Islam4UK

[Burnsy2023]

By which definition?

The Oxford English Dictionary for start:

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

 

[markweatherill]

Aggressive bigots trying to drag everyone else down to their level.

Go away you uneducated buffoons! You are so thoroughly unwelcome in these lands.

Perhaps they will be gone after the next Election. Or did you mean another bunch of aggressive bigots?

 

[Dolph]

So, the earliest root is from a Greek word meaning Godless - sounds about right - and no mention of a belief there.

Even the later French interpretation mixes denial and disbelief in the same interpretation - I'm no linguist but aren't they two separate things?
I was going to ignore the fact that this definition was made by a religious personage with good reason to load the definition - but I won't.

They are two seperate things, but you are adding a third thing, lack of belief, which is not the same as disbelief.

Take a sealed box. It could contain a coin, but unless you open it, you don't know. There are a variety of positions that could be taken about whether the box contains a coin.

• I know the box contains a coin
• I believe the box contains a coin
• I do not know if the box contains a coin (this is the lacking belief in the coin option)
• I do not believe the box contains a coin.
• I know the box does not contain a coin

The top two are classical theist positions, the bottom two classical atheist positions, the middle one is neither theist nor atheist. The exact term depends on the rationale used to arrive at the decision, but agnostic (I do not know, and believe we cannot) or ignostic (What is a coin) are common ones.

Of course, there are cross over positions, for example agnostic atheism and agnostic theism (both of which acknowledge you can't know, while holding a belief based stance).

 

[Stan_Lite]

The Oxford English Dictionary for start:

A definition based on the definition cooked up by some French Priest or monk in the 16th century.

I'd rather base my definition on that kindly supplied by Dolph from the original uncorrupted root.

Atheism is the -ism of atheos, or godlessness.

The true definition of atheism would be Godlessness rather than lack of belief in a God.

 

[Feef]

Post about etymology of Atheism

I tend to stay well out of the actual debate in these threads - there are some members on here who share very similar views to my own, and tend to express them far more eloquently. I will just jump in to say thanks for that post, however, which I found genuinely very interesting. Cheers

 

[Dolph]

You have me sussed! I ought to get my ass out on the street and recruiting my minions because I must be a pretty good extremist then by your account.

Recruitment is not a requirement...

It's not a refusal at all. I considered those avenues many years ago, then I grew up with lots of good facts that changed my opinions. Fiction didn't really satisfy me see.

Good for you, still spoken like a born again however.

I don't have a fear of other peoples beliefs and on a more important point I'm not calling for people to take out ridiculous actions like marching through a town marked as sensitive to the local populace and basically wave my opinion in their faces knowing full well it will cause distress.

It isn't a fear of other's beliefs, it is appealing to their fear to suggest they should change. The accusation of mental illness is the equivilent of saying those who don't share your faith are going to hell...

I eagerly await your self elightened, holier than thou, moral highground typical Dolph response though. I know your forum based life is dear to you so I look forward to it.

I'm sure poisoning the well will help your debating position no end.

Have you read the Essay by Richard Dawkins entitled Viruses of the mind? I find it actually a very good test for both theists and atheists as to whether they are suffering or not...

 

[Stan_Lite]

They are two seperate things, but you are adding a third thing, lack of belief, which is not the same as disbelief.

Take a sealed box. It could contain a coin, but unless you open it, you don't know. There are a variety of positions that could be taken about whether the box contains a coin.

• I know the box contains a coin
• I believe the box contains a coin
• I do not know if the box contains a coin (this is the lacking belief in the coin option)
• I do not believe the box contains a coin.
• I know the box does not contain a coin

The top two are classical theist positions, the bottom two classical atheist positions, the middle one is neither theist nor atheist. The exact term depends on the rationale used to arrive at the decision, but agnostic (I do not know, and believe we cannot) or ignostic (What is a coin) are common ones.

Of course, there are cross over positions, for example agnostic atheism and agnostic theism (both of which acknowledge you can't know, while holding a belief based stance).

Where's the "I don't care if there's a coin in the box" option and where would that come on your sliding scale?

 

[Burnsy2023]

A definition based on the definition cooked up by some French Priest or monk in the 16th century.

I'd rather base my definition on that kindly supplied by Dolph from the original uncorrupted root.

[QUOTE-Dolph]Atheism is the -ism of atheos, or godlessness./QUOTE]

The true definition of atheism would be Godlessness rather than lack of belief in a God.

