Why I raise my children without God.

[janklow]

Atheism does not require beliefs. It is the absence of a belief.

well...

Definition of ATHEISM

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

that seems pretty clear-cut on the "requires belief" front

Let me ask you a question. Is belief and knowledge the same thing?

nope

 

[Bodhi]

Definition of ATHEISM

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Disbelieve

1. : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

Unbelief

1: not : other than : reverse of : absence of

dis-

a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force ( see de-, un-2 . ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:

Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief.

 

[Bodhi]

nope

Then since gnosticism is pertaining to knowledge (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic), it has nothing to do with belief (which theism/atheism deals with). What you are trying to do is make knowledge and belief synonymous with each other.

A theist believes in god.

An atheist does not believe in god.

A weak atheist does not believe in god because he/she believes he/she lacks sufficient evidence or proof to warrant belief.

A strong atheist does not believe in god because he/she believes he/she has sufficient evidence to disprove god's existence.

None of this is based on knowledge of whether or not god exists. It is belief based on available evidence.

...

Gnosticism, on the other hand, deals with knowledge, not belief.

Gnostic

1. pertaining to knowledge.

2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

Agnostic

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

This word comes from Greek, and is translated as "knowledge". Its use derives from the esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation .

So an agnostic would believe that ultimate truth, or God, is unknowable. You could therefore be a theist who believes in God yet holds the view that God is unknowable or you could be an atheist who disbelieves in God based on either insufficient or sufficient evidence (as explained earlier) yet holds the view that the truth of the matter, or God's existence, is ultimately unknowable; in other words, it's not 100% knowable based on facts whether or not God exists.

 

[zombie]

ev·i·dence

noun

1.

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2.

something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3.

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

knowl·edge

noun

1.

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2.

familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.

acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4.

the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.

awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

 

[Bodhi]

@zombie, I'm talking to @janklow

 

[zombie]

@zombie, I'm talking to @janklow

so ??

No matter who who are talking to there is no such things as a weak atheist. it's just a made up nonsense term i've been trying to get you to see that but you refuse. you want to talk directly to him PM him this is a discussion forum and anyone can give their opinion.

 

[zombie]

How the fuck are you going to flag a definition, that's that bullshit.

 

[Bodhi]

Because you're either misinterpreting what's being said or you're trolling and I believe it's the latter. For instance, you don't even believe in the dictionary but you're pulling up definitions without any explanation and in addition to that, the definition given doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument. I suppose you pulled up the definition of "evidence" in an attempt to link it with "knowledge" but that has nothing to do with belief being synonymous with knowledge. Also, you keep repeating the same thing without any argument around it. So in my book, you're trolling and I'm acknowledging it as such. Your spam is ruining the flow of the thread.

 

[zombie]

Because you're either misinterpreting what's being said or you're trolling and I believe it's the latter. For instance, you don't even believe in the dictionary but you're pulling up definitions without any explanation and in addition to that, the definition given doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument. I suppose you pulled up the definition of "evidence" in an attempt to link it with "knowledge" but that has nothing to do with belief being synonymous with knowledge. Also, you keep repeating the same thing without any argument around it. So in my book, you're trolling and I'm acknowledging it as such.

I believe in the dictionary i know it exist but i understanding that the dictionary holds the popular meanings of things but not always the real meanings of things. A dictonary can hold meanings for words that are illogical. I keep saying the same thing but i have given my argument on why there is no such thing as weak atheism many times and as you can see i am not the only one that has a problem with the term, it is nothing more than a bullshit term. Evidence can be seen as knowledge OR rather evidence is a form of knowledge, knowldege is and can be data. data can be evidence. evidence creates knowledge.

 

[Bodhi]

Evidence can be seen as knowledge OR rather evidence is a form of knowledge, knowldege is and can be data. data can be evidence. evidence creates knowledge.

This does not mean that belief = knowledge. Check your definition:

ev·i·dence

noun

ground for belief

Check this:

The snake is bright red.

 

[Bodhi]

If you are still confused, think of it this way:

A weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe based on what he/she doesn't have.

A strong atheist is someone who doesn't believe based on what he/she does have.

