Whoa someone with intellegence, who doesn't just laugh at the notion of a diety as being for those who are imbeciles.
Everything Tychoflak said about atheism was a misrepresentation of what most people who label themselves atheists actually believe. I don’t come across many people saying they believe god does not exist, as that’s obviously not a very rational stance. If you want to debate whether belief in god’s existence is rational or not, than let’s debate that, but I’m sick of this bull where you guys misrepresent our position and than proceed to argue against that misrepresentation.
If you read the second major paragraph again. It might help you understand where I was going the rest of the post. But hey friendly debate is cool n all, but I can tell you right now the "argument" will just get circular. Atheists are going to continue to be Atheists and Religious folks are gonna be religious. There will be no converting to either side. It's an internet rule or something I'm all about freedom of thought. Like I say though i'm not a member of any mainstream religion, or ANY religious group for that matter. I am religious though.
It might have been Saito who I discussed this issue with at length in the religious thread, but I'm pretty sure you were involved as well. "A" at the beginning of a word makes the word the contrapositive of the root. So something that is amoral is something considered to be outside the scope of morality, which in turn makes morality an incomplete (read incorrect) model, the basis of amoralism. Atheism is much the same way; an atheist is someone who affirms the opposite of the theist (aka is the contrapositive of the root), that a god or gods do not exist. People who don't explicitly believe in a god but don't take a definitive stance on the matter are agnostics. At the core of the "atheist" position that many believe in here is a fundamental belief in the inability to determine one way or another that a god or gods exist. This is the position of agnosticism. If anyone is misrepresenting atheism here, it is the self proclaimed atheists (who are actually agnostics).
I think that he makes a point, though, in the fact that atheists tend to be the ones un-accepting of others beliefs. Also @Kal, I do think that most to all self-proclaimed atheists are agnostic.
Agnosticism, as you say, the belief in the inability to determine one way or another. That is something I believe, but that is not completely my position, because I also do not believe in a god. I live my life as if there isn't one. Agnosticism is not a good label to use because agnosticism is not the default position, in order to be an agnostic you must have some knowledge of the concept of god. For example, what would we label infants? They have no understanding of the concept of god, so they can’t be agnostics as that would mean they believe something about a concept they know nothing about. The word also suggests that we are on the fence, when we are not. And of course there really shouldn’t be a label for someone who doesn’t believe in a god, but because the majority of the world’s population does believe in a god, we the minority feel the need to have a label. Atheism is the best label we could find, and so that’s what we call ourselves. Atheism may have originally meant the belief that a god does not exist, but that doesn’t matter because the vast majority who call themselves atheists today do not use that definition. Definitions change.
As all agnostics would also say. Atheists must also have a concept of god in order to reject it. The default position is the one that treats the issue as a non-question, something that can't be answered. Agnosticism is the default position then. It doesn't say that at all. Agnostics believe that the question has an answer that cannot possibly be determined. That's not a "well we think you're both right," answer, it's a "this is the rational conclusion" answer. I don't understand why that means there shouldn't be a label. We have a label for people who are afraid of the number 13, yet they are an even more exclusive group. It's not an identity thing. It's a meaning of terms thing. Atheism isn't a word that was just coined one day, like conservative, it's a term with a distinct and inherent meaning: the affirmation of the opposite of theism. There's no wiggle room. The meaning of words is not dependent on how people use it (especially with a word coming from Greek roots). Else communism wouldn't even be a debatable topic.
People believe in god because they feel they need to believe in something, even though deep down they know its all bullshit. No argument will get anywhere over religion.
What? No... you can believe in a god and still be agnostic. Agnosticism is a belief, beliefs can not be default positions. Atheism (how I define it) is not necessarily the rejection of a belief, it’s simply the lack of a belief, which is a default position. Fearing the number 13 isn’t a lack of a belief.... A lack of a belief obviously should not have a label. Do we have a label for people who don’t believe in Bigfoot? I’m not saying your definition of atheism is incorrect, I’m just saying that there is more than one definition. The new definition of atheism is the one more commonly used today. You can try to convince me that agnosticism would have been a better choice for a label, but it’s too late for that, the new definition is already well established.
