Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[Grey Day for Elcia]

And so, our linguistic heroes has slain the foul beast of "miss information" and all was right with the world from then on!

Oh damn. I am glad I left this on while getting changed. The irony of "And so, our linguistic heroes" will have me laughing for the rest of the night. Starting a sentence with an and right before going on to claim linguistic superiority is awesome.

We may disagree, but at least we part on a funny note rather than an argument.

Night <3 (again )

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

And so, our linguistic heroes has slain the foul beast of "miss information" and all was right with the world from then on!

Oh damn. I am glad I left this on while getting changed. The irony of "And so, our linguistic heroes" will have me laughing for the rest of the night. Starting a sentence with an and right before going on to claim linguistic superiority is awesome.

We may disagree, but at least we part on a funny note rather than an argument.

Night <3 (again )

Linguistics and Grammar are not the same thing. But please, i'm sure you knew that. Night!

"Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context. The first is the study of language structure, or grammar." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Also, you said "i'm."

I know we are having fun, but stop replying so I can turn this thing off. My curiosity will never end and if we don't get up at the same time, I can't get a lift to school.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Non theist:

A: I believe in God
B: Ok, I dont.
A: Why not?
B: I dunno, Just dont.

Atheist:

A: I believe in God
B: I dont
A: Why not?
B: Because I believe there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of an invisible man in the sky

You are wrong about this claim sir. An Atheist is the exact same as a non theist. Atheism as NOTHING to do with the scientific evidence of a god.
Atheism just means not theist. Thats generally what putting the letter a infront of a word means.
Asynchronous = Not synchronous
Atypical = Not Typical

Putting on the a makes the word an antonym, which means the word means the opposite of the original word.

So if a theist believes in a god, then the atheist doesn't, that's all there is. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system, only god.

And I think this has been explained a few times already.

PS: The Atheist in your case would not say "I believe there is no scientific evidence" they would say "There IS no scientific evidence".

 

[viranimus]

You are wrong about this claim sir. An Atheist is the exact same as a non theist. Atheism as NOTHING to do with the scientific evidence of a god.
Atheism just means not theist. Thats generally what putting the letter a infront of a word means.
Asynchronous = Not synchronous
Atypical = Not Typical

Putting on the a makes the word an antonym, which means the word means the opposite of the original word.

So if a theist believes in a god, then the atheist doesn't, that's all there is. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system, only god.

And I think this has been explained a few times already.

PS: The Atheist in your case would not say "I believe there is no scientific evidence" they would say "There IS no scientific evidence".

No, I think you failed to comprehend what I said. Its not a matter of the anal retentive explanation of "A" meaning not, Its the practical application that if you posses ANY sort of reasoning or ideology that explains why you choose to not be religious, you have formed an ideological opinion. That is not atheism.

Also your missing the greater point in that there are next to no Atheists as you've described. Heres a modification to describe what an Atheist would be in that context

A: I believe in God
B: Whats God?

The fact you missed this point is in your PS. the thought that there is no scientific evidence, is in and of itself a subjective opinion and as such it IS a belief, which is exactly why I included that word in that sentence. There is a difference between an Atheist, anti theist and a non theist, of Which the largest portion of people who identify with atheism In their actions actually are anti theists because it is a proactive rejection of religion. Even if they favor the term Atheist so it does not seem like a proactive rejection.

Simply put, if your in a web forum expressing your opinion on God or lack their of then you are expressing an opinion you believe to be true none the less. That makes you an anti theist, not an atheist because you have your own personal systems of belief built up and internalized.

An Atheist would not know of religion, a non theist would know of it but simply not hold their own and go on about their lives, and an anti theist would explain why they proactively reject religion.

Other thought: I do fully approve of the levels of anal retentivity this thread has generated. Would much rather work something out to a finite point than leave something left undeciphered. Though I would leave it to others to decipher as I have said basically all I can on the topic.

