one. But , at least by the 3 definitions of Wikipedia, you are not an atheist.
Second, ateism is defined as 'absence of belief in deities' and not mere absence of belief.
...
According to some atheists, it's the nature of belief itself that settles the matter.If it is a question of what is believed then surely it is the nature of the belief that settles the matter?