I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that my definition is the proper one (you conceded that point yourself), as the only people who use it the way you state here are essentially agnostics themselves (who constitute an extreme minority). I've not debated T in some time, so my standards are a bit rusty, but I have at least got field-contextual, bright line, academic, and common man. That leaves heuristics, an incredibly unreliable standard (especially if it's not backed by common man).
As I said, the definition of atheism that I use is already well established. Many people use that definition, books have been written with that definition (such as The God Delusion), if you look up the word atheism in most dictionaries or on Wikipedia you will get the definition I use for at least one of the definitions. ??? :?
Bible thumping, anti-gay, funeral protesting nutbag would be a correct definition fore a Christian. I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that my definition is the proper one. Does it apply to majority of Christians? Nope, but who cares. All other definitions are just semantic, nonsensical and wrong. Why? Because I said so.
The definition of atheism that Corb is arguing is the one I am familiar with, with a third word of antitheistic covering the word gap... at least that is what I am familiar with.
Here's the thing. Christian. Root: Christ, Meaning: Jesus of Nazareth; Suffix: -ian, Meaning: of or related to; Definition: Of or related to Christ. Atheism. Root: Theism, Meaning: belief in the existence of a deity or deities; Prefix: A-, Meaning: contrapositive of the root; Definition: One who affirms the nonexistence of a god or gods. These are the literal definitions. There's no way around it, especially with such clinical terms as atheism and Christian. Atheism is not a coined term, it's a derived term. The definition is limited to whatever qualification it puts on the root: in this case contraposition. With 'Christian' there's a lot less obvious meaning because it's only a semi-derived term. And at a purely semantical level the term Christian can describe anything related to Christ, so there's no real conflict there either.
Sorry but you are wrong. A- means no/not/without. If you are without you are lacking. From medterms.com a-: Prefix much employed in the health sciences indicating "not, without, -less" as, for examples, in alexia (not read), aphagia (not eat), aphonia (not voice, voiceless). The "a-" usually becomes "an-" before a vowel as, for example, in anemia (without blood), anotia (no ear), anoxia (no oxygen). The prefix "a-" comes from the Greek meaning "not." From wordinfo.info a-, an- + (Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of, not)
In most cases a- means not, in the case of belief systems is means universally the affirmation of the opposite of the root, or contrapositive (in itself this is a meaning of 'not'). Amoralism: affirms that morality is not universal; agnosticism: affirms that not all knowledge is knowable (including whether or not a god or gods exist); atheism: affirms that a god or gods do not exist. In either case the meaning of atheism is "belief in the nonexistence of deities." You can not believe in a god or gods and be perfectly rational as an agnostic, but believing that a god or gods do not exist as an atheist makes you just as irrational as a theist.
Making up an exception to the role because its suites you. Grate. Amoralism: the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards. Agnosticism: no knowledge, not known, without knowledge. My definition of a Christian still stands. It was meant to show that you are picking the most narrow possible definition, and applying it to all atheists.
Nice edit there. Doesn't make much sense because my quote was of your original post, but whatever. You'll note that I immediately qualified the statement with: "(in itself this is a meaning of 'not')," which you left out of your response. This just doesn't make sense. Amoralism is a philosophical position that attacks moral superstructures. The fact that it has the suffix -ism makes "state or quality of being" a totally inaccurate descriptor, as -ism in this context obviously means 'principle, belief, or movement.' Again this makes no sense, as agnosticism is a distinct philosophical position. I mean take the root and qualifiers and break it down: gnosticism: philosopical position claiming that an ultimate reality is knowable, A-: contrapositive of the root (or not...). Agnosticism therefore is the philosophical position claiming that an ultimate reality is unknowable. Your definition of Christian doesn't make any sense because none of what you say has anything to do with the meaning of the word. There's no way to get 'Bible thumping, anti-gay, funeral protesting nutbag' from the word Christian without some personal bias, as the meaning of the term is rather set in stone.
