What is Atheism?

[HeadingNorth]

You weren't tempted then, to offer up some kind of justification for that very dogmatic statement?

 

A-theism is greek for no-belief. What justification do you need for arguing that no belief means no belief?

[onewheeldave]

A-theism is greek for no-belief. What justification do you need for arguing that no belief means no belief?

 

I think most of us on here though, use English, not ancient Greek

 

I did mention the 'rationalists' old favourite i.e. entomology (i.e. the origin of words) in an earlier post and gave my reasons for not rating it as being all that relevant to the issue.

 

I think you'll find that, in many cases, the established 'common usage' of a word trumps any entomological aspects that contradict it.

 

Certainly, the entomology of a word is one factor to take into account when deciding it's current meaning, but there are several other factors as well, one of which is the common usage.

[HeadingNorth]

I think most of us on here though, use English, not ancient Greek

 

Okay; in that case, "no belief" is English for no belief. What justification do you need for arguing that no belief means no belief?

[Drone]

Okay; in that case, "no belief" is English for no belief. What justification do you need for arguing that no belief means no belief?

It is Greek for NO God actually

[Drone]

Atheism is Greek for NO God should I say

[Skirmisher]

You weren't tempted then, to offer up some kind of justification for that very dogmatic statement? a shred of evidence, maybe, or, a few thoughts/words... a bit of reasoning to back up your claim.

 

There is no need for anything else as that is what it means.

[Drone]

There is no need for anything else as that is what it means.

But it doesn't though does it? It means without god/s

[Skirmisher]

But it doesn't though does it? It means without god/s

 

Where do you get that from?

[Drone]

Where do you get that from?

Why don't YOU investigate if ya an atheist

[quisquose]

I do dislike the active anti-theist atheists, people are entitled to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm anybody. Anybody is entitled to scrutinise, criticise, question and even mock religious practice, doctrine, traditions and culture but I can't help but think atheists who vigirously attack and mock a believer with the aim on convincing them to the atheist point of view is not only a pointless and futile task, they're ironically engaged in the sort of behaviours they so dislike of the religious types that they are so anti.

 

Assuming that you accept I am "entitled to scrutinise, criticise, question and even mock religious practice, doctrine, traditions and culture" but you don't think I should do it vigorously, would you care to give me examples of what is borderline acceptable, and what is borderline unacceptable, because I am curious to know where you think the line is.

 

Since I am more than happy for theists to engage with me vigorously and attempt to convince me of their theistic point of view, I enjoy debate, and welcome the prospect of changing my mind and learning, I fail to see any of the hypocrisy that you are hinting at. Attempts to be convinced of an alternative position is not behaviour that atheists dislike, and it might be futile, but it can be entertaining, informative and enlightening.

 

Just last weekend I was visited at my home by people proselytising for Islam for the first time. The young men were polite, they gave me a leaflet about Islam, and we had a friendly chat. But they arrived unannounced on a Sunday morning, and knocked on my door. Now, I've been called a militant atheist on this very forum merely for engaging in debate on a forum dedicated to debate. What does this make these polite doorstep salesmen for Islam?

 

Theism and atheism are simply yes/no positions of belief with respect to a single question. Neither of these positions alone motive anybody, or are belief systems in themselves.