 

[Aurgelmir]

You are wrong about this claim sir. An Atheist is the exact same as a non theist. Atheism as NOTHING to do with the scientific evidence of a god.
Atheism just means not theist. Thats generally what putting the letter a infront of a word means.
Asynchronous = Not synchronous
Atypical = Not Typical

Putting on the a makes the word an antonym, which means the word means the opposite of the original word.

So if a theist believes in a god, then the atheist doesn't, that's all there is. It has nothing to do with a religious belief system, only god.

And I think this has been explained a few times already.

PS: The Atheist in your case would not say "I believe there is no scientific evidence" they would say "There IS no scientific evidence".

No, I think you failed to comprehend what I said. Its not a matter of the anal retentive explanation of "A" meaning not, Its the practical application that if you posses ANY sort of reasoning or ideology that explains why you choose to not be religious, you have formed an ideological opinion. That is not atheism.

Also your missing the greater point in that there are next to no Atheists as you've described. Heres a modification to describe what an Atheist would be in that context

A: I believe in God
B: Whats God?

The fact you missed this point is in your PS. the thought that there is no scientific evidence, is in and of itself a subjective opinion and as such it IS a belief, which is exactly why I included that word in that sentence. There is a difference between an Atheist, anti theist and a non theist, of Which the largest portion of people who identify with atheism In their actions actually are anti theists because it is a proactive rejection of religion. Even if they favor the term Atheist so it does not seem like a proactive rejection.

Simply put, if your in a web forum expressing your opinion on God or lack their of then you are expressing an opinion you believe to be true none the less. That makes you an anti theist, not an atheist because you have your own personal systems of belief built up and internalized.

An Atheist would not know of religion, a non theist would know of it but simply not hold their own and go on about their lives, and an anti theist would explain why they proactively reject religion.

Other thought: I do fully approve of the levels of anal retentivity this thread has generated. Would much rather work something out to a finite point than leave something left undeciphered. Though I would leave it to others to decipher as I have said basically all I can on the topic.

Oh boy where to begin.

First of Atheism or theism has nothing to do with religion or belief in general. It's to do with god. Plain and simple.

There is actually many types of theism:

Monotheism = The belief that there is only one god, who is generally anthropomorphic. (Christians/Jews/Muslims)
Polytheism = The belief that there is many anthropomorphic gods (Hiduists/Ancient Religions)
Pantheism = This one is an ofdd one, it means to believe in ALL the gods, but is used for the belief that god and the universe is the same, and that this god is not a anthropomorphic god. "The divine universe"
Atheism = Not believing in one or more gods (Buddhists, general religionless people)

So I don't think I failed the point that there is no atheists based on my description, there are millions of people around the world that do not believe in a god(s). And your "what's god" example is not what I am describing at all.

And you seem to not know the meaning of science. Science don't work in the sphere of belief, and so far in history there are no scientific proof of any gods existence. There are millions of religious proof, but that is not the same as scientific proof. This is not a belief this is a fact.

Sure an Atheist knows of religion. The whole basis for the word Atheist derives from the knowledge that someone believes in gods. And most believers of gods are part of an religion, although not all religions believe in god.

I agree though that a lot of Atheists are ALSO Anti Theists, well at least most of the vocal ones. And in fact I find it hard to see how you can be an Anti Theist unless you are an Atheist. But you can well we an Atheist without being an anti theist.

I still stand by my claim that none theist is the same as an Atheist. Unless you change your claim that the none theist is the person that doesn't know what a god is.

 

[CarlMin]

Can't help but feeling that the title is rather fishing for attention.

Nonetheless, your point seems to derive from a confusion about the semantic meaning of the word atheist. It's not someone who is against religion in any way. An atheist is someone who do not believe in supernatural deities but the term doesn't imply anything about a persons view on organized religion or belief. And it's certainly, certainly (certainly) not a political stance. Why? Because it isn't. Athiesm is simply there do identify the absence of something, and there is no reason why it should be understood by default that someone is without faith.

 

[deathzero021]

all i gotta say is, i think it's important for atheists to get a term that identifies them.

