Religious Folks Have a Sunnier Outlook

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nope, read my bio and my last post in the "tone of meaning" thread.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=143226&page=4

Theism and atheism are complete and exclusive. you are one or the other.
They are defined as being not-the other one.

I just gave you a reasonable explanation of why that is not and cannot be the case,
you may make reference to the content, i am too tired to argue with you, you know I
am right.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I just gave you a reasonable explanation of why that is not and cannot be the case,
you may make reference to the content, i am too tired to argue with you, you know I
am right.

No actually, I know I am right, and provided the arguments to match.

here is my bio, with the most relevant bits in bold. followed by the post in the other
thread so you don't have to click on the link and find it yourself.


If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".

If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".

If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".

If you don't believe in god and claim to know he doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".

I am an Agnostic Atheist....

But this tells you almost nothing about me.

In the same way that telling you I don't believe in the Easter bunny tells you almost nothing about me.

It is a statement of the absence of belief.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistmoral.html





Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Atheism is not a belief system."

Then what is it?


I feel like I am on a loop...

Atheism, is by definition the absence of belief in a god or gods.
It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief in a god or gods.
The two are complete and exclusive, in that you are either one or the other.
You are either theist or not-theist (atheist).
You are either Atheist or not-Atheist (theist).

If you have a positive belief in a god, then you presumably also have a set of beliefs in what that
god requires of you (not always but generally true, deists for example don't necessarily believe
that god has ever come and given us instructions, or that their is an afterlife.) so that you can qualify
for entry into an afterlife.

If you don't believe in god, then you don't have any associated beliefs in what that god thinks.
Atheists are people who simply don't have a belief in god.

Atheism is thus an absence of a specific belief.

If you answer the question "do you believe in god/s?" with "no" then you are an atheist.
This doesn't tell you anything about what they do believe in, other than it doesn't include a god or gods.

So atheism, is not, in of itself, a belief system, it is a singular and specific absence of belief.

It has no tenets, dogmas, or requirements, other than not believing in god.

As I have said before any Buddhist that doesn't believe in some form of deity is an atheist.


http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

http://www.atheist-community.org/

http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/

I hope this clears things up.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nope, read my bio and my last post in the "tone of meaning" thread.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=143226&page=4

Theism and atheism are complete and exclusive. you are one or the other.
They are defined as being not-the other one.

I disagree, if one has failed to reach the point where they can say with confidence whether they support or cannot support the possibility some god exists then they should qualify neither for title of theism nor the title of atheism.

Agnostics may well fall into this category.

Originally posted by Agerg
I disagree, if one has failed to reach the point where they can say with confidence whether they support or cannot support the possibility some god exists then they should qualify neither for title of theism nor the title of atheism.

Agnostics may well fall into this category.

No, because you either believe in god, or you don't

If you are shilly shallying around saying, I don't know what I think, then you don't BELIEVE
in god, and thus are an atheist by definition.

To be a theist you have to actually positively believe in the existence of a deity/s.
If you don't, then you are not a theist, which makes you by definition, an atheist.

An agnostic as they are generally regarded, (someone who doesn't know if god exists and is reserving
judgement) is ALSO an atheist. because while they are completely open to the idea, they don't currently
actually actively believe in the existence of a god, they are waiting to see if any argument/evidence will
come along that can convince them.

Read the article here.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, because you either believe in god, or you don't

If you are shilly shallying around saying, I don't know what I think, then you don't BELIEVE
in god, and thus are an atheist by definition.

To be a theist you have to actually positively believe in the existence of a deity/s.
If you don't, then you are not a theist, which makes you by definitio em.

Read the article here.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

To define atheism this way is to cheapen the word. Hell we could call a zebra, or an ashtray an atheist if the only qualifying criteria is a failure to hold that god exists. I'm not saying we must instead believe no gods can exist or similar btw

Originally posted by Agerg
I put it down to binary mentality on the part of fundamentalist Christians. From their perspective the only god that could possibly exist is the one that is associated with their own idiosyncratic interpretation of one (out of many) versions of the Bible. As such if you fail to believe in a 6000 year old earth, and fail to praise Bible-"God" in at least one ou ...[text shortened]... ounds, given that you yourself don't champion the fundie cause, you are seen as an atheist.

For some, religion is a private matter. They don't go around telling people that they believe in God and do not attend church etc.

As for myself, this is not the case. I feel compelled to share what I think is the truth, hence, no one on these boards has a question as to what Whodey thinks about God existing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really? my perception is that theists outnumber atheists as regular posters.
Their are plenty enough of both to make assuming someone is one or the other more of a gamble than is sensible.


Also, you are either a theist, or an atheist, there is no middle ground.

Lets do a roll call.

Who here is an atheist and who here believes in God?

I still await FMF's response. For some reason I am suppose to know that FMF believes in God yet he seems to have an aversion to talking about it?

Originally posted by Agerg
To define atheism this way cheapens the word and though. Hell we could call a zebra, or an ashtray an atheist if the only qualifying criteria is a failure to hold that god exists.

what?

it's nonsensical to talk about the theosity of things that are not sentient.

Defining atheism as anyone who answers the question with "do you believe in god" with no
rules out zebras and ashtrays as they can't answer the question.

Thesists often like to define atheism as belief in the non-existence, or even knowledge of the non-existence of god.
Mainly because it makes arguing against being an atheist easier.

Atheist organisations however generally define atheism as not believing in god.

the neutral position, which is what I have always said on this site.

If you define atheism as simply not believing in god, the opposite of believing in god, then there is no middle ground by definition.