So that equates to:

I don't like that definition, it doesn't fit with my argument, so I'm going to ignore it despite it's obviously respected source.

I'm sorry but I think that deserves a

 

[Xordium]

They are two seperate things, but you are adding a third thing, lack of belief, which is not the same as disbelief.

Take a sealed box. It could contain a coin, but unless you open it, you don't know. There are a variety of positions that could be taken about whether the box contains a coin.

• I know the box contains a coin
• I believe the box contains a coin
• I do not know if the box contains a coin (this is the lacking belief in the coin option)
• I do not believe the box contains a coin.
• I know the box does not contain a coin

The top two are classical theist positions, the bottom two classical atheist positions, the middle one is neither theist nor atheist. The exact term depends on the rationale used to arrive at the decision, but agnostic (I do not know, and believe we cannot) or ignostic (What is a coin) are common ones.

Of course, there are cross over positions, for example agnostic atheism and agnostic theism (both of which acknowledge you can't know, while holding a belief based stance).

A good summary and in my experience the people who fall into the last category very often have a very poor grasp of the science that they use to justify their faith on (because it does require faith as it is unprovable in relation to a god type theory). Like I said in my last post even Dawkins would place himself in the "I do not believe ..." in the does god exist question as he recognises that to say a categorical does not exist would require the same blind obedience that he so openly criticises.

 

[Dolph]

Where's the "I don't care if there's a coin in the box" option and where would that come on your sliding scale?

That would be in the middle, one of the definitions of agnosticism is the idea that the question is irrelevant.

The apathetic agnostic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't care.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I'll also stick with the OED for a bit longer and quote the definintion of belief:

belief
• noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion.

You're saying god doesn't exist and are without proof - check
It's a firmly held opinion - check

 

[XeNoN89]

Arguing about God is one of the most stupid things you could possible argue about

There is no proof god exists

There is no proof god does not exist


The argument cannot be won and it is pointless and stupid

 

[Stan_Lite]

So that equates to:

I don't like that definition, it doesn't fit with my argument, so I'm going to ignore it despite it's obviously respected source.

I'm sorry but I think that deserves a

You're partially right - I don't like that definition. I don't like it because it has been corrupted by someone who has reason to obfuscate the true meaning of the word. I prefer to use a definition based on the true meaning of the word rather than one based on the bias of someone else.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You're partially right - I don't like that definition. I don't like it because it has been corrupted by someone who has reason to obfuscate the true meaning of the word. I prefer to use a definition based on the true meaning of the word rather than one based on the bias of someone else.

You're making huge assumptions to the provenance of the definition. Where is your source?

 

[Stan_Lite]

You're making huge assumptions to the provenance of the definition. Where is your source?

Dolph gave it to me in post #173.

 

[Dolph]

Dolph gave it to me in post #173.

The thing is it still shows that godlessness is a positive or explicit position. It is not simply the 'anti' to theism, but an explicit position in itself.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Dolph gave it to me in post #173.

But language, evolves, it doesn't matter how it was used several hundred years ago, but it does matter what the accepted definition is now.

 

[Moley]

Arguing about God is one of the most stupid things you could possible argue about

There is no proof god exists

There is no proof god does not exist

The argument cannot be won and it is pointless and stupid

You are absolutely right Xenon, but you are missing the point. People who get into these arguments are not arguing about the existence of god - they are arguing about who is right.

Man has argued for centuries - and even gone to war and committed terrible atrocities - just to prove he is right. Which is a ridiculous thing to do because "right" and "wrong" are abstract concepts open to interpretation and are entirely relative to an individuals life experiences and beliefs.

If you look back through this thread you will see my point exactly - loads of posts arguing about semantics and theoretical positions all of which are based on whichever side you are on being "right".

Quite futile really.

 

[thevet]

And how are they worse?

BNP are British generations born and bred here and so were there ancestors,they BELONG here wether you share there views or not...islam are a bunch of foreign ***** spreading hatred and forcing there views on everyone

 

[Burnsy2023]

You are absolutely right Xenon, but you are missing the point. People who get into these arguments are not arguing about the existence of god - they are arguing about who is right.

Man has argued for centuries - and even gone to war and committed terrible atrocities - just to prove he is right. Which is a ridiculous thing to do because "right" and "wrong" are abstract concepts open to interpretation and are entirely relative to an individuals life experiences and beliefs.

Very true. Righteousness is a cornerstone of western culture.