Obvious Leo wrote:Gary. Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary and America is a theocratic state. I have a large number of different English dictionaries in my home and the definition you quote appears ONLY in Merriam-Webster, from which fact you are free to draw your own conclusions.
From the Oxford dictionary of standard English
"Atheism" ...a disbelief in the existence of god or gods
The other dictionaries I have all define atheism similarly but NONE define it as a belief.
Gary Childress wrote:
I would call #1 a "theist", #2 an "atheist" and #3 an "agnostic". No?
Once a word is committed to print it passes out of the ownership of the writer and becomes the property of the reader so you can define things as you choose but the last word on this question must always lie with the individual who chooses to label himself as one or the other. I doubt that there would be many people who call themselves atheists and then define this stance as a belief. I'm willing to bet that nearly all of them would see it as a lack of belief.
I would think that "disbelief in the existence of god" (as defined in your dictionary) would be pretty much synonymous with "belief that god does not exist" (as defined in MW).
Instead of the labels: theist, atheist and agnostic then, perhaps it's best to simply go with the basic positions of either:
1. God(s) exists.
2. God(s) does not exist.
3. I don't know if god(s) exists or not.
It seems to me that if everyone put their mind to it they would (or should) arrive at position #3. Of course if they wish to have "faith" then they are free to go with either position #1 or #2.
GordonHide wrote:Stephen Anderson has built himself a fine straw man and the dissected it. The vast majority of the world's atheists make no claims about the existence of gods. They merely don't believe in them for lack of empirical evidence. Agnosticism originally was the claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist or not. The common usage today is doubt about the existence of gods. Most of the world's atheists would also count themselves agnostics because they cannot prove the non-existence of gods. For myself I accept that I cannot prove gods don't exist but I think it more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow than that a traditional type of god exists.
Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?
Actually, it's conflating "atheism" with "willful ignorance."
GordonHide wrote:Stephen Anderson has built himself a fine straw man and the dissected it. The vast majority of the world's atheists make no claims about the existence of gods. They merely don't believe in them for lack of empirical evidence. Agnosticism originally was the claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist or not. The common usage today is doubt about the existence of gods. Most of the world's atheists would also count themselves agnostics because they cannot prove the non-existence of gods. For myself I accept that I cannot prove gods don't exist but I think it more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow than that a traditional type of god exists.
Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?
Actually, it's conflating "atheism" with "willful ignorance."
In what way is acknowledgement of the limits of human understanding "willful ignorance"?
Gary Childress wrote:
I would think that "disbelief in the existence of god" (as defined in your dictionary) would be pretty much synonymous with "belief that god does not exist" (as defined in MW).
I particularly dislike arguing over the meanings of words but sometimes in philosophy it makes a great difference and such is the case here. I profoundly disagree that these definitions are synonymous and I know of no contemporary scholars who would define atheism as a belief system. On this occasion I'm content to go along with the majority but it's not an argument which much interests me. Beliefs are boring.
Gary Childress wrote:
I would think that "disbelief in the existence of god" (as defined in your dictionary) would be pretty much synonymous with "belief that god does not exist" (as defined in MW).
I particularly dislike arguing over the meanings of words but sometimes in philosophy it makes a great difference and such is the case here. I profoundly disagree that these definitions are synonymous and I know of no contemporary scholars who would define atheism as a belief system. On this occasion I'm content to go along with the majority but it's not an argument which much interests me. Beliefs are boring.
So definitions of "atheism" and majority opinions aside, if I asked someone, do you think there exists a god? And they replied "no", that would not constitute a "belief" on their part?
Gary Childress wrote:if I asked someone, do you think there exists a god? And they replied "no", that would not constitute a "belief" on their part?
Without enquiring more deeply I would say no, this is not a belief. This is a person who has given some thought to the god hypothesis and isn't buying it.
Gary Childress wrote:if I asked someone, do you think there exists a god? And they replied "no", that would not constitute a "belief" on their part?
Without enquiring more deeply I would say no, this is not a belief. This is a person who has given some thought to the god hypothesis and isn't buying it.
So if a person says, "god doesn't exist", that's not a "belief"? What is it then? A "fact"?
I am an agnostic atheist. And this means while I do not think the metaphysical being commonly referred
to as God really exists I cannot be absolutely certain. And so I allow for the possibility he might actually
exist but only infinitesimally so. It would how ever be more accurate to describe my self as an apatheist
That is because whether he exists or not is not something which I actually care about. But if evidence or
proof could actually be provided for his existence then I would accept that and with out reservation. For
refusing to acknowledge something that can be objectively demonstrated would be completely irrational
Gary Childress wrote:
So if a person says, "god doesn't exist", that's not a "belief"? What is it then? A "fact"?