This does not 'cheapen' the meaning of the word.

copied from the link I can't get anyone to read... http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html


In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of a belief in God. [3]
[Emphasis added]



Defined in this way, theism and atheism are mutually exclusive and, more importantly with respect to agnosticism, collectively exhaustive. As another atheist philosopher, George H. Smith explains:

The prefix "a" means "without, so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief...."Atheism" is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism...In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist, there is no other choice. [4]
[Emphasis added]



Thus most atheists define atheism as being without belief in theism. Therefore if one is not a theist, one is then, by definition, an atheist! There is no middle ground.


http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism

Originally posted by whodey
Lets do a roll call.

Who here is an atheist and who here believes in God?

I still await FMF's response. For some reason I am suppose to know that FMF believes in God yet he will not talk about it?

How about I rephrase that for you to:

Lets do a roll call.

Who here is an atheist[, ]who here believes in [some sort of god or gods, and who hasn't made their mind up]?

Originally posted by Agerg
How about I rephrase that for you to:

Lets do a roll call.

Who here is an atheist[, ]who here believes in [some sort of god or gods, and who hasn't made their mind up]?

If you haven't made your mind up then you are an atheist.
By definition.
You don't have a belief that god exists.
You may be unsure, you may be trying to sort it out in your own mind, you might be actively
seeking for reasons to believe.

But if you don't actually currently believe in a god or gods then you are currently an atheist.
And you are not currently a theist.

You are also, an agnostic, because you don't claim to know if their is or is not a god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
what?

it's nonsensical to talk about the theosity of things that are not sentient.

Defining atheism as anyone who answers the question with "do you believe in god" with no
rules out zebras and ashtrays as they can't answer the question.

Thesists often like to define atheism as belief in the non-existence, or even knowledge of the non-existence e is no middle ground.


http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism[/b]

I did read the link, but I don't accept their definition or conclusions. You say it is nonsensical to talk about the religiosity of non-sentient things but if we're going to follow, un-erringly, the path of pedantry then given the definition they supply completely fails to limit in scope the realm of discourse (certainly not ruling out zebras or ashtrays) then why shouldn't I include them - especially when they are asserting no possible shades of grey!?

Originally posted by Agerg
I did read the link, but I don't accept their definition or conclusions. You say it is nonsensical to talk about the religiosity of non-sentient things but if we're going to follow, un-erringly, the path of pedantry then given the definition they supply completely fails to rule out zebras or ashtrays then why shouldn't I include them - especially when they are asserting no possible shades of grey!?

Because it's nonsensical.
The people defining it probably took for granted that nobody would try to work out the religious beliefs of an ashtray...
silly them (rolls eyes. don't know emote.)

Following un-erringly the path of pedantry is daft, and you know it by the tone of your own post.

We are talking about how to divide up/label people.
I would point out that the definitions of atheism I am pointing you to are those used by all the major international
atheist organisations, most atheists, and all the big famous ones you see on tv.

This isn't controversial.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because it's nonsensical.
The people defining it probably took for granted that nobody would try to work out the religious beliefs of an ashtray...
silly them (rolls eyes. don't know emote.)

Following un-erringly the path of pedantry is daft, and you know it by the tone of your own post.

We are talking about how to divide up/label people.
I wou ...[text shortened]... tions, most atheists, and all the big famous ones you see on tv.

This isn't controversial.

You're trivialising what it means to be an atheist if you adopt this definition. I call myself an atheism not only because of my lack of belief in any god or gods but because it was a formal decision on my part the proposition that some sort of god exists is not plausible.
Furthermore I am sceptical that there really exists such a wide agreement on this particular definition of atheism you're putting forwards.

Originally posted by Agerg
You're trivialising what it means to be an atheist if you adopt this definition. I call myself an atheism not only because of my lack of belief in any god or gods but because it was a formal decision on my part the proposition that some sort of god exists is not plausible.
Furthermore I am sceptical that there really exists such a wide agreement on this particular definition of atheism you're putting forwards.

Ok, then go check, I citied a link from the International Atheist Alliance,
the Atheist Community of Austin (Tx), and the rejection of pascals wager site.

It's also the definition I have been using on this site all along.

I don't agree at all that I am trivialising atheism.
Simply because I am not defining it to mean some elite club of people who have made a stand on the issue
doesn't mean the label is worthless, or that I have reduced your position.

I am curious to know what you think the definition would be, but the idea of atheism meaning someone
who believes god doesn't exist, or claims to know god doesn't exist (with respect to specific gods, people
have defined 'the universe' as god before, and the universe patently does exist) but those definitions were
made up by theists who wanted to discredit those claiming to be atheists.

The default position of non-belief in the absence of evidence to form a positive belief either way is the simplest,
most defensible, inclusive, and in my view, best definition of atheism.
And it is the one atheist's have chosen, as opposed to being foisted on us by theists.

You can always clarify by saying you are a strong atheist, or such if you really felt the need.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok, then go check, I citied a link from the International Atheist Alliance,
the Atheist Community of Austin (Tx), and the rejection of pascals wager site.

It's also the definition I have been using on this site all along.

I don't agree at all that I am trivialising atheism.
Simply because I am not defining it to mean some elite club of people wh always clarify by saying you are a strong atheist, or such if you really felt the need.

Your definition does nothing to set me apart from someone who has given the matter no thought whatsoever, it lacks any nuance or qualifiers other than a lack of belief; for that reason I can rightfully say that a zebra is also an atheist (you may not like this, but if you're set upon such an inclusive definition of the word then I can play the same game)

As for any definition of atheism on my part it would have to include the point that a conscious acknowledgement has been made that one doesn't believe in gods. Furthermore it shouldn't as some people argue, be the default position (which doesn't mean theism should be default (ok since I reject your black and white definition))

Strong atheism would be a poor clarification on my part since I don't affirm that no possible god or gods can exist.