 

[Wintermoot]

do you have a better term for it?
because non-believer sounds pretty bad. religion free? that sounds like something you put on a can of coke.

 

[FalloutJack]

I stretched it to fit atheism because it's another mode of thinking that goes to alot of work over denying god existence.

Fair enough. Although I as an Atheist generally don't spend a lot of time denying gods existence, at least not more than I discuss any other topic.

Please excuse the generalities. Contrary to what the internet might tell you, there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Jaeke]

I never understood why people who call themselves "logical" judge others just because they have an answer for something.

Not trying to bash Atheists ( I guess Agnostics too ), I don't mind them having their opinions but when they openly criticize those that prefer to have answers, that's when I get angry. I mean, we all have had the same questions that both Atheists and Religious People have asked since the beginning of time:
"Why?"

Atheists say "Nothing. There is nothing. It's a mistake."
Religious types say "Something. There is something. There's a purpose."

And well... something is more than nothing isn't it? I mean, that would be the logical answer.

So a term that describes, non-answering, I think, is fitting.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Atheism is the belief system of atheists.

There's no such thing as an Atheist belief system. It is the absence of a belief.

Its not a lack of belief, it's a belief in a negative value(Which is to say "god does not exist" as opposed to the positive value of "god does exist" like a binary equation.) The absence of a belief in regards to deities is called agnosticism.

"Why?"

Atheists say "Nothing. There is nothing. It's a mistake."
Religious types say "Something. There is something. There's a purpose."

And well... something is more than nothing isn't it? I mean, that would be the logical answer.

No they don't. They have many varied answers and it's insane to just assume they all think life is purposeless. I can not believe in the higher power of God and still assign to both my life and others a great deal of meaning. Nothing good in life has to stem from the belief of a lasting eternity.

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." -Carl Sagan

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Actually it is. When you're born do you believe in god? Nope. It's weak atheism. You have never considered the question but because you don't believe in a god you are in fact atheist until you are told about religion.

Go ahead and show me a baby born with a complex belief system such as Christianity. Just one. Go on. Right now. Show me just ONE baby that was born with a system of belief such as a religion. Try. I dare you.

I'll wait right here.

You can't? Yes. I know. Because you cannot physically be born with an opinion on the existence or of a god and what is the absence of belief regarding a god? ATHEISM!

Absence of belief does not automatically equate to atheism if someone is too young to even have a concept of belief. Really, babies should technically be considered agnostic because they are capable of neither belief nor disbelief in God. We're really splitting hairs at this point, however. The point I'm trying to make is that it's a mistake to assert that based on the semantic boundaries of atheism it represents the natural state for all human beings. Really, this is a territory we don't have a lot of empirical evidence for, but the statistical evidence from history is overwhelmingly in favour of the idea that humans are naturally inclined to develop some form of spirituality, and work done by various anthropologists supports this.

The important thing to be taking away from this discussion, in my view, is that even if you were right to say atheism is the natural state for all humans, doing so would be displaying the same kind of arrogance about your system of thought that religious zealots display about theirs. It implies that a religion is a form of deviance, which is no different to being called a heathen.

 

[Zaverexus]

"Atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak, speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them - and then they leap"
-Life of Pi, by Yann Martel

Atheism is in fact a faith. Just as God can never be totally proven, so too can his absence never be completely sure. We all must somewhere make the leap of faith to one side or another.

Except those agnostics

Spoiler

"It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation"
-(same book)

[small]Thanks to http://allaboutcori.blogspot.com/2006/05/pi-on-agnosticism-and-atheism.html for the quotes since I seem to have misplaced my copy of the novel[/small]

 

[Tanakh]

you can't even prove that you exsist

Aaaaand the argument is over, lol. I was right there with you, having a conversation, but then you went and jumped off the ledge.

What do you understand by proof mate? I think we are using the word differently, that is why i was careful to use the word math.

When i say proof i mean a series of sentences based on deductive reasoning to say without a shadow of doubt that XXXX is valid based on YYYY axioms.

