Skirmisher Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I go with the dictionary definition and literal translation of the word. Lack of belief in God/gods. This, of course, covers all non believers inc those who are willing to be convinced and those who completely deny the existence of all gods. Not believing in God and believing that there is no God, are two different things. Why is that, if there IS a god then one would have to believe it. How can anyone deny something if there is absolute proof to confirm it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ignosticism is far from pointless. In some regards it can be likened to the position of the strong atheism and the argument from non-cognitivism. However, it goes one step further and asserts that as the concept of God is meaningless and incoherent so is the term theist and consequently atheist. To hold a position of belief or abelief on a meaningless concept is absurd and unscientific. An interesting read on the argument from non-cognitivism http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ jb I doubt anyone that beleives in a God that cannot be tested really cares whether you assert that their belief is unscientific. It is not a meaningless concept to those it has meaning for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Wow! Congratulations- at last an effort to actually find out what the 'person in the street' sees atheism as being. As I've pointed out on pretty much every thread where this comes up- despite the hard-core 'rationalists' insistence that it means simply a lack of belief; the fact remains that current dictionaries can contain either of the first 2 definitions. And, in my experience of asking people, the 'person in the street' tends to go more for atheism meaning a 'belief that God doesn't exist'. Except for those that go for option 3, of which there are plenty. Hence the tendency for discussions on God/atheism going absolutely nowhere other than bickering and thread-locking: the rationalists and the people they're trying to talk to, have completely different understandings of the term 'atheism'! Cue several 'rationalists' steadfastly refusing to engage with the issue and insisting that only their own understanding of the term is 'correct', and anyone who disagrees being 'wrong' way to go guys! A very constructive way to have a discussion. I think the best recourse for any discussion is to define the meaning of the terms in use at the start, that way there can be no confusion. For atheism one should revert to the simplest definition which is lack of belief in God. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Why is that, if there IS a god then one would have to believe it. Why? There may well be alien life forms in the universe we're not aware of. We currently have no evidence for them, that doesn't mean they're not there. Just because we don't know (and therefore are perfectly entitled to believe they are not there) it doesn't mean they are not there. Just because something exists it is not a default that we have evidence that it exists and therefore have to believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I doubt anyone that beleives in a God that cannot be tested really cares whether you assert that their belief is unscientific. It is not a meaningless to concept to those it has meaning for! Then they would be conflating subjective meaning with objective meaning. The mistake here is that because the term God conjures up a vast array of imagery, feelings and emotion it conveys an illusion of coherency. However, the term God still lacks any objective positive attributes and is meaningless. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Then they would be conflating subjective meaning with objective meaning. The mistake here is that because the term God conjures up a vast array of imagery, feelings and emotion it conveys an illusion of coherency. However, the term God still lacks any objective positive attributes and is meaningless. jb It is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Muslim and it is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Christian, or a Hindu, and it is not meaningless. Just because you can't define the term it doesn't make it meaningless. Maybe you should reassess your use of the term meaningless, maybe try unquantifiable instead? Or something similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Muslim and it is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Christian, or a Hindu, and it is not meaningless. Just because you can't define the term it doesn't make it meaningless. Maybe you should reassess your use of the term meaningless, maybe try unquantifiable instead? Or something similar? Subjective meaning =/= Objective meaning. On the subject of God it is presumed that it has an objective meaning when in fact it does not. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Then they would be conflating subjective meaning with objective meaning. The mistake here is that because the term God conjures up a vast array of imagery, feelings and emotion it conveys an illusion of coherency. However, the term God still lacks any objective positive attributes and is meaningless. jb Not when you are singing "Abide with me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Atheism is the opposite to Theism which is the belief in one or more deities. Vis-à-vis Atheism is the belief there is no deity. If others disagree they are wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Muslim and it is not meaningless. You say 'God' to a Christian, or a Hindu, and it is not meaningless. Just because you can't define the term it doesn't make it meaningless. Maybe you should reassess your use of the term meaningless, maybe try unquantifiable instead? Or something similar? Which is why they can make a claim of belief in its existence, it should be meaningless to everyone else, which is why lacking belief in its existence is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.