Eh, they brought the issue up. I detest two kinds of debates, semantical and procedural. This seems to be a combination.
Its the same with your definition of an atheist. It was meant to show that you are picking the most narrow possible definition, and applying it to all atheists.. You are trying to force this incredibly narrow definition that no one really uses (besides the people that have a personal bias).
It's not a narrow definition, its the literal meaning of the word. Christian has a literal meaning as well: of or related to Christ. What you defined was a vicious straw man based on no part of the word. EDIT: An addendum. Despite its claims about the existence of pretty much every deity ever, as well as its own proto-deities? For some reason atheists and agnostics always seem to think Buddhism is somehow better than other religions...
No it isn't, and I showed that. Literal meaning is ''without a belief in a god'' I will make it simple fore you, because you are clearly not getting it. Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Now add to that without/no/not. Btw you claimed ''not'' is opposite of the root. That's out right bull shit.
That's just nonsense. Agnostics are without a belief in a god. Atheism upholds one major principle: that a god or gods do not exist. Lacking belief in a god or gods, what does that stem from? One of two things: either agnosticism because of the belief that a definitive answer cannot be reached, or because one upholds the atheistic position that a god or gods don't exist. How is it not? I am going to the park today. I am not going to the park today. The only difference between these statements is the word 'not' which affirms the opposite. Apply this to theism: A god or gods do exist. A god or gods do not exist. Again the only difference between these statements is the word 'not.' 'Not' makes a statement that affirms the opposite of the same statement without 'not' included. If we accept that A- means not, and not is quite clearly the equivalent to creating a contrapositive, then atheism can be nothing more than the contrapositive of theism. EDIT: lol I just realized I forgot to put 'do' into the theist statement. Oh well, fixed.
This is just beyond ridiculous. FFS its in the word atheism A- without, theism- belief in a god. You are adding that. Theists believe that there is a god. Atheists are (a-) without that belief. You are deliberately overcomplicating it, and only focusing on ''not''. Matter and antimatter are opposite. Amatter (I know that its not a word) would be without matter.
The same could be said for your focus on 'without,' probably the least common meaning of the prefix a-. Antimatter and matter have established and obvious meanings, as do theism and atheism. Never before have I encountered a group that tries so hard to defend the misinterpretation of a label that they supposedly don't want.
I don't understand why this debate is still happening. I feel like I've made good points that you’ve still not addressed. The definition of atheism I use is already well established, there is no point in arguing against it, just accept that the word has multiple meanings. You can be an agnostic and believe in god... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism Just another reason why agnosticism would not be a good label. Obviously because we label ourselves something that you misinterpret as being irrational. I don't want you thinking people who label themselves atheist are holding the irrational position because for the most part, they aren't.
I focus on ''without' because you are completely ignoring it. In my definition of atheist without/no/not are interchangeable in yours they are not. My problem isn't with your definition, because it applies to a very small group of people and is rely used. My problem is that you are ignoring other definitions that are just as valid and widely used. What are you talking about? We don't want it? Sure we do, just not with your narrow definition. EDIT: Even Wiki gets it right: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
You can be an agnostic and believe in god... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism Just another reason why agnosticism would not be a good label. When he said "without a belief in a god" pay attention to a. It wasn't "without belief any god(s) exist(s)"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist atheist (plural atheists) 1. One who does not have a belief in the existence of God, god, Gods or gods. 2. Especially, one who does not have any religious belief; an irreligious person. 3. One who believes that no deities exist. I can't stand all this bullshit about the etymology and true definition of the word 'atheist'. You know what? It doesn't mean shit. It is just a word. The one thing which unites all atheists is their lack of belief in a god. I am also happy for all atheist to unite in a lack of a word to define them. You know why? Because to not believe in a god is the default stance of every human. The people who are indoctrinated or fool themselves into believing in god need a name, we don't.
In honesty this is what's left when we've exhausted so much in the Religion thread (It's 28 pages long right now!!!)
Here’s Richard Dawkins’ spectrum of theistic probability from his book The God Delusion. I thought it would be helpful in understanding how I think of the different stances on the question of god’s existence. 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial agnostic. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one." I place myself in category 6, as does Richard Dawkins, he says “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” I agree with that, as I would expect most people who call themselves atheists would. This also demonstrates why I wouldn’t want to be labeled agnostic as that would imply that I’m in category 4, which I'm not.
Kalalification, if we go by your definition of an atheist, then can you please explain the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. a: without anti: against
Obviously you guys are a split camp; some of you think that atheism is the equivalent to agnosticism but atheism is already the label used, others that lacking a belief in god is all that it takes to make one atheist. Let's take a look at Dawkins' perspective, because someone has already posted it and he's more or less the leader of the modern atheist movement. So the first thing he has is the 'strong theist' position, in which one is absolutely certain of the existence of a god or gods (actually he takes his usual tactic of only addressing Christianity, but this is essentially what he says). The next position he defines is the one that believes there is a very high chance for the existence of a god or gods. Next he discusses the quasi-theist position, in which is not very certain but still believes in a high probability for the existence of a god or gods. The agnostic position. The very first atheist position, in which one isn't certain, but believes the nonexistence of a god or gods has a rather high probability. Higher chances in the nonexistence of a god or gods. Certainty that a god or gods do not exist. Okay. Let's look at this as a whole. One is said to be more theistic the more one believes in the existence of a god or gods. On the opposite spectrum is atheism. Atheism. Meaning the belief that a god or gods do not exist. The qualifiers placed on these words is unimportant; the positions of 'strong' (aka true, or actual) theism and atheism are quite evident in their meaning: either a god or gods exist, or a god or gods do not exist. Everything else is agnosticism, as one takes the position that it cannot be known at present, or possibly ever. It's really not that difficult people; Dawkins clearly knows how to define the term.
I feel like everyone just got owned. Since you quoted Dawkins disagreeing with your position on definition :O I'm somewhere between 6 and 7 on that scale, when I'm feeling disagreeable I'll swing to like an eight . But below that outer facade, I do realize that it is unprovable. I like to think of myself as living in the 'real world'.
