I was referring back to the hypothetical I offered a few posts before the one to which you replied.
You’ve lost me here.
OK. Let’s limit the conversations to the ones that do. Surely that group is by far the majority, yes?
An agreement one one point would be sufficient : The definition of “God.”
Not *my *definition. *The *definition.
Not if your goal is to be coherent.
Redundant != false. If something accurately describes you, then it accurately describes you. There is no rule that says a term cannot be both redundant and true.
I’m not sure what this means, but it seems you have made my point for me. Anyone who claims “Such and such a god does not exist” is an atheist. By definition. What seems to be hanging you up is that that leads to a problem of contradiction, i.e., what to do with someone who both believes and disbelieves? I submit that the problem is not with the definition of “atheist”, but with the definition of “God.” Until a single definition for God is introduced, you really have to take it on a case by case basis.
[Disclaimer : It’s not a system, and it’s not mine.] Assuming that his god is Jehovah, what you are that he is not is an atheist with respect to Jehovah. For every other possible god, the two of you are the same, except, perhaps, as you have pointed out, he may be a more ardent atheist in his disbelief, in that his religion compels him thus.
Let’s say there is a candy store with a thousand different kinds of candy. You love only one kind, and hate the rest. I hate them all. I hate 1000 kinds of candy, you hate 999 kinds of candy. Are you a candy lover or a candy hater? With respect to candy, are you more like me, or more unlike me?
I’ve heard many different definitions of atheism; that it involves saying all gods definetly don’t exist, saying all gods are not likely to exist, saying there’s no way to know, and so on. I’ve never heard anyone use disbelief in a single god as a definition of an atheist. Disbelief in a single god is just that - disbelief in a single god. If you wanted to use a word for it, you could of course say that someone is atheistic in belief towards that god. But i’ve never heard anyone say “Yep, i’m an atheist - oh, and i’m a Christian”.
As much as you might want it to be “the” definition, it most certainly isn’t.
Hey, at least when penguins are brought in you’re not confusing the situation. If i suggest replacing the word “atheist” with the word “penguin”, people would probably treat me a little oddly but at least we’d still be able to communicate. Your definition of atheism - a definition that I would wager is not shared by a single other person in this thread - is far more likely to lead to confusion and coherence problems with getting ideas across.
Quite so. But all it means is that we need a new term; we have to go back and pick out a new word to use to describe those people who do not believe in any gods. Since the term under your definition is redundant, why not move it back and use it in terms of other’s definitions, where it is not redundant and (because your definition is not “the” definition) still works perfectly.
I have no problem with contradiction under your system; with your definition, a person can be an atheist and a theist quite easily. My problem is that there is a significant difference between someone who believes in a god and someone who doesn’t, and that your definition means we have no word to differentiate the two. You still haven’t supplied one, by the way.
Definition, then. And I’m calling it yours because as i’ve said you’re the first person i’ve seen using this definition.
Alright. So what word could you use to sum up my lack of belief? JThunder is a “Christian” (er, I think, no offense meant if i’m wrong) - he believes in the Christian God and disbelieves in all other gods. I disbelieve in all gods - what word may be used to sum up this worldview? Note that I am not talking in terms of just Christianity, since after all the word Christian does not reference only Christianity.
I’m very much like you. I do, in fact, understand your point that atheists and theists are similar. The point remains, alas, that one belief system is quite different from the other. You hate all candy. I can quite reasonably call you a total candy hater; there’s none you like. I, on the other hand, may be described both as a candy hater *and * a candy lover. It’s not just the difference between believing in one god or disbelieving, a matter of the similarity between 999 and 1000; it’s the difference between an absolute and a mere relative. It’s a notable difference.
Atheists are not a major threat, they are, from a theists viewpoint blind. Not that we are much better, but at least we know that the supernatural exists and are open to it as well as we can sometimes perceive it. It’s like trying to describe vision to someone who never has seen.
