I disagree. If you look the word up in a common dictionary you will see that I used the word properly.
Printable View
I disagree. If you look the word up in a common dictionary you will see that I used the word properly.
Either way atheist claim of not being a faith is not true. Everything takes belief whether you like it or not. You may believe Zeus doesn't exist however strong it maybe you also believe that the chair you are sitting won't vanish into thin air. People just like to "assume" these things and forget that it all takes belief.....it always does.
I just wanna say I think its funny that NO A negativehas become a neutral thing
Common ground
Now people are speaking for things they can not
There is a definition for the term atheism
And for theism
Look em up
The topic has strayed far from what it was originally
Is atheism a faith?
To be atheist one must not believe in any deity
That isn't true. If you know something for sure, then it isn't faith.
You normally wouldn't say you have faith in gravity. As if you have confidence that gravity will come through for you this time and pull things down. Which kind of implies that just maybe gravity will not work this one time and you will fly off into space.
What you usually would say is that you know there is gravity. In the case of atheism you can safely say you don't believe in any versions of god put forth in religion, because its easy to verify that they don't exist.
I don't have faith my chair isn't going to break all known laws of physics and vanish into nothingness. I know my chair isn't going to vanish. You are just using words oddly to try to make an argument that isn't really there.
How do you know?
Anyway, I agree that the word "atheist" in itself is too broad to have much practical meaning, but I've always found it defined as "a lack of a belief in a deity." Because of how encompassing that is, you need qualifiers like, "strong", "weak", etc.
Addendum:
No.
I do not believe that God exists ≠ I do believe that God does not exist
The former is weak atheism, the latter is strong atheism. The latter requires faith because it is a positive claim.
But nothing can truly be proven true. Objectivity isn't concrete and neither is logic. There is always the chance of 2+2=T or something. We just feel really really really strong about the laws of physics holding true.
Because he isn't the Father and also he was born from something. Gods can NOT be born.
A true god would bake cookies for all his creations.
The only sources for any god are from their respective texts or from those who already believe in them. No scientist that I have ever heard of has ever gone (with an open and unbiased mind) into a test to see if god exists and come back with a positive result. If you can find one that hasprovengiven evidence to the existence of a certain deity without lying, jumping to conclusions, etc., please direct me there, as I would be more than happy to see it.
But as it stands, there is no reason to believe in Zeus any more than Yahweh or Vishnu or Xenu or Santa. One may be more popular than another, but that's it. And I know you wouldn't try an argumentum ad populum.
Atheism is the belief that no deity of any kind exists
if you understood the word deity you would have understood what i had said
Only through simple semantics do i agree with you that atheism is a faith
one must think of the following
For religious persons their definition of faith is different
As is it different among those who do not have religious faith
For a religious person to say that the disbelief in any form of god or deity is indeed a faith
then discredits their own side as faith should be a sacred/holy thing by many religious teachings
You can not convince the one with faith who needs not look for fact, that the facts "prove them wrong."
Like wise you cant teach some one who looks for facts to believe/ have faith in the absence of facts.
If you say the only source of Zeus is from Greek mythology then only source of a christian god is from christian mythology. Only difference is that people still practice christian mythology. When Zeus was thought of as a real god there was priests and scholars who spoke and wrote about him as well. Only difference between Mythology and religious is that one is no longer practiced. Wait long enough and Christianity will be referred to as mythology as well. Also the idea that nothing can ever be proven is a silly one. What you are trying to debate is philosophy, which doesn't fit into the context of this thread. Asking if we can truly ever know something is philosophical in nature. In all practical every day terms, we can prove things to be true all the time, and we do. So saying its faith doesn't make any sense.
look at color
would you agree that color is generated by different wave lengths of light
would you agree that an object only exhibits the color we see
would you agree that white consists of all colors
now this color you see is the result of the white light hitting the object and all wave lengths being absorbed except the one in which you see
so a object that appears red is red because that is the wave length that is reflected and not absorbed
now a true white object reflects all VISIBLE light wave lengths
now a true black object absorbs all visible light wave lengths
well white is compromised of all colors as the term theist encompasses any who believe in a form of a deity
well black absorbed all color, but wait it would have reflected a color if it was one
black being the opposite and lack there of
black the is not a color by definition
black and white are opposites
as are atheism and theism
anti matter and matter
protons and electrons
these things cancel each other out
and for one to credit the other
destroys them both
do not be the theist that credits atheism or vice versa
i am not taking sides
just trying to see whether you want to talk semantics
or
if one wants to mess with a ideological paradox
one can not semantically and correctly discredit the godliness or deityness of a one i e Zeus by the definitions of a bias faith
not in an argument including atheism as to atheism they all hold the same spot and general term in their perspectives
you can however use your own faiths teachings as to ridicule the proposition of other deities; with out the inclusion of semantics and the logical thinking's of an atheist
Food for thought:
atheism argues all faiths that their are no true real deities are non existent
true atheism does not argue against itself since it reaches an agreed conclusion
however a theist must depending on their religious teachings discredit all others
also the negative supposition of
"no god's/deity's exists"
is quite in fact
finite
to the point
unless there is a problem with understanding language
Wow abicus for someone who is not trying to argue you sure have a lot to say. :P
I can understand your point BLUELINE thanks for clearing that up. This sounds more like Agnosticism to me, in which to be honest, is where I believe babies are rightfully categorized. So in short, Implicit Atheism lacks the positive belief in a God thus, does not believe in a God. Can we conclude that this position would equally lack the opposite belief, that there is NOT a God?
I'm pretty sure you've answered this already but just to confirm, feel free to entertain it.
Agnosticism is to advanced for a baby. If you never heard of god before, there is no reason you would consider the possibility for it. So they are atheists.
to ponder this have not the faculties do they
Agnostic lies in the realm of knowledge i.e., without knowledge can this "lack of knowledge" refer to the absence of available knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric