Thread: Argue Pointlessly over the Definition of Atheism

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

One of the things that Aristotle pointed out, at the foundation of Logic one can only assert or deny. (same or different--the ability to compare and get a result) The inability to do this, as you have just done, he claims the rightful title of being a veggie. Plato was not so obvious, he said you were simply asleep. Scripture on the other hand holds to the definition of function and rightfully calls you dead. Today, we just say brain dead.

Dang, Philosopher. You are the only philosopher that I have spoken to in a long time, that has the ability to describe a block of wood in a way that I can't understand.
I really don't know if you made a good point here or not, to be honest.
Okay... "inability" is the subject of that sentence. Then you state that I have just done "this" refering to asserting or denying. I'm not sure when I asserted, to be honest. "He claims the rightful title..." Does he claim that for himself? Does he claim the "inability" the title of being a veggie?

You quoted me stating that I believe that there is both the existence of a deity, and also the nonexistence of a deity. Your statement must have had something to do with that.

...Because they're trees/rocks/mice/cats. Would atheism or any other title apply to those either way?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

One more time.
One can say the same for a rock or a tree, a mouse or a cat. One does not call them athiest.

Is THAT what you were saying?!
Holy crap.

Yes. You could say that. This fact still does not change the definition that is listed in the Dictionary, which is what society has accepted as our standard for this sort of information.

The fact that Dictionaries are meaningless is beside the point.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

...Because they're trees/rocks/mice/cats. Would atheism or any other title apply to those either way?

Yes, in accordance with Marriam-Webster.
Edit: Wait no. That's not what Webster says... I had a brain fart when I posted this.

LOL!

Maybe we need to contact them about this. I'm not sure that I agree with their definition.
In the end, I believe this is another example to show that our language is very limited and definitions are truly meaningless.

...also, Merriam Webster sucks!

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I alluded to that in my above post (and a few posts above that). They're oblivious, and cannot conceptualize a deity. That really only means they cannot reject the concept of a deity until they're older.

Right, they cannot reject nor accept something they are essentially unaware of.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

But if we take atheism to mean a nonbelief in deities (which it is), then I would say it is the default position in babies, and that they are atheist. But I suppose it could be a variation of agnostic atheism as well, but instead of meaning "nonbelief without claiming certainty," it's "nonbelief due to ignorance." It seems similar to agnosticism, but the definition of agnosticism doesn't appear to fit.

I see what you're saying. However, If atheism is a non belief in deities then that non-belief is supported by something that allows disbelief. Rather it be lack of evidence, or whatever. It's been essentially categorize as a non-belief based off of something. The reason why it's categorized is because of exposure to that particular concept. A babies non-belief is based off of oblivion. They are in all sense of the word "neutral" Atheism is not a neutral position.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Right, they cannot reject nor accept something they are essentially unaware of.



I see what you're saying. However, If atheism is a non belief in deities then that non-belief is supported by something that allows disbelief. Rather it be lack of evidence, or whatever. It's been essentially categorize as a non-belief based off of something. The reason why it's categorized is because of exposure to that particular concept. A babies non-belief is based off of oblivion. They are in all sense of the word "neutral" Atheism is not a neutral position.

I don't think I agree with Webster's definition of agnosticism, now that I have examined it closely, for it does not state what one would call a baby, who has no prior knowledge of the concept of a deity, and therefore holds no belief, nor disbelief in its existence.

Atheism: A held disbelief in the existence of a deity.
Agnosticism: A held belief that nobody can know if a deity exists or not./An unwillingness to commit to a certain belief on the subject.
Theism: A held belief in the existence of a deity.
???: A person who holds no belief, nor disbelief in the existence of a deity.
sloth: A person who holds the belief that there both is, and is not a deity.

Still, Webster defines an atheist as one who holds an active disbelief in a deity, which would not include rocks, trees, birds, or babies. That definition does make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I see what you're saying. However, If atheism is a non belief in deities then that non-belief is supported by something that allows disbelief. Rather it be lack of evidence, or whatever. It's been essentially categorize as a non-belief based off of something. The reason why it's categorized is because of exposure to that particular concept. A babies non-belief is based off of oblivion. They are in all sense of the word "neutral" Atheism is not a neutral position.

I don't think nonbelief and disbelief are the same, so I disagree. Nonbelief appears to be more neutral than disbelief.

Maybe "neutral atheist" would suffice.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't think nonbelief and disbelief are the same, so I disagree. Nonbelief appears to be more neutral than disbelief.

Maybe "neutral atheist" would suffice.

Or "Splunge!"

Splunge!: (noun)
The lack of any belief concerning the existence of deities.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You must also believe that the null set is a set.

BY DEFINITION the null set is a set. I bet if you look real hard, you could find a circle somewhere that needs squaring.

Originally Posted by sloth

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

Babies are born with no belief in god. This would be an Agnostic as according to Merriam Webster. I'm not even changing that label. I am stating that Dictionaries are correct.

The very definition of agnostic that you posted is _NOT_ "no belief in god" bur rather, that it is unknowable. I would not say babies are agnostic, because they haven't asserted that they believe that you can't know. (definition 2 is political, so we can ignore it). When your view is that it's unknowable, "not committing to a belief about whether there is a god or not" follows pretty naturally.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't think nonbelief and disbelief are the same, so I disagree. Nonbelief appears to be more neutral than disbelief.

Maybe "neutral atheist" would suffice.

So, what exactly is the difference in your opinion between a Non-belief and a Disbelief?

Disbelief sounds more negative, like a rejection. In fact, that's what it means. And as I said, nonbelief seems more neutral.

Will you agree or disagree that they both require an action on the part of consciousness?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Will you agree or disagree that they both require an action on the part of consciousness?

Disbelief would, not so much nonbelief.

So we're aloud to argue over the meaning of the word atheist but not whether or not we should capitalize it?

Babies are non-religious. Not atheist nor agnostic, non-religious.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Disbelief would, not so much nonbelief.

ok

Holy fucking semantic shitstorm, Batman.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Holy fucking semantic shitstorm, Batman.

This is what happens when you're waiting to go into Boston and have time to kill

Originally Posted by Replicon

The very definition of agnostic that you posted is _NOT_ "no belief in god" bur rather, that it is unknowable. I would not say babies are agnostic, because they haven't asserted that they believe that you can't know. (definition 2 is political, so we can ignore it). When your view is that it's unknowable, "not committing to a belief about whether there is a god or not" follows pretty naturally.

Incorrect. Babies do not believe that anything is unknowable. They are not agnostic.

Originally Posted by sloth

Incorrect. Babies do not believe that anything is unknowable. They are not agnostic.

I would agree with this and Blueline's statement regarding the difference between a disbelief and a nonbelief would actually support this. Right Blueline?

Continuity is a little spotty, but all posts that I could find regarding the meaning of atheism from the "To All The Atheists (all 20000000000000 of you) " thread have been moved to here. Have at it.

...is a belief that the redundant nature of nature's redundancy is indeed linear; an intellectual hypocricy of self fulfilling prophecies guided by the misinterpreted reactions of common chemical conductivities, and nothing more.

I'm going to pray for you guys

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

...is a belief that the redundant nature of nature's redundancy is indeed linear; an intellectual hypocricy of self fulfilling prophecies guided by the misinterpreted reactions of common chemical conductivities, and nothing more.

I'm going to pray for you guys

If I make my post so unintelligible that nobody can understand it, will I sound smrt? ...or...

I think the most pressing issue that needs to be addressed is: Why on Earth are you all trying to convince each other that your side of the argument is supported by babies?