If you're opposed to belief in God, then you're an atheist... opposed - anxious to prevent or put an end to; disagreeing with [belief in God]. It is the opposite of theist, who does not want to prevent, or put and end to belief in God. jan.
Anxious!????? Who started this thread? I didn't. I do very well without having to talk about god. I've got my hands full with trying to make sense of Natural Reality.. I don't need anything Supernatural in my life, unless it's a good scary movie...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Unfortunately this word, with the notion of "opposition", does not describe all those who simply do not have the belief that God exists. So please try again: I am looking for you to provide a word that simply means "does not have a belief that God(s) exists" but with no further implication or criteria attached. So that discounts anti-theist. Do you know of such a word? There is one that exists, but you have ruled it out by insisting upon it having the implication that God exists due to you insisting upon what you see as the original definition being the go-to definition. Hence the search goes on.
No, it doesn't depend on what X is, otherwise you are simply committing the fallacy of special pleading. The implication would be there, and it would create a linguistic paradox that makes the sentence nonsense. But that does not remove the implication from the term. Are they offering proof for it in the sentence? No. Therefore it is something that they are accepting as true but without further proof. Thus an assumption. ??? I have to explain fairly standard English to you again? Actually - I.e. Corresponding to the truth. "Actually real" is in contrast to "possibly real" or "thought to be real". Surely you have come across the word "actually" before??? It does not mean or imply "to actualise" which means to bring about, to make real. It fits because you start with the a priori assumption that God exists. You therefore use a definition for the word "atheist" that has within it the implication that God exists. However, it simply does not fit the position of the vast majority of people who self-identify with the term. The meaning has moved from the original definition, like many words have. It is insulting, as has been mentioned to you previously, for you to insist upon a definition for a word that others use to self-identify that includes within it a set of assumptions that they themselves simply do not have, and to then argue against them as though they adhere to your definition of their label and not their own definition. It is insulting and utterly dishonest of you. No, Jan, I don't. Put your strawman down and join the actual discussion, why don't you? So why do you do it? The assumption on your part is in insisting that that definition is the one that is used, that the term atheism only be understood by that definition. You want to use the word "without" in the definition because it fits your view, your a priori assumption, that God exists. But the word "atheism" has changed meaning, Jan. The original meaning no longer applies as it did then. It now simply means "does not hold the belief that God(s) exists". Your insistence to the contrary, to use an archaic definition that has within it the implication that God exists, is utterly disrespectful, dishonest, and insulting. You have been told this again and again, Yet you persist. So many words are redefined over the years, Jan. You are simply cherry-picking this one because it suits your agenda, suits your worldview. It is not the current definition, Jan. All you are doing is committing the etymological fallacy, insisting that the true definition must be its original. As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage puts it: "One thing to remember when you read or hear someone insisting that an English word must have a certain meaning because of its Latin or Greek roots is that these in sisters apply their etymologies very selectively. You will find few of them who object to December being used for the twelfth month, when it's Latin root means 'ten', or to manure being used as a noun meaning 'dung' when it originally was a verb meaning 'to work (land) by hand'. So when you read, for example, that caption must refer to matter above a picture because it comes from Latin capital 'head', keep manure in mind." In the Oxford Guide to Etymology (2009) it is noted that taking the Greek or Latin definition as an arbiter of usage even in a quite different Language some 2000 years later is an interesting cultural phenomenon. "so far as the scientific study of language is concerned, such assertions about the authority of 'etymological meanings' are quite irrelevant; or rather, if they are relevant to anyone, it is to people studying attitudes toward language use, rather than etymologists. It is one of the linguistic facts of life that words change in both form and in meaning." - Philip Durkin So, please, for the last time, drop this incessant drivel that you're spouting, and have been spouting across at least two threads. Atheism does not mean what you want it to mean. It probably did mean that, 2,000 years ago. Now it doesn't. To continue to insist that it should be understood as you want it to be is, as stated, disrespectful, dishonest, and insulting. See, that's just you applying your personal view on the situation, and wanting to cherry pick the definition that you think applies. It no longer does. You are wanting to use a word where the meaning has changed from the one you want to use. It now simply means, in its broadest sense "does not hold the belief that God(s) exist". That is the meaning you should start with, not the one you want it to mean. Once again you fail logic 101. No, they are merely not shown to be false. There is a difference. Yes, it is. It is based on the assumption that your interpretation of what you think you observe corresponds with objective reality. Your interpretation is informed from the a priori assumption that God exists. Thus that is the way you interpret your observation. Every time you say that God Is. Every time you say that is it obvious that God Is etc. No, I don't. It is because you have stated "God Is" and "it is obvious to the theist that God Is". And yet not moments before you were saying that acceptance or not of God is not a choice. So not only do you call atheists fools, you do so for not doing something that you don't think they had any control over. Thus you compound your original insult yet further.
