Religion, Culture, War

a reply to: grainofsand

I require faith to believe there are no gods, but no faith is required to be unconvinced by claims.

So, if not atheism,what term would you use for a belief that there are no gods? The definitions of terms like this do vary and without agreement on terms, there's really no conversation to be had.

a reply to: imwilliam

A simple lack of belief in gods is all that is required to fall into the atheist category.
You can of course qualify it with a prefix such as militant atheist, agnostic atheist, or proselytising atheist, as can be done with theists, but lack of belief in gods is the basic atheist requirement.

a reply to: grainofsand

A simple lack of belief in gods is all that is required to fall into the atheist category.

That's nice. But the question remains unanswered, so I'll ask again. What term do you use to differentiate between the belief "there are no gods" and the state of being "unconvinced by claims" that God exists. Or perhaps how do you modify the term "atheism" to differentiate between those two camps?

Again, if some folks in the thread are using one definition of atheism while others are using another definition, then the two are just talking past each other.

a reply to: imwilliam

One who believes there are no gods is by default atheist. That is a faith based atheist position.

One who does not believe claims that there are gods is also atheist by default but such a position does not require any faith.

Is it really so difficult for you to Comprehend?
What label do you attach to people who do not believe in dragons?
Why does lack of belief in gods require a label?

I don't believe in gods for the obvious reason that there is no verifiable evidence to support the claims. I am atheist by default, agnostic atheist if you are desperate for a label, but regardless of terms, my lack of belief in gods requires zero faith.

*edit*
When my son was little he did not believe in any gods because he had not been taught about the claims by myself or his mother.
He wasn't agnostic because that requires knowledge of the claims to make a reasoned conclusion.
He was however atheist because he had not been taught to believe in gods.

After I taught him about the various conflicting faiths, plus philosophy and applied ethics lessons at school he is a young adult who still holds no belief that gods exist.
He does not believe there are no gods, just that there is not enough evidence to draw him towards believing there are.
His position also falls into the atheist category.

a reply to: grainofsand

Is it really so difficult for you to Comprehend?

I can see you're getting frustrated. I'm sorry, I'm just a simple guy that goes to work everyday; where they give me a stack of big pieces, and tell me to turn them into little pieces. It must require an enormous amount of patience on your part to engage in conversation with an uneducated religious dolt such as myself. Again, I apologize.

If the thoughts rattling around in my head on this matter were exclusively self generated, I'd simply drop the matter so as not to tax you're graciousness any further, but alas they're not.

In "A Dictionary of Philosophy" by Andrew Flew the explanation of atheism begins with "The rejection of a belief in God . . ." As I read it, that's not a mere "lack of belief" but a belief that, as I think you put it, "there are no gods"

In the Encyclopedia Britannica, the printed edition, the article on Atheism begins with "Atheism is a denial of God as a first principle and is thus antitheism, the opposite of theism"

I think the words "rejection" and "denial" suggest an position that is actively arrived at via an evaluative process rather, or at least much more so, than a "default" position, the notion that I read you as trying to argue.

Here is an online source, Merriam-Webster, in a short blurb about the difference between atheism and agnosticism distinguishes the two thusly:

"The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods) and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable"

So here they define atheism as a "belief that there are no gods" something that you've stated requires faith. (Interestingly enough, if you look at their definition of "atheism" I think it allows for, though does not demand, something closer to what you're talking about)

And I'm sure you can provide definitions from blogs and what not that support your broader definition. My point is that this is not really a "settled" term whose definition is uncontested or uncontroversial, and that conflict not merely between committed theists and atheists. Simply put, there is some fogginess about the term and I was hoping you could clarify it, or at least clarify how you personally use the term.

But back to your notion that atheism is a sort of natural default position:

You describe your son, prior to any exposure to claims about gods, as an atheist. So, if for the sake of argument I concede that your son at that time held a "non belief" in God or gods, surely you can see that his "non-belief" is different than yours or anyone else that holds an "non-belief" after exposure to the notion of God. Surely you're not arguing that your "non belief" is the same as someone's "non-belief" who's never exposed to the notion of God. Or are you?

Your position, (and anyone else exposed to the notion of God), on the subject is arrived at via an evaluative process, of some degree, of some type or the other. A process that you must have some degree of confidence in, no?

Now that process isn't strictly logical, because you can't prove a universal negative and its not strictly scientific, maybe pseudo scientific, because science doesn't concern itself with things outside of the natural realm, so what was the nature of your evaluative process? What is the source of your confidence in the evaluative process that you engage in to arrive at your conclusion?

As to evidence. There isn't a lack of evidence, it's that some people evaluate/interpret that evidence to point towards the existence of God and some people have come up with alternative explanations for the same evidence, evaluations and interpretations that don't require a "God", but don't necessarily exclude God either.

a reply to: imwilliam

Oh I can pull definitions from the net with equal standing. This silly argument of labels has always existed.
Who cares anyway? Why are you so apparently desperate to have a label for one who does not believe in gods?
Are you as passionate about a label for one who does not believe in pixies?

Either way my position is not born of faith.
Some atheists may hold a faith based position, but this atheist does not.

a reply to: grainofsand

Why are you so apparently desperate to have a label for one who does not believe in gods?

Lol at the religious trying desperately again to attach faith to a lack of belief in unverifiable things

You religious folk seem desperate to make people unconvinced in claims of gods seem as organised believers like religious people are.

You use the word "desperate" a lot. Are you desperate? Perhaps unconsciously so? Could your frequent characterization of others as "desperate" and the like be an unconscious attempt on your part to defend yourself against your own feelings of desperation? Something for you to consider.

I'm just always passionate about ensuring the word atheist is kept as meaning one who has no belief in any gods . . .

I see. Why are you so desperate, or to use your word "passionate" about protecting/advancing this particular definition of "atheist"? Rather hypocritical and biased to describe your own efforts to define a term as "passionate" but those of others to define the same term as "desperate".

This silly argument of labels has always existed.

Yes, in this context it's called language. It's the way we communicate and to be efficient requires that both parties agree to what the signs signify or if you prefer, the definition of terms. Or at least, it requires an understanding of the differences between the way terms are defined.

Otherwise, these threads take on the appearance of an explosion at a straw factory, littered with the remains of our own straw men and little else.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you now consider this "silly" since you did advance a definition for the term "atheism". Did you consider yourself being 'silly' when you suggested that definition for the label? All I've done is point out that your definition of the label "atheism" isn't a universally accepted one and asked you to clarify your use of the term/label.

Are you as passionate about a label for one who does not believe in pixies?

Those sorts of false equivalencies are all over the internet and I'm always a little embarrassed for those who consider them to be clever. I hope you don't consider them to be clever. Among other things, I would hope it's clear to you that the existence of, or non-existence of, a transcendent God is of much greater significance than the existence or non existence of pixies.

Either way my position is not born of faith.

I've come to understand that it's extremely important for you to believe that.

Some atheists may hold a faith based position . .

Yes, they do, though I can't recall ever speaking with one that would acknowledge that. Most of them would strenuously object to any notion that faith played a role in their arrival at an atheist position, that their journey was guided by anything other than logic and science is anathema to them. But of course you realize that neither of those vehicles require one to arrive at a "there is no God" position; that in fact, strictly practiced, neither science or logic can get one to "There is no God" position.

. . . but this atheist does not.

Yes, so you've said, many many times, and you've argued that passionately, dare I say desperately?

a reply to: imwilliam

Yes you desperately appear to attempt attaching faith to lack of belief x
Why?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Teikiatsu

My faith in the statement is irrelevant.

If you are trying to compare your statement to my faith in God, it is 100% relevant.

Since your don't believe there are meerkats eating cheese on the moon, the rest of your premise is flawed.

And if you *do* believe in the meerkats, more power to you. Just don't *force* other people to believe it too.

Other people claim there are gods. Whether they have faith in the claim is irrelevant. The question is do I require faith to be unconvinced by their claims. I do not.
Mere lack of evidence is enough.

I lack evidence that you are anything but a sophisticated computer program posting based on feedback.

I require faith to believe there are no gods, but no faith is required to be unconvinced by claims.

The desperation of theists trying to attach faith to lack of belief is amusing.

If I ever said you had faith in lack of belief, I apologize. What I want to convey is that you must have faith in your knowledge of the universe and all its mysteries to say you know enough to definitively declare there is not higher being in the universe that is beyond your comprehension.

Do you think you know that much? I don't think you do. But I am saying you have faith that you do know that much. You believe you do, or at least you believe that one day mankind *will* know that much.

This is one of the reasons I say that an atheist is just an agnostic waiting for the universal epiphany: they don't know everything.

a reply to: [post=22109443]imwilliam[/lCool Bro, just glad that I pissed you off lol

This last month I've been looking at religion. I feel like this is a new (or revisited) form of warfare, a battle of cultures. Seems like atheism and Islam vs Christianity and Judaism, not in terms of the actual beliefs but in the culture they produce on a broad scale, especially in those who don't strictly adhere to those creeds.

First off, Jews don't believe in Christianity at all. Jews are banned from praying in Christian churches but allowed to pray in Islam mosques if a Jewish synagogue isn't available. So Judiasm and Islam might be considered true abrahamic religions whereas Jews see christianity as idol worshipers which is banned in Judiasm and Islam. Christianity (Paulism) perhaps has more in common with Zoroastrianism (the three wise men in bible are thought to be magi that followed Zoroastrianism) with the initiation consisting of baptism using water whereas Judiasm/Islam initiation is circumcision.

Second off, I don't buy todays wars are caused by religion. Moreso political forces, using religion as an escape goat, for the persuit of power and greed. The so called free islamic army are saudi wahhabist, a so called branch of Islam introduced by the Saud family who are cryto jews. This is reason why Saidia Arabia and Israel work hand in hand trying to conquer islamic nations. Their aim is to restore greater Israel. True Torah Jews believe that the zionist agenda of greater Israel is an abomination to Torah teachings.

a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: [post=22109443]imwilliam[/lCool Bro, just glad that I pissed you off lol

Ah, I see. You're aren't capable of discussing or explaining your position intelligently and the sloppy thinking that got you to the position you hold on atheism isn't something that you want examined too closely, so you're just going to play the troll.

Very well then, not the most gracious concession speech I've ever received, but I can see you're squirming. No point in prolonging your discomfort. I accept your surrender.

Have a nice night and better luck next time.

a reply to: imwilliam

Oh sorry, I crashed out, kind of got tired with the whole lack of faith nomenclature discussion.
Call it faith if you wish, I'm easy, I'm satisfied I've made my point and leave others to judge whichever position they think is bull# or not.