Fed up of non believers

[Guest]

It's not stereotyping though, absence of belief in gods is the only quality needed to be an atheist. It's like saying that you stereotype theists by saying that they all believe in a god of some kind

 

I think this is not the first time a thread has been derailed and ended up talking about the meaning of atheism/agnostic.

 

So I may as well put my views across- cos the way I have always understood it is the way The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism:

“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

 

Now someone has already mentioned the prefix part- "a" which negates the meaning of theist. Then an atheist must be one who does not believe in the existence of a deity.

 

As it has been mentioned before, the word comes from the Greek particle a and the noun theos. It literally means “no(t) god,” not “lack of belief in god.”

 

Why do atheists take a meaning that pretty much all understand and then try to change it - is it to escape the burden of proof???

 

Rather than saying it is a 'absence of belief'- in fact it should be 'belief of absence'. That is what it is- you can only have 3 possibilities, affirm it, deny it or reserve judgement (now that would be an agnostic).

[mjw47]

.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 15:20 ----------

 

 

From your legal chain of command. Not from some randomer who starts shouting about what you should do.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 15:23 ----------

 

 

 

Firstly, what the hell is a 'randomer? You're on a thread where people are obsessing about the meanings of words and you start making them up?

 

Secondly, no one is shouting about what anyone should do. The two learned men under discussion were simply giving their considered opinion as to the correct way to describe agnosticism.

 

Huxley was obviously aware of the need to differentiate this believe from both theism and atheism and went to the trouble of inventing a word to describe it.

 

Rowe expanded the definition as he obviously felt it needed clarifying. His expertise was more directly involved with the subject as he was working in theology and philosophy whilst Huxley was a biologist.

 

Also lighten up and get a sense of humour, my obeying ordes remark was aimed at Lockjaw referencing an earlier post.

[janie48]

I'm not upset in the slightest, I'm merely addressing the double standards that you keep employing in these discussions.

 

You continuously apply characteristics and values to atheists as a group, and frequently use them to express upset or offence. Projecting upset onto my reply is therefore rather funny.

 

This fits within the thread topic because it shows how some people are uncomfortable with being wrong and actually want to put up a barrier to their beliefs. This thread is a typical appeal to all those who don't share their beliefs to shut up. Some people simply cannot accept that they might change their mind.

 

My mum's an ex-Christian, my dad's an ex-Muslim, and I'm both. I used to believe in ghosts. I change my mind all the time, I enjoy the process of changing my mind, and I enjoy the process of trying to change other people's minds.

Now whose projecting!

 

And what's all that baloney about "the thread is a typical appeal to all those who don't share those beliefs to shut up" - wake up and stop imagining things.

 

Your bitter unfounded accusations distorting what I feel about atheist's, says more about you, then it does about me, you've subtly hinted at the same detail before haven't you? Earlier I chose to ignore you, which is probably what I should be doing this time.

 

Please try and read posts more carefully before criticising, then you may develop a little more insight.

 

I have a lot of respect and admiration for many atheists not only the ones I am associated with personally, but some of those in influential positions and those connected with the media. Also some who post (or used to post) on this forum, bet that surprises you..

 

When I have exchanged views of disagreement about something or other an atheist has stated, I haven't always received the kind of hostility you demonstrate, due to differences of opinion, and that would also apply to political issues, or any other subject.

 

So continue "the process of changing people's minds" if that's what gives you pleasure, just do it with a less contentious attitude if you're capable of doing so.

Edited March 3, 2014 by janie48

[Ryedo40]

...Whereas, with god:

 

1. Could mean different things to different people.

2. It may not be something we can cognitively grasp.

3. It may well not be limited to residing on one side of the wall. It could be both sides. It could be the wall itself. It could be the observer. It could simultaneously be nothing and everything.

 

So the analogy is something of a misleading comparison.

 

OK, where the dragon is concerned I've given it distinct attributes - I could even give it more and make those attributes very similar to what is often claimed about god. This can be done with anything that someone pulls out their ass and claims exist; that goes whether it's god, dragons, fairies, you name it.

 

You can only work from what is claimed about the said being. The analogy isn't at all misleading.

[ivanava]

I think this is not the first time a thread has been derailed and ended up talking about the meaning of atheism/agnostic.

 

So I may as well put my views across- cos the way I have always understood it is the way The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism:

 

Now someone has already mentioned the prefix part- "a" which negates the meaning of theist. Then an atheist must be one who does not believe in the existence of a deity.

 

As it has been mentioned before, the word comes from the Greek particle a and the noun theos. It literally means “no(t) god,” not “lack of belief in god.”

 

Why do atheists take a meaning that pretty much all understand and then try to change it - is it to escape the burden of proof???

 

Rather than saying it is a 'absence of belief'- in fact it should be 'belief of absence'. That is what it is- you can only have 3 possibilities, affirm it, deny it or reserve judgement (now that would be an agnostic).

 

I am more than happy to make the statement that God does not exist, because I know that it isn't possible.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 17:17 ----------

 

Firstly, what the hell is a 'randomer?

 

A randomer an unspecified person of no importance.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[mjw47]

I am more than happy to make the statement that God does not exist, because I know that it isn't possible.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 17:17 ----------

 

 

[/quote

 

And you can prove this statement?

[ivanava]

 

And you can prove this statement?

 

Yep. ............

[salsafan]

Yep. ............

 

How do you achieve that ? .............

What do you think "God" is ?

[Ryedo40]

Now someone has already mentioned the prefix part- "a" which negates the meaning of theist. Then an atheist must be one who does not believe in the existence of a deity.

 

It literally means “no(t) god,” not “lack of belief in god.”

 

The prefix 'a' is a negation of something. It can mean not or without. It's used to describe what you are not or without.

 

Why do atheists take a meaning that pretty much all understand and then try to change it - is it to escape the burden of proof???

 

They don't change it. Atheist means NOT Theist. Why are they NOT Theist? Because they lack belief or have an absence of belief.

 

Rather than saying it is a 'absence of belief'- in fact it should be 'belief of absence'.

 

No mate. Someone with no knowledge of or who lacks belief has an absence of belief.

 

I have no knowledge of and I'm not aware of an actual god. If I had I would believe. I lack belief, or have an absence of belief, because I have no knowledge of an actual god.

 

I only have knowledge of the claims and said attributes: If someone comes to me with the claim that god exists and provides attributes that I find irrational, unverifiable, etc, then I'm not going to have a reason to change my state of being atheist to theist.

[ivanava]

How do you achieve that ? .............

What do you think "God" is ?

 

You tell me what it is that you want me to disprove and I disprove it.

 

God is different depending on who you ask, to many people it is something that they believe exists which explains everything they don't understand.

 

I can't describe God for you because in my world it doesn't exist.