 

[janklow]

Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief.

"b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

An atheist does not believe in god.

this is still a much clearer statement than you want to admit.

A weak atheist does not believe in god because he/she believes he/she lacks sufficient evidence or proof to warrant belief. A strong atheist does not believe in god because he/she believes he/she has sufficient evidence to disprove god's existence. None of this is based on knowledge of whether or not god exists. It is belief based on available evidence.

remember that the terms i am objecting to are the "agnostic atheist" nonsense. to quote myself: "is there a problem with just being an atheist/theist and just not expressing as strong a belief as others?"

So an agnostic would believe that ultimate truth, or God, is unknowable. You could therefore be a theist who believes in God yet holds the view that God is unknowable or you could be an atheist who disbelieves in God based on either insufficient or sufficient evidence (as explained earlier) yet holds the view that the truth of the matter, or God's existence, is ultimately unknowable; in other words, it's not 100% knowable based on facts whether or not God exists.

and it still comes back to this: if you're an atheist who says "well, i can't PROVE God doesn't exist, so i'm not really sure," then you don't believe there's no God. you disbelieve in God. you're now an agnostic.

and what this really comes down is that people are afraid to just say they're agnostic/atheist/theist and go forward with it.

also, everyone's being civil, so chill out on flagging the posts

 

[Bodhi]

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

The (b) definition describes atheism as the teaching that no deities exist. The (a) definition describes atheism as disbelief in god. Require would mean that only the (b) definition would exist. There is also the (a) definition which does not call for belief but rather the absence of belief. That is the difference between strong and weak atheism. Atheism can be either absence of belief in a deity or the belief that no deity exists, as shown in the Webster definition.

Disbelieve

1. : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

Unbelief

1: not : other than : reverse of : absence of

dis-

a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force ( see de-, un-2 . ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:

Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief.

---------------------------------------

remember that the terms i am objecting to are the "agnostic atheist" nonsense. to quote myself: "is there a problem with just being an atheist/theist and just not expressing as strong a belief as others?"

No, there's not a problem but that doesn't mean that the terms don't exist and people use them. If you are an agnostic atheist, that means you lack belief in a god (weak atheism) or either you believe no god exists (strong atheism) simply because you do not know (agnosticism). Theists believe (theism) and most of them claim not to know (agnosticism); in theism land, they call that "faith". When talking about specific gods like the God of the Christian Bible, based off descriptions of him and general observations of the natural world, we can disprove this god and it leads to Gnostic Atheism, where one would claim not to believe based on the fact that they know (gnosticism) that that particular God is not real. The position of gnostic atheism can also be taken up against the various gods of antiquity across the globe. However, when speaking about a god in general, most atheists are agnostic atheists, whether strong or weak.

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism as atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other

---------------------------------------

and what this really comes down is that people are afraid to just say they're agnostic/atheist/theist and go forward with it.

^^ Baseless.

---------------------------------------

and it still comes back to this: if you're an atheist who says "well, i can't PROVE God doesn't exist, so i'm not really sure," then you don't believe there's no God. you disbelieve in God. you're now an agnostic.

You're ignoring the fact that knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Theism (belief in one or more deities) and atheism (absence of belief in deities or the belief that there are none) are positions based on belief.

---------------------------------------

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in. Since agnosticism is a position on knowledge and does not forbid belief in a deity, it is compatible with most theistic positions.

Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

[whar]

What is the point of this much debate regarding semantics?

What term should an agnostic atheist use?

I do not believe it is possible to reach a conclusion whether god exists or not. We do not have the means to transfer the mere belief in God into actual knowledge due to God's reliance on the supernatural. The term for this is agnosticism.

Given the absence of evidence supporting the existence of God I find no reason to believe it exists. The term for this is atheism.

I am a strong agnostic about God and a weak atheist about it.

 

[Rock_Well]

^ for starters, i think Janklow likes arguing semantics

 

[janklow]

There is also the (a) definition which does not call for belief but rather the absence of belief.

however, there's something weird going on here when we pretend a theist has a belief and an atheist does not. you could easily say "an atheist believes there is no god and a theist does not believe this." atheism is taking a defined position.