Disagreements between theists come about with their interpretation of what they perceive in that supernatural ‘realm’ but they all agree that it exists.
I think that would be better put as “believe” the supernatural exists and can sometimes percieve it. Which I actually do. Atheism’s a lack of belief in gods, not the supernatural or spiritual ideas as a whole.
You can not “know” God exists you can only believe it, there is a big difference,knowledge doen’t need faith.
Monavis
And a Muslim is both a theist and an atheist. It is just that simple.
What do you beleive is the source of knowledge obtained from the supernatural?
Cite, please? Where did you get this definition? Let’s settle the matter once and for all.
Here is what the Random House Unabridged Dictionary says about the word “atheism”:
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ –noun
- the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It does not say that atheism is merely disbelief in any particular god. Rather, it declares that atheism is the disbelief that a supreme being exists. In other words, Revenant Threshold is right.
BTW, I’d like to reiterate my observation that the atheists here cannot even agree on the definition of atheism. Der Trihs says that it’s the belief that there is no God, several others said that it’s merely a lack of belief, and you declare that merely failing to believe in any one deity makes one an atheist. It’s rather foolish to harp on the disagreements between theists when atheists can’t even agree on the definition of their worldview.
Atheism means, literally, “without god.” Until “god” is defined, it is a nonsense term.
The primary definition from your cite works for well enough for me.
If you are “without Allah,” or disbelieve in Allah, you are an atheist. If you are “without Zeus,” or disbelieve in Zeus, you are an atheist. And so on. How could it be else? I define God as Zeus. Would a Christian not say “there is no Zeus?” If you posit two contradictory definitions of god, an assertion of one must necessarily be a refutation of the other, and therefore a declaration of atheism.
As noted in the OP, without a consistent definition of God, discourse on the topic is next to impossible.
The difference is, of course, that atheism isn’t a worldview.
If theists asserted nothing more than “we are because God is” then I would never have posted my OP saying “let theists agree before thay have the nerve to criticize atheists.”, because obviously they WOULD be in agreement.
Atheists, on the other hand, really DO say little more than “I cannot believe in God because the (lack of )evidence and probability factors lead me to think he probably does not exist.”
But quite frankly, theists believe in a whole lot more than “God exists”. The Muslim and the Christians who were criticizing Dawkins on TV believe a whole lot more than this.
Can you imagine ANY representative of Islam or Christianity saying that it is enough to believe only “we are because God is” in order to be a Muslim or a Christian?
Their belief about the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus, about the basic triune or unitary nature of God, and their beliefs about salvation and which “holy” book is or is not inspired by God are basic, elemental, fundamental and CONTRADICTORY AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Yet the Muslim and the Christians can sit there are shake their finger at Dawkins for refusing to believe the “truth” when they themselves cannot agree on what the truth is.
I personally am an agnostic but in the interests of fairness I must make the following points on the O.P.
No matter what the subject is or how offensive or ridiculous the opinion is, the opinion holder should NEVER, EVER be prevented from having their say ,even if the opinion is that ,for example,that all white,middle aged ,incredibly good looking for their age ,British Males should be hung .
By all means argue their viewpoint down,show just how absurd it is but dont gag them .
The P.C. lobby are gradually bringing in creeping censorship that is insinuating that some things are not allowed to be discussed because everyone knows beforehand that their viewpoint is the right one so that any debate is pointless and peurile.
And that is usually made without any empirical proof whatsoever.
Quite frankly they are taking over where the Fascists left off.
By the way my stance on religion is that I dont find any merit in the arguments for any of this worlds religions ,but that doesn’t necessarily mean that their isn’t a god of some sort in the universe.
Could you rephrase? I’m afraid i’m not certain what you mean.
