ATHEISM Explained

Very thought provoking stuff, David.

I enjoyed them.

 

Libertine,

Thank You. Particular animals, for example pigeons, lose sense of direction when placed in magnetic anomalies, re the geomagnetic field; further research has demonstrated that pigeons have magnetic sensing capabilities. If you were to have demonstrated to you that there is direct transmission of information between human nervous systems, this is to say other than by the 'five senses', would you possibly entertain a prehypotheses that consciousness may have aspects external to what is commonly referred to as the body ?

David




.

 

That's an interesting and thought-provoking concept.

Of course, I am open to any information and evidence you may have, indeed.

 

Libertine,


So, it appears, that you are saying the an atheistic view is your present view but that you are open to new evidence. I will add that evidence can, often, be illusive in the sense that it is necessary that an accumulation of evidence be collected and analyzed before new potential insights and or conclusions can be drawn. Compounding the difficulty, here, with the question at hand, is that one of the primary 'front-end' sensing instruments is the human/animal mind/body.

David




.

 

Okay, after much seeking on the 'net, I'm presuming that this paragraph right here describes the reason why we aren't able to come to a conclusion, and why we are each finding different definitions:

I doubt we will ever agree that a person who doesn't believe or disbelieve in God an atheist. It just seems to me that making a distinction between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" is worthless, because the word that atheism is derived from, "atheos," means (in its most accurate sense) "the negative of god."

Whether you find an etymology entry for atheism that shows the privative a meaning "without" or "absent from" or not, if you actually look up the usage of the privative a, you will see that such an entry is, while not entirely incorrect, imprecise at best.

Thus leading me to the conclusion that many, many people misuse the word "atheist," much in the same way as someone would confuse "not" and "negative."

Being a computer programmer and having to deal with complex logic every single day, I know that such imprecision in the use of technical terms leads to great confusion (such as here). And I also know that, if you tried to substitute "not" where "negative" is what is meant, a computer would bitch and whine to you that your logic is flawed.

Nonetheless, to say that "atheism" as it is used popularly today is the correct meaning would be the logical "Bandwagon fallacy," for such usage of the term (including the distinction between weak and strong atheism) is indeed still incorrect.

See, the privative a is subject to the exclusion of the middle. It is relatively equivalent to the English prefix "un-" or "dis-". Because of this, it deals with only two cases, and is not open to more than two cases.

For example: fastened, and unfastened. Delete, and undelete. Cover and discover. Approve, and disapprove.

All of these words do not leave any room for a "middle" state, there are only two states which apply. Note my last example: Approve and disapprove.

Disapprove cannot cover "lacking approval," it is a specific word that means the opposite of approving of something. A negative approval, if you will.

Similarly, this is how the privative a functions; believe and disbelieve. If you disbelieve in something, that doesn't simply mean you "lack belief," it means that you do the opposite of believing. This is why it is necessary to say "I do not believe nor do I disbelieve" when referring to an agnostic position, because saying "I disbelieve" is incorrect.

I hope that this clears up (1) why we are confused, and (2) why "atheism" best translates to "disbelief in god" rather than "lack of belief in god."

I understand that, today, atheism is understood by most people to mean "not believing in god," but it is also important that you note that this usage of the word is incorrect.

 

...

 

I completely understand what you are saying.

However, you are using atheism in the same vein as "unfastening" what was "fastened".

Theism has never been PROVEN, thus Atheism is not "unproving" it. That much is clear. Thus, the burden of proof is not on the atheist. It is on the theist to prove it.

It has been BELIEVED, but atheism is not "unbelieving" it in the same vein as "unfastening" what was "fastened".

Because Belief is different from Knowledge, I can't UNBELIEVE your BELIEF, but I can fail to see why you believe such and say to you, "Until you provide something more believable than what you have now, I will remain in a state of unbelief."

I HAVE A BELIEF THERE'S A GOD. = THEISM
I DON'T HAVE A BELIEF THERE'S A GOD. = ATHEISM
I HAVE A BELIEF THERE'S NOT GOD. = ANTI-THEISM

Did you check out the link I provided? It is very good explanation. And those two etymological definitions were certainly good evidence of my position of what atheism is.

I agree that words are very slippery, and certain books say various (and sometimes inconsistent) things about them.

My only irritation to Soulless and yourself is that you insinuated I made up or invented my own definitions, which is attacking my character.

 

Yes, that is because they are the same type of negation.

Something doesn't have to have been fastened to begin with in order to be unfastened. They are two different and opposing states.

I disagree, based on the etymology of the word and the use of the privative a in Greek.

An atheist must be exposed to the idea of a god and refute it in order to have an opinion. If one hasn't been exposed to these ideas, then one is agnostic; a position of no knowledge or beliefs or ideas regarding the topic.

Uh ...