I do not consider inductive reasoning as a proof because it doesn't guarantee the resoult is right, just that it has happened most of the time for most of the observers.

With that in mind, I can tell you that God has not exsisted for most people most of the time, but that is not a proof that God does not exsist.

So, what do you understand as proof?

 

[Tanakh]

Atheism is in fact a faith. Just as God can never be totally proven, so too can his absence never be completely sure. We all must somewhere make the leap of faith to one side or another.

Yeah, but it's kind of cheating. Lets say for example i affirm something creepy like:

"Every time you close your eyes, when no one is around and no one can see, I am there right besides you with my knife close to your throat"

You can't disprove that, and it might even stick enough due human psique for you to even belive it for half a second the next time you blink or all lights are out and you go to sleep.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I never understood why people who call themselves "logical" judge others just because they have an answer for something.

Not trying to bash Atheists ( I guess Agnostics too ), I don't mind them having their opinions but when they openly criticize those that prefer to have answers, that's when I get angry. I mean, we all have had the same questions that both Atheists and Religious People have asked since the beginning of time:
"Why?"

Atheists say "Nothing. There is nothing. It's a mistake."
Religious types say "Something. There is something. There's a purpose."

And well... something is more than nothing isn't it? I mean, that would be the logical answer.

So a term that describes, non-answering, I think, is fitting.

Firstly: a mistake? What? When has anyone every said we are a mistake? Sounds like religious talk--surprise, surprise.

Second: that's an inane train of thought. Having a supposed answer you don't understand and cannot prove is not better than or in any way more desirable than having no answer at all.

The Atheist says you have yet to prove there is a god. Fact.

The religious man says there is a god. Belief.

Just because you want there to be a god and a higher purpose to life doesn't make any solution you regurgitate 'better.' Just because it would be all sunshine and rainbows for your god to exist doesn't mean you get to say 'well, my idea is happier, so why not go with that?' That's childish and painfully lacking in any logic.

Your entire argument comes down to "I would like it if I were true, so that's something... right?" No.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Why should the word not exist? It serves the purpose of defining a person who rejects religious beliefs. In my honest opinion the idea that such a term should not exist is extremely pretentious and stupid.

Atheists don't reject anything. Atheism, by very definition, is the absence of belief. ANTI-theists reject religion.

I'll use an example someone else just used that sums it up nicely: if religions were channels, Atheism is turning off the TV. Atheists aren't against religion and they don't deny any god exists. Atheists simply aren't in the debate at all. Atheists are the ones in the middle who shrug their shoulders and say "show me some proof."

The perfect example of an Atheist: a baby. Babies don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't BELIEVE anything.

And that's where all this comes from. See, Atheists don't belong in the religious arena. They aren't arguing anything and they don't have a belief of any kind. While pro and anti-religious people are arguing, Atheists are outside the building, not caring. Why should we label people not involved at all? If Atheism meant believing there is no god, then the title would fit as it is religious (anti-religious, to be exact). But it doesn't. Which is why the analogy of "you don't call a non-sky-diver a name" works. Religion is a choice and the people who don't make the choice to have a belief shouldn't have labels thrust on them. Being Christian or Catholic or Buddhist are choices. Everyone is born Atheist and if everyone is something by default, why does it need a name?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Not the absence of belief, but the belief that there is no god. Even so, your point is irrelevant, the term atheist still defines a specific thing, why shouldn't we have it? I think you're confusing atheists with agnostics, atheists believe that there is no god, while agnostics are unsure on the matter.

 

[Something Amyss]

The point is that people shouldn't assume religion to be the default.

Except, like it or not, most people are some shade of religious. So it kinda is the default. Why assume it shouldn't be?

Basically: why are you here? Lol.

Note the question mark? Note that I was asking a question? I was hoping for a reply with some sort of actual discussion value, which I didn't get. Instead I got a reiteration of a point I got, but do not think is correct. See, that's the thing. People can disagree with you but not fail to grasp the point you're making.

The point here is that the world is fucked up, the world is religious, and hence, the world assumes religion. Given that, I still have to ask: So?