Nope. From Merriam-Webster: "godless: not acknowledging a deity or divine law" Since one can only be accused of not acknowledging something that is assumed to exist/be, this fails due to the same reason as "without God". But as Baldeee has pointed out above, there is no need for a search, we have a word: atheist. And it comes with no implication that God exists/Is, no assumption that God exists/Is, and simply means, in its broadest sense, not having the belief that God(s) exists/Is". And I agree with him, any continued insistence on your part of using the out-of-date and loaded definition is simply dishonest and disrespectful on your part. And did I leave out "insulting"? Yes, I think I did. Well, it's that as well.
So if one is bald, and thus comments that one is without hair. One and should really PROVE that one is without hair? What a load of tosh! We're talking about a word, that clearly scares the poo out of you. I don't care about actualizing anything. The word is what it is. And clearly it has always been what it is now. Deal with it. NO! That is the literal meaning. A = without, Theos/theos = God/gods. That's what it means, and you can't deny it (even though you're trying your best). I don't care about the implication. It's not my problem. At the core of atheism lies the FACT that God does not exist. That's the reality of atheism I'm interested in. There's lots of things I hear theists say (on this forum), also nonsense big famous atheists, like Richard Dawkins say, that do not fit with the majority of people who identify with the term, theist. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Get over it. No it's not insulting, nor dishonest. it is a fact that the word means literally ''without God'', so I'm not creating anything that does not correspond to that. Furthermore, it fits. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but don't put that down to me. It is your problem, not mine. If being a theist implies ''God exists'', then being an atheist implies ''God does not exist''. You can't have it both ways. Why don't you hold that belief? Define your designer label, then we'll carry on with this. Nope. This is the literal meaning. I use it. There's nothing wrong with it. That you don't like it, is not my problem. And yet the definition of 'atheist' in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary is, A person who does not believe in the existences of God/gods. So what does that mean? God does not exist, as far as the atheist is aware. That would be okay if the world were only occupied by atheists. But there are also theists, who believe in God. So we have two positions. Holistically, you are without God, whether you accept it or not. Unless you are going to completely dismiss the theist point of view. Every time you ask for evidence of God, you imply God does not exist. Being ''without God'', as you are, implies God does not exist. Read above. Let's get something straight before we move further. Quote where I have called atheist's fools? jan.
How about the word "agnostic" ? Or does Jan insist on using his own weasel-word definition for that word also, as he does with the word "atheist" ?
Agnostic is an epistemological position - specifically that one either does not personally know, or thinks that it is not possible to know. So with regard God the agnostic either says that they themselves have no knowledge that God does exist, or that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. Atheism / theism are ontological positions, specifically on the matter of belief that God(s) exist: theism is the belief in God, thus the belief that God does exist (for one can not believe in something if they don't think it actually exists), whereas atheism is - at least for most people who use the term - the absence of that belief. So no, "agnostic" doesn't fit - although most atheists who consider the position I would think are likely to be agnostic.
Hmmm. Okay, fair enough. Funny how Jan claims to be a theist, yet goes to great lengths to avoid specifically saying that God exists, (while at the same time insisting on using a definition for atheism which implies that God does exist, so that he can say that atheists are without God as far as they are aware). I guess that's the reason for the weasel-word claim "God Is," so that he can have it both ways. Frankly, I'm surprised so many people are willing to try to discuss these things with someone who insists on using their own terminology. Jan vaguely reminds me of the folks who show up occasionally in the Physics section, using their own definitions or even their own made-up words, instead of using words whose meanings we can all agree on.