Okay, you definitely CAN disbelieve something. We wouldn't have that word if it wasn't possible. I disbelieve in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and countless other fairy tales, for example. But that may be yours (or another person's) believe, that they exist. So I fail to see where you are coming from with this.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you made them up, but they are clearly "your" definitions (as in, your understanding coincides with them), as you're the one quoting them and sticking to them. Just as the definitions and etymology that I am coming up with are "mine."

Anyway, Libertine, keep this in mind: I don't mean to make any personal attacks against you; I know our minds disagree (heavily even), but know that we both have the same heart, and we both want the same things for the most part. *draws an A with a circle* =) So don't take anything I say in this argument as a personal attack, alright? You're a cool fellow, even if we disagree like hell.

 

An atheist must be exposed to the idea, yes. But, they do NOT have to "refute" it in order to have an opinion. There is nothing there to "refute". The burden is on the theist. The atheist can simply say, "Really? I don't believe it." Simple as that.

Well, let's see, AMERICAN ATHEISTS (THE organization for Atheism in America) agrees with "my" definition as you'd see by checking out the link I provided eariler.

http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html#what.it.is

Ok. Right back at ya.

PS. I have to admit, I have admired your arguments in The Christian Forums.

 

Please read. After, feel free to question anything I stated I'm not asking you to believe it, but just to be open to it. I think your a smart person & I only wish to help this situation.

Fear has everything to do with the ego, but the topic does not. The fact that you can't differentiate a clear line between the 2, & the fact that you can't see that I can, in fact proves that what we have here is a matter concerning pride. More specifically your pride. Please do not get angry because these statements aren't meant to upset you. Please allow me to explain.

7 entries found for pride.

pride ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prd)
n.

1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
   1. <LI type=a>A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride.
   2. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth.
4. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.
5. Mettle or spirit in horses.
6. A company of lions. See Synonyms at flock[size=-1]1[/size].
7. A flamboyant or impressive group: a pride of acrobats.

You call yourself a proud atheist, you feel a connection with atheism. It seems that being an "atheist" is a source of "self-worth" for you (it may not necessarily be the only one). From it you derive a feeling of an acievement in knowlege (but that in itself (the feeling of achievement in knowlege) is only a thing of pride). Maybe what truely appeals to you is the label. This would be why you have the need to defend atheism so dirley. That word "atheist" as you know it represents your feeling of achievement in knowlege. This is why you felt those emotions while reading the posts that conflicted with what you said about "atheism" (and I know you felt the emotion(s) because you displayed responding emotions in your responding posts). Your emotions showed that you (eventually) felt under attack by those who presented posts that disagreed with your idea(ls) of atheism. If you haven't by now, you must take to heart that it was not you personally that they were after, but TO uncover a common understanding. The reason you felt the emotion(s) I think BEGINS here: you said "I AM an atheist"... if this is what you feel & not just what you say, the feeling is incorrect(but not wrong...) a correct feeling for you to have would be that you follow atheism. Not that you ARE an "atheist" <--- this reveals 2 seperate entities, thus you no longer take the entity to be yourself. [for extra info...A lot of people who claim religion/non-beliefs (ie: catholics, christians, jewish, & even atheists)including my parents (& formerly myself) take the entity (or the belief) to be themselves... those people are usually the type who are pushy with their beliefs.]






This post is not about the semantics of the words (which every other post seemed to have turned into) but about the associated feelings they bring you. because that word is making you an ass

I wish you well

 

You have very unique sense of humor. I admire that.

 

i just made some changes to that^

 

& if your talking to me, you did not have enough time to read that

 

Trust me, I read it.

I am a speed reader, no shit.

 

then I give up. It's just above your head i can accept that & although it's been fun, that is going to be my only attempt to bring you up to a higher lever. & I hope you if you choose to pro-create that you have nothing to do with the upbringing or your children because the mental disease you have needs to be quarentined for the collective good of mankind.

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1

 

Above my head? And I am the one with a pride problem?

I seem to be a popular target for ad hominem personal attacks since no one understands my points or just flat-out rejects them. Even though I provided LINKS and DEFINITIONS.

I have a "mental disease"... and need to be "quarantined"....

Just because you failed to understand me, and I rejected your psychological attacks upon me.

And now I'm a "fool"...

You must be a sad, sad person.

 

But were you not just previously arguing that we must seek out the true definition at the very roots of the word, rather than accept what meaning it has apparently been giving by, well whoever the hell, because iof we've reached this point it no longer matters now does it? Or is it only okay to do such when it suits you?

 

let's just give the baby his candy,
all hail libertine! king of atheism and all that is "possibly true".

 

Ahhh... you're back in full force, I see.

I provided you to etymological definitions PLUS the link.

That's as far as I go, SC.

I don't KNOW how much more I can provide, and I don't BELIEVE it would matter to you anyhow.