That’s a somewhat odd interpretation. The definition says that you must believe in no god to be an athiest. Not just *a * god, or even some gods. You may believe in no gods at all to be an atheist. Not believing in Allah by itself is not enough under this definition (though it is a requirement); you must believe in no gods whatsoever. Not “you must believe a god does not exist”. Your own definition is silly; that you seem to be deliberately misreading another definition is unpleasant.
It isn’t? Why not?
I’ve already pointed out why this argument of yours is incoherent, but perhaps you missed it. Or perhaps you deliberately ignored it.
But, once again: non-believers are an outgroup, you cannot deny that, who have no particular REASON or expectation of agreement with each other. The argument over how to define atheism is an argument purely of semantics, not of “worldviews”: it’s an argument over the best and least confusing way to characterize various people that aren’t believers.
So, in short, your argument that this is somehow analogous to religious believers who cannot agree what will send you to hell is disingenuous (promoted from just “wrong” since you have apparently chosen to ignore those who pointed out that it is grossly misleading).
I agree with you that the OP really overstates things when it expects theists to feel like they have to agree before they can criticize atheism. But the OP certainly has a point when he observes that it is pretty silly that three guys who all think the others are going to hell for their false beliefs are so incensed that they’d gang up on the guy who thinks they are all full of it. There really DOES seem to be some sort of tacit “we’ll politely avoid the fact that you are all wrong and evil so we can gang up on the atheists” agreement for religionists in public.
I realize that this was more hyperbolic rhetoric than argumentation, but it is probably not true (depending on the persons selected). The Catholic priest has no expectation that the others are going to hell (unless he is a Feeneyite heretic). It is doubtful that a Protestant minister believes that the others are damned (unless he is a member of a denomination that is significantly literalist). The Muslim might be more problematic, although those Muslims I have met who would tend to choose to appear on that sort of show would view their co-panelists as “people of the book” and not believe that they were damned, either.
But this IS the basic premise of theism, if we agree in which ‘god’ is really the real God is a subcategory.
I have always taken atheism as a belief system, you may refer to it as hard atheism, which is a bold statement ‘I beleive there was/is/will be no ‘god’ or ‘gods’, if I’m wrong may Zeus strike me down’ . And agnostic as 'I do not know enough to decide so I chose to live my life as there is no ‘god’ or ‘gods’. There is a big difference.
They are not mutually exclusive, if you add in evil false ‘gods’, they can and do co-exists.
As ‘religionists’ keep pointing out, apparently futilely, it is not obligatory to believe that members of other religions are ‘wrong and evil’ to be a member of a faith. I’m Catholic. I have not been taught that other religions are ‘wrong and evil’. We don’t spend time talking about other religions. We don’t stipulate that only Catholics will go to heaven. I imagine there are some members of the clergy or even the hierarchy who might think so but I’ve yet to meet one. It is not at all unacceptable that people of other faiths worship differently - after all, it is, most of us agree, the same God no matter what you call him or how you picture him.
But you non-believers will cling firmly to your false impressions about what it means to be a member of a church. You look at the fundie loonjobs and extrapolate them to the rest of us. Logical fallacy. Erroneous perspective. Incorrect base assumptions. And if the base of your argument fails, everything built on it crumbles.
Anyone who has been pointing this out is simply confused and befuddled or willfully changing the subject, as has already been pointed out over and over.
Yes, there ARE many religious believers that don’t object to the beliefs of others. But in this particular case, and in most particular cases, that’s simply not the actual situation. There really IS disagreement over who, for instance, Jesus was, and to most religious believers (especially in America), that issue really does matter and isn’t just a matter of vague “it’s all good, God!” indifference.
Given that you will deny even plain facts about the text of the Bible, I think we can safely ignore your anecdotal claims of superior experience in matters of theological doctrine.
You are the only one spreading false impressions here, and I think mostly because you aren’t really following the actual debate.
Is there any reason at all to believe that those three guys were even the teensiest bit “incensed”?
(Although I posted a link to the program earlier, I haven’t had a chance to listen to it.)