Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Dictionaries are not official documents, obviously. You're grasping at straws in defence of an irrational religion.
-
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!
Damn Atheists!!
- Thread starter Nimos
- Start date
. Sorry that facts dont agree with you but if delusion keeps you happy then that's fine by me
No, atheism is simply not being a theist.
And when you say "the deity," which deity are you referring to? There's more to theism than just monotheism, and it's humanly impossible to reject every god-concept out there.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The fact that the original meaning of atheism involves denial supports my position.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, agnostics are neither theist nor atheist.
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882],
The fact that the current, accept meaning of atheism includes lack of belief supports mind
Keep in mind that we do not live 2500 years ago.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The fact that it's published in a dictionary doesn't mean that it's accepted.
Not by you obviously but the english language does not require your acceptance
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Your hypocrisy is most amusing.
Here you are demanding that the DICTIONARY you use be accepted as the end all be all whist at the same time dismissing DICTIONARIES that disagree with your end all be all whilst simultaneously declaring atheism a religion.
How do you expect anyone with an IQ over 10 to take you seriously?
Agnosticism and atheism, as well as agnosticism and theism, are not mutually exclusive terms. Most theists and atheists I know are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia
Agnostic theism - Wikipedia
Only part of atheism is seen as positive. Implicit or weak atheism is seen as negative, and has for quite a while. Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia
And while babies would be considered implicit atheists, it's silly to try and 'claim' them. I'm not atheist for the same reason babies are and nobody else is who has heard of or conceived up god concepts is either. Trying to make naturalist arguments out of infant atheism is as fallacious as trying to make naturalist arguments for 'a-gravitationalism' would be.
I asked you a question.
I wouldn't know.
Babies are implicitly atheists.* Their atheism is implied, so the term atheist, applied to them, is rhetorical. Rhetoric is not naturalistic.
*There are no implicit and explicit atheists, only implicit and explicit atheism. (If I were to imply in you a particular quality, does that make it so? No.)
Last edited:
That is atheism explicitly expressed, yes.
lukethethird
unknown member
How is an atheist supposed to know what they are denying, they are not the ones defining what god is, that is for the theist to ponder?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Not that I am an atheist but I cannot resist the challenge!
1. First everything is not a question. Science is not an answer but a philosophical approach on how to find the truth within a limited context. Everything cannot by understood by religion either.
2. Atheists care because people are extremely superstitious support insane public policies in government. Science is the only process we know of when working with knowledge that eliminates the most bias, prejudice, bigotry, and misconceptions. People who tend to be ultra-religious attribute too much cause to God and not enough to the laws of physics.
3. Nothingness never existed. All we know is something exist. Therefore, somethingness has always existed is the only logical conclusion based on the evidence.
4. You can't prove a negative. I can't prove to you monkeys will never fly out of my butt. Some day in the future it is possible that monkeys will fly out of my butt. The point is based on reasonable experience and an expectation of the future based on what is experienced in the present most people will interpolate the conclusion monkeys will never fly out of my butt. Some atheists just interpolate it is very unlikely God exists.
5. The study of abiogenesis is fascinating. From my amateur interest in abiogenesis my theory on how life arose from the primordial soup is based on lottery math. If you buy enough lottery tickets then at some point you are going to win. Trillions and trillions of bubbles over billions of years eventually one bubble will hit the lottery! At some point the first bubble that started acting like a living cell came into existence. It was organized to take in food, process food, expel food, divide in such a way as to create copies of itself with the ability to make self-improvements with new generations which then gave rise to evolution. It's not that hard to imagine this could happen with one hundred quintillion number of bubbles!
6. Man has evolved to be a social animal. We have instincts with regards to caring for babies and children. People have a natural empathy for others with the way imagination works. Our instincts and empathy guide us on how we should behave with others. Morality certainly does not come from religion because there are so many different religions and people all around the World generally behave the same.
7. No and not because of evidence for God. The problem with Christianity is a psychological one. Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority. We have to balance submission to authority with a healthy self-esteem and confidence in our own inner authority.
8. It is just pure dogma to deny the existence of transitional forms. Fish have two eyes, two nostrils, two front fins, two back fins, a spine, a mouth, and poop hole. And we have two eye, two nostrils, two arms, two legs, a spine, a mouth, and poop hole. There are just too many similarities between all the different types of animals to deny evolution as science fact.
9. We can only live according to what we believe. As an atheist, philosophical materialism is the dogma:
Materialism - Wikipedia
It may be a dogma but it is just as good as any other dogma! At least with materialism it is based on simple facts that can be shared and verified by all. Compared to other dogmas, this is a huge advantage over making huge leaps of faith.
10. As an atheist there is no evidence a soul exists. Death is just the end of our life. This is why living life without superstition is so important now. But let's assume God exists. And let's assume a Christian God of judgment exists. Then if you mean lose your soul has suffer eternal damnation then the only solace is Hell is crowded. But how bad can it be it can't be worse than living in New Jersey!
This is my best atheist impersonation. As theist, I am not worried about my soul. I have full and unshakable faith in my God of unconditional love will save me no matter how I sin during my time on Earth. This is what I love most about my God of unconditional love. She's always on my side!
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It does mean that it is widely used in that sense (that's how dictionaries work). You have absolutely no right to try to impose your own definition on the world because it suits your religious prejudices.
Augustus
…
It's used in numerous ways, none of which can claim to be The One True Correct Usage™
There is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years
1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’ (Baggini 2003: 3)
2. ‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
3. ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
4. ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
5. ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean—a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)
The Oxford Handbook of Atheism
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Not entirely sure what your point is. As I said "lack of belief in god or gods" common enough usage to make it to dictionaries and I've certainly found it to be very common amongst people who self-identify as atheists. Indeed "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." in Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries) covers all the bases.