G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))

[Xilo]

What about this:

People who believe in God say that humans were created in God's image. Other people believe humans evolved from single celled organisms... But what if both were true? What if this "God" is really a single celled being that created us but then we evolved over time?

[lynx]

Start of a prayer: Dear Blob,
Sign of amazement: Oh, Blob!
Expression of anger: For Blob's sake what did you do that for.

Nah, I don't think it's going to catch on.

[brotherdoobie]

Originally posted by lynx@17 August 2003 - 23:04
So who made god ?
And why ?

Bill Gates was bored.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 06:04
So who made god ?
And why ?

Actually I did.

Why? Simple I was bored.

[Petri]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 18:42
Atheist can be literally translated "without God", but the meaning used in practice (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, etc) is defined as one who believes that God does not exist. Not all words are used in practice as their literal translations.

No matter what you or a couple of dictionaries say, this is not the definition atheists themselves use.

Since I'm a crappy debater, I'll just keep quoting what others have written before...

From The Atheism Web: Introduction to Atheism

"What is Atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

From Atheism FAQs: What is Atheism?

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what the is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.

Sorry for taking such long quotes, but I didn't want to leave anything out in fear of being blamed of intellectual dishonesty again.

Anyway... Whether or not you admit it, "weak" atheism does exist.

[thewizeard]

What a lot of words!

Does it really matter?

If you do believe in God ...OK

If you don't believe in God...OK

[lynx]

What a load of bollocks.

An atheist who only believes some gods don't exist, but that others do ?
Belief in any god automatically makes one a theist, and a theist is the exact opposite of an atheist so that person by definition cannot be an atheist. You don't have to have any sort of strongly held views on religion to be a theist as the articles seem to suggest, by definition any belief in any god makes one a theist.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The 'ism' part implies the belief. the 'the' part means god, the 'a' part means not. But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.

Those who are merely 'without a belief in god' are people who are unsure, and often can't be bothered to think the argument through, though I would not use the word agnostic as the meaning of this has also been corrupted.

The prime reason why exchanges between atheists (in the true meaning of the word) and theists (unfortunately in the poor meaning of the word, but it is the word used in the article) is that the theists a) often believe that the atheists are those who are 'without a belief in god' and that therefore with a little persuasion can be converted, and B) are not willing to listen to other arguments as they don't fit with their bible, scripture, etc. They are usually unwilling to concede that their arguments, based upon human writings, have no basis without their own beliefs.

Edit: I should add that whichever category you feel you fall into, it doesn't make you a better or worse person, that is down to how you behave. I have no conflict between being an atheist and trying (but usually failing) to uphold Christian ethics.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 13:38


The prime reason why exchanges between atheists (in the true meaning of the word) and theists (unfortunately in the poor meaning of the word, but it is the word used in the article) is that the theists a) often believe that the atheists are those who are 'without a belief in god' and that therefore with a little persuasion can be converted, and B) are not willing to listen to other arguments as they don't fit with their bible, scripture, etc. They are usually unwilling to concede that their arguments, based upon human writings, have no basis without their own beliefs.

So that's what this thread is all about!!





If someone can prove there's a god I will become a theist, if someone can prove there's not a god, I will become an atheist.

For the time being I will remain myself.

[Skweeky]

Originally posted by lynx@15 August 2003 - 21:21
Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?

What you are describing is called deism. God as the big watch maker. He made it, no he doesn't interfere. It's an understanding that dates from the 18th century, it know some success among the philosophers of their time, probably because it was also the period on time scientific logic became popular.

I could not find the word adeism in Websters or Oxfords dictionary, but I have known it to be used.

Thought it was interesting to tell

[Petri]

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 14:38
An atheist who only believes some gods don't exist, but that others do ?

Where the hell did you get that from?

You don't have to have any sort of strongly held views on religion to be a theist as the articles seem to suggest,

Where does it suggest this?

by definition any belief in any god makes one a theist.

Yep.

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.

I'd like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.