True atheists?

[BrianOnEarth]

According to the online Oxford dictionary-
definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods (italics added for emphasis)

Go look up what disbelief means.

So which version of the Oxford Dictionary were you using Brian? The one you made up?

Nice.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Unless you know something for certain, you must rely on faith.

"Not knowing something for certain" != "faith"

Word games don't get you anywhere.

Do you know for certain there is no God? Or are you relying on faith?

A position of faith requires belief.

A person from Switzerland is necessarily also a person from Europe. However ...

 

[Jig]

Yet another evasion. But then we all know why you have to evade my requests for you to show us that your belief in your God is based on sound evidence and sound reasoning.

That Red Herring is starting to smell like your definition of atheism.

Oh? Do you consider your lack of faith or belief in fairies to be ignorance? How about your lack of belief in Santa Claus? Is that also ignorance? What about your lack of belief in Ra, Odin, Zeus, Vishnu and a thousand other imaginary gods? Is it that you are abysmally ignorant or do you perhaps just lack belief?

I never claimed to have a "lack of belief" in fairies or Santa. My belief is that they don't exist.

How can I have a "lack of belief" in a belief I'm not ignorant of? Once I understand that belief, I must make a choice. To either believe in it or not believe in it. I'm no longer ignorant to it (lack of belief).

 

[Greg1234]

So if I believe everything, literally EVERYTHING, I am the least ignorant person in the world...

My. A lack of belief requires ignorance. A lack of belief = ignorance.

I.e, in its most basal form, you are a man ignorant of the fact that you exist.

"You are not ignorant".

 

[Greg1234]

That Red Herring is starting to smell like your definition of atheism.

I never claimed to have a "lack of belief" in fairies or Santa. My belief is that they don't exist.

How can I have a "lack of belief" in a belief I'm not ignorant of? Once I understand that belief, I must make a choice. To either believe in it or not believe in it. I'm no longer ignorant to it (lack of belief).

Ok you beat me to it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A quick side question to all involved.

If
1. atheism involves a belief, if only a belief in the falsehood of certain propositions and
2. belief is defined as not knowing with certainty
then
what do we call people who know for certain that there is no God?

 

[3sigma]

That Red Herring is starting to smell like your definition of atheism.

There is no similarity at all. My definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Your continual evasions are an indication of your belief in your God without sound evidence or sound reasoning.

I never claimed to have a "lack of belief" in fairies or Santa. My belief is that they don't exist.

Actually, you did. You said [post=56099263]here[/post], “I have a belief that stops me from believing in fairies.” If something stops you believing in fairies then you clearly have a lack of belief in fairies. Tell us, is there anything at all that you lack belief in or do you hold beliefs about everything? On what do you base these beliefs when there is no sound evidence?

 

[Tielec]

Go look up what disbelief means.


Nice.

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods
definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online

disbelief - refusal or reluctance to believe
disbelief - definition of disbelief by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Combined together:
Atheism - refusal or reluctance to believe in the existence of god.

Let's revisit your claim again Brian.

No, the Oxford dictionary disagrees with you and agrees with the OP.
Atheism is belief that there are no gods.

...

 

[Tielec]

A quick side question to all involved.

If
1. atheism involves a belief, if only a belief in the falsehood of certain propositions and
2. belief is defined as not knowing with certainty
then
what do we call people who know for certain that there is no God?

It's probably not a position many people would take. Good question though, perhaps a gnostic anti-theist?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

My position is different than yours. It does not require me to claim virtual omniscience.

Example:
Let say you claim that there are no dogs in existence. It would be impossible for you to search the entire earth (not to mention the universe) to know this.

Let's say I claim that dogs do exist. All I have to do is find one dog to prove my claim. I might not even have to leave my neighborhood.

Sounds nice, but ... How would you know for certain that what you perceived (?) was in fact a dog. You might "easily" mistaken, i.e. space aliens, devils, gods, the illuminati, pick-your-poison might deceive you.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

There are lots of beliefs in this forum. Personal beliefs are based upon judgement. A lot of these discussions pose as science debates but they are really judgement debates.

Off the top of my head, these are elements I have come across that typically drive peoples' judgements:
1. Availability of proof
2. Availability of robust evidence
3. Conjecture
4. Wishful thinking (conjecture biased by hope)
5. Ignorance
6. Denial
7. Delusion

Scientific knowledge is based on 1 and 2. Scientists make conjectures but this is not the same as scientific knowledge.
I consider faith to always consist of 4 and often 5 and 6.
Traditional atheism consists of 4.
YEC consists of 4 and lots of 6.
Belief in the Christian God and the Resurrection consists of 4 and 5 and 6.
Philosophy is mostly 3.
I don't think there are many delusional people around. As I understand it this is a psychiatric dysfunction - a sort of complete inability to make rational judgements. So I am loathe to attribute religious faith to delusion.