No, there's not a problem but that doesn't mean that the terms don't exist and people use them. If you are an agnostic atheist, that means you lack belief in a god (weak atheism) or either you believe no god exists (strong atheism) simply because you do not know (agnosticism).

which is completely unnecessary. agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing; if they were, they'd be known synonyms and we wouldn't use them both... but we do. so NOW we're trying to mash two distinct terms together for no reason at all. if you believe no god exists, you are an atheist. if you THINK no god exists because you cannot prove it, you are an agnostic.

Theists believe (theism) and most of them claim not to know (agnosticism); in theism land, they call that "faith".

wait, suddenly we're claiming it as fact that the MAJORITY of theists claim to not know that there's a deity? because this needs to be supported or tossed out.

^^ Baseless.

have you never read this forum before? because there's been countless arguments of people directly espousing atheist positions and balking at the name.

You're ignoring the fact that knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge.

i'm not ignoring your repetition; i'm taking a position that it's inherent pointless to attempt to combine two words meant to define distinctly different positions.

^ for starters, i think Janklow likes arguing semantics

to some extent, yes

 

[Bodhi]

you could easily say "an atheist believes there is no god and a theist does not believe this."

You could but you would be ignoring the fact that the "a-" in atheist is a prefix meaning "without", "lacking" or "absence".

agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing; if they were, they'd be known synonyms

Exactly.

so NOW we're trying to mash two distinct terms together for no reason at all.

Not for no reason at all. As explained, theism is a position based on belief; gnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Why couldn't you combine them? I'm an American male. American is a nationality; male is a gender.

if you believe no god exists, you are an atheist.

Or if you simply lack belief in gods, you're also an atheist.

if you THINK no god exists because you cannot prove it, you are an agnostic.

Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge so no, agnosticism is where one denies knowledge of the existence of God; that God's existence is unknown and (probably) unknowable.

wait, suddenly we're claiming it as fact that the MAJORITY of theists claim to not know that there's a deity? because this needs to be supported or tossed out.

I'll take Christianity as an example.

We live by faith, not by sight. - 2 Corinthians 5:7

have you never read this forum before?

I'm one of the regular posters here.

because there's been countless arguments of people directly espousing atheist positions and balking at the name.

Never seen them. While these alleged arguments were taking place, did these posters at any time say that they were afraid to call themselves atheists and move on??

 

[whar]

If we are arguing semantics what is the difference between

"I believe there are no gods."

and

"I think there are no gods."

Since a belief is an idea I hold to be true and an idea is a thought, a pure construct of the mind. How are the two statements different?

 

[janklow]

You could but you would be ignoring the fact that the "a-" in atheist is a prefix meaning "without", "lacking" or "absence".

i'm choosing to state what an atheist believes in a different fashion. the prefix's purpose is clear in either case.

Exactly.

well, saying that would lead me to believe you wouldn't argue so hard to mash them together... but we're seeing that this is not the case.

Not for no reason at all. As explained, theism is a position based on belief; gnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Why couldn't you combine them?

because there is no position on one's belief in god that cannot be expressed with a stance (atheist/theist/agnostic), so i remain unsure as to WHY we need the pointless frankenterms.

I'm an American male. American is a nationality; male is a gender.

good for you?

Or if you simply lack belief in gods, you're also an atheist.

...which is another way of saying you think no gods exist.

Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge so no, agnosticism is where one denies knowledge of the existence of God; that God's existence is unknown and (probably) unknowable.

so again, in this scenario, you think god exists, but cannot be sure due to your lack of knowledge, which makes you an agnostic. what was the problem again?

I'll take Christianity as an example.

We live by faith, not by sight. - 2 Corinthians 5:7

one, you're completely misreading this verse. you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a god? two... no, i will say it again, you're completely misreading it.

I'm one of the regular posters here.

starting to doubt this

Never seen them. While these alleged arguments were taking place, did these posters at any time say that they were afraid to call themselves atheists and move on?

no, we're talking about people who define themselves in line with atheism and then refuse to accept that label.

 

[GoldJesus]

Proof that God is real is that Atheists are ugly.