That's not what I said. You asked why it was an (implicit) assumption - and if I said that I was without hair and did so without proof then it is an assumption. Whether one needs to prove such a thing is irrelevant: it doesn't change it being an implicit assumption that X exists if you use the phrase "without X". You confuse frustration and unhappiness at your continuing dishonesty, disrespectfulness and insulting behaviour for being scared. More dishonest arguing - as I clearly explained the difference with the word "actually". You have chosen to ignore it. More dishonesty. The word has a different meaning now. You know it has. You keep needing to refer to the definition you want to apply to it as its "literal meaning" etc. Case in point - highlighting your dishonesty. Yes it is, Jan, because you are the one insisting upon putting it there, when those who self-identify with the label have no such implication. There is no such implication in the way the word is used these days. You are dishonestly trying to use a definition that comes loaded with the implication. So it is very much your problem. So you're now admitting that it is "FACT that God does not exist"??? What you are interested in, Jan, is your own view of atheism, the one you have loaded into your strawman and against which you continue to argue. What you are clearly not interested in is the atheism that people actually have (oh, and there's that word "actually" again!). Instead you insist that the atheism they have is the one you want them to have, the one you have defined for them. That is dishonest of you. Yet at the root of all atheism is the simple notion that there is no belief that God(s) exist/Is. What people add onto that atheism, whether it is militancy, agnosticism, apathy, humanism, buddhism, or any other way of life, is irrelevant. You don't get to choose. So what that the word literally means that. It doesn't mean that any more. Just as "awful" no longer means "full of awe". If you want to create a thread about the etymology of the term, about its literal meaning, that is all well and good, but to insist that atheism still means what you want it mean is dishonest. Alas you are again wrong: not having a belief that X exists does not imply that you believe X does not exist. You are excluding the middle option where one allows for both possibilities but hold no belief that either is the case. You know this, it has been explained to you time and time again. Because I have never been convinced by any argument for believing. The modern usage, at its widest, is simply the not holding the belief that God(s) exists. There's everything wrong with you using it when you are having conversations with everyone else who are using the modern usage. It is simply disrespectful to assert your own definition on everyone else. That you don't see that is truly worrying. Atheists don't define what theism means. Theists don't get to define what atheism means. You will of course see atheism through the lens of a theist, and that you think atheists are all "without God" is not an issue - it is understandable given your a priori assumption that God exists/Is. The issue is that you are insisting that the definition of atheism is "without God". It isn't. Don't you get that? You are fully entitled to argue that all atheists do X, Y or Z, but that doesn't change the definition, and it disrespectful to change that definition. First, please point to where I have asked for evidence? Second, the implication is simply not there: God could exist/be yet be unknowable - and being unknowable there would be no evidence, but there would still be God. So no, there is no implication. ??? So when you have previously said that being "without God" implies that God exists/Is, you were just joking??? Or is this where you say "Oops, I meant 'does not exist for you'" in which case we're back to God's existence/Isness being a subjective matter. Implication, Jan, each time you quote that verse. You argue that atheism implies God exists and that the atheist rejects God - i.e. says in their heart that God does not exist. Your quoting of the verse then equates the atheist to being a fool. So please, enough of the dishonesty, the disrespect, and the insults, Jan.
IMO, the scientific default position is that there is no god. If any one claims there is a god, the burden of proof falls on the person making the extra-ordinary claim. If the person cannot provide proof of the claim, the default position remains that there is no god. This tale goes way back to "invisible enemies" in the sky which made "big noise and "big fire" and "big rain" because they were angry for some unknown reason, and needed "big medicine" to appease. All the semantics are a result of a historical false assumption by early hominids which preceded modern man, that gods must exist to account for natural events and thus theism was born. The word atheism came after. Remove "theism" and "atheism" will automatically disappear, and we will be back to the scientific default position of no supernatural gods.
Although "atheism" is sometimes assumed to be derived from the word "theism," it actually predates it.
That's an interesting logic problem. Saying that something does not exist before saying that it exists sounds logically kind of backward to me. Can you give a link or a reason how this could be so?
Sorry for the off-topic post, but the style of this website makes links appear almost identical to regular text, at least on the devices I have used.
Uh, okay here's a hint: if I don't provide an argument in the post for a statement as potentially controversial as the one I just gave then it's more than likely that the statement is A) not mine and B) a clickable link that gives the necessary background.