So my position, what I perceive my position to be, is to believe in things that are supported by proof or robust evidence but to be sceptical about everything else. This is a hard task because my thinking, like everyone else's, is prone to emotional bias and ignorance. However, I do not agree that it is a virtue to believe in the unevidenced or unproven.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It's probably not a position many people would take. Good question though, perhaps a gnostic anti-theist?

Sorry, I was just joking. And anti-theism is a different thing altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism:

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The etymological roots of the word are the Greek 'anti-' and 'theismos'. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.​

I do consider myself to be a strong atheist, but I am far from being anti-theist.

----------------------

Also of interest:
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]​

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.​

 

[Tielec]

There are lots of beliefs in this forum. Personal beliefs are based upon judgement. A lot of these discussions pose as science debates but they are really judgement debates.

Off the top of my head, these are elements I have come across that typically drive peoples' judgements:
1. Availability of proof
2. Availability of robust evidence
3. Conjecture
4. Wishful thinking (conjecture biased by hope)
5. Ignorance
6. Denial
7. Delusion

Scientific knowledge is based on 1 and 2. Scientists make conjectures but this is not the same as scientific knowledge.
I consider faith to always consist of 4 and often 5 and 6.
Traditional atheism consists of 4.
YEC consists of 4 and lots of 6.
Belief in the Christian God and the Resurrection consists of 4 and 5 and 6.
Philosophy is mostly 3.
I don't think there are many delusional people around. As I understand it this is a psychiatric dysfunction - a sort of complete inability to make rational judgements. So I am loathe to attribute religious faith to delusion.

So my position, what I perceive my position to be, is to believe in things that are supported by proof or robust evidence but to be sceptical about everything else. This is a hard task because my thinking, like everyone else's, is prone to emotional bias and ignorance. However, I do not agree that it is a virtue to believe in the unevidenced or unproven.

You have demonstrated you don't know what atheism is Brian. However, I agree with the last paragraph emphatically.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

It's probably not a position many people would take. Good question though, perhaps a gnostic anti-theist?

Perhaps "atheist".
Good grief.


Disbelief is refusal to believe. This is the same bias as faith (refusal to deny). This is not the position you claim to have. Your position is quite different: that you do not believe in things for which you do not have compelling evidence.

It is up to you what you choose to label yourself but I am just pointing out, as is the OP, that the normal/traditional definition of atheism is belief that there are no gods. It is a prejudiced position.

Dawkins weasels his way around this by calling himself an atheist but defining himself as an 86% atheist. I think he chose to use the term atheism because it is a common term and sounds as if it could mean anti-theism. But science is not atheistic - it is sceptical and empirical.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

You have demonstrated you don't know what atheism is Brian. However, I agree with the last paragraph emphatically.

I can live with holding a different definition from yours of the word atheism.

 

[Upisoft]

OK. I want to give an example, hoping it will be easy to understand.

Take a person. Create a database (a record) of all their beliefs and logical consequences of their beliefs, they were able to reach.

Atheist is a person who has no "God exists" statement in their database. They may have the statement "God does not exists" or may not have it, but that is irrelevant to the case. The only thing that defines atheism is the lack of "God exists" statement in the database.

So, there are atheists that actually have "God does not exists" statement in their database, and I think that Richard Dawkins is one of them, but that does not mean there are no other kind of atheists who do not have that statement in their database.

Anything not clear enough?

 

[Tielec]

Perhaps "atheist".
Good grief.


Disbelief is refusal to believe. This is the same bias as faith (refusal to deny). This is not the position you claim to have. Your position is quite different: that you do not believe in things for which you do not have compelling evidence.

It is up to you what you choose to label yourself but I am just pointing out, as is the OP, that the normal/traditional definition of atheism is belief that there are no gods. It is a prejudiced position.

Dawkins weasels his way around this by calling himself an atheist but defining himself as an 86% atheist. I think he chose to use the term atheism because it is a common term and sounds as if it could mean anti-theism. But science is not atheistic - it is sceptical and empirical.

And yet you are unable to produce a definition of atheism that agrees with you. I have been wrong before too Brian, I'd like to think that I admit it and move on.

 

[Tiberius]

Let "God" be the collective consciousness/self-awareness of the universe.

I see no evidence to support this premise.

And even if the universe did have some collective consciousness or the universe was self aware, I still see no reason why that consciousness/awareness should be called God.

 

[Chaplain David]

I see no evidence to support this premise.

And even if the universe did have some collective consciousness or the universe was self aware, I still see no reason why that consciousness/awareness should be called God.

Ezekiel 12:2 "Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe my belief is rational, just as you believe you belief is rational. However, I fully understand my belief relies on faith. This is because I cannot "absolutely" know for certain if God exists.

How is it that a viewpoint that has absolutely no supporting evidence is rational?

Ezekiel 12:2 "Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.

First of all, quoting the Bible will have little influence on me. I don't see the Bible as a reliable source. Quoting the Bible in an effort to prove any theological conclusion will have as much effect on me as if I quoted Harry Potter to prove wizards are real to you.

Secondly, you can stop with the thinly veiled name calling. Calling me blind and deaf just because I happen to disagree with you is not warranted. let's discuss this like adults, not children, okay?