It's an opinion. I'm not sure why you're persisting with this line of questioning. What difference does it make what I think people might mean by their comments? My opinion of their meaning is of neither more nor less value than yours. Neither is the existence or non-existence of gods contingent on my opinion or yours or anybody else'. It is entirely a matter of one's personal conceptual taste whether or not leprechauns exist and I can't see why gods would be any different. What does this have to do with facts?
surreptitious. You use a word which I reckon could be applied to a very large proportion of the human population. There are theists who have given considerable thought to their views and are theists for this reason and likewise there are atheists who have become so as a result of considerable self-reflection. However these are the minority. I reckon this is a question which only a very small percentage of people ever give much thought to and the correct description of the majority should be "apatheists". They simply couldn't give a shit one way or the other.
Gary Childress wrote:
So if a person says, "god doesn't exist", that's not a "belief"? What is it then? A "fact"?
It's an opinion. I'm not sure why you're persisting with this line of questioning. What difference does it make what I think people might mean by their comments? My opinion of their meaning is of neither more nor less value than yours. Neither is the existence or non-existence of gods contingent on my opinion or yours or anybody else'. It is entirely a matter of one's personal conceptual taste whether or not leprechauns exist and I can't see why gods would be any different. What does this have to do with facts?
Fair enough. Call it an "opinion" then. Are all "opinions" equally justified or warranted? Aren't some "opinions" more justified than others? So if a person is of the "opinion" that god exists and someone else is of the "opinion" that god doesn't exist I would assume there is a correct answer out there in the world somewhere, right? God either exists or does not exist. Both people can't be right can they?
GordonHide wrote:Stephen Anderson has built himself a fine straw man and the dissected it. The vast majority of the world's atheists make no claims about the existence of gods. They merely don't believe in them for lack of empirical evidence. Agnosticism originally was the claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist or not. The common usage today is doubt about the existence of gods. Most of the world's atheists would also count themselves agnostics because they cannot prove the non-existence of gods. For myself I accept that I cannot prove gods don't exist but I think it more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow than that a traditional type of god exists.
Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?
Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. Thus all that an agnostic says is said by an atheist. But not all that an atheist says is agnostic.
An agnostic is a person who having considered the claim for the existence of god, rejects it as 'unknowable'. Other atheist could be either in a position to reject what they hear as ridiculous or disprovable, all the way to I don't give a damn; or even I don't care.
Some think you can be agnostic and theistic. That is their choice. I can't respect such a position.
Gary Childress wrote:
So if a person says, "god doesn't exist", that's not a "belief"? What is it then? A "fact"?
It's an opinion. I'm not sure why you're persisting with this line of questioning. What difference does it make what I think people might mean by their comments? My opinion of their meaning is of neither more nor less value than yours. Neither is the existence or non-existence of gods contingent on my opinion or yours or anybody else'. It is entirely a matter of one's personal conceptual taste whether or not leprechauns exist and I can't see why gods would be any different. What does this have to do with facts?
Fair enough. Call it an "opinion" then. Are all "opinions" equally justified or warranted? Aren't some "opinions" more justified than others? So if a person is of the "opinion" that god exists and someone else is of the "opinion" that god doesn't exist I would assume there is a correct answer out there in the world somewhere, right? God either exists or does not exist. Both people can't be right can they?
When it comes to "god". Two people can agree GOD exists and one could be right, where the other is wrong!
Obvious Leo wrote:It's an opinion. I'm not sure why you're persisting with this line of questioning. What difference does it make what I think people might mean by their comments? My opinion of their meaning is of neither more nor less value than yours. Neither is the existence or non-existence of gods contingent on my opinion or yours or anybody else'. It is entirely a matter of one's personal conceptual taste whether or not leprechauns exist and I can't see why gods would be any different. What does this have to do with facts?
Fair enough. Call it an "opinion" then. Are all "opinions" equally justified or warranted? Aren't some "opinions" more justified than others? So if a person is of the "opinion" that god exists and someone else is of the "opinion" that god doesn't exist I would assume there is a correct answer out there in the world somewhere, right? God either exists or does not exist. Both people can't be right can they?
When it comes to "god". Two people can agree GOD exists and one could be right, where the other is wrong!
For my money they are both wrong.
Of course, I would think it depends upon what is meant by "god". It's maybe one thing to say Zeus exists and maybe another to say Ahura Mazda exists. Or it could be that Zeus and Ahura Mazda are the same god only having been mistaken for different gods. Or there could be a different god or gods altogether or no gods at all (and those who thought there were gods should stop eating those mysterious mushrooms). But somewhere "out there" in the world (so to speak) there must be an objective answer to the question of whether "the god known as Zeus" exists or not and whether this god known as Zeus uses thunderbolts or not, for example.
Many different people in many different eras of human history (whom some call "mystics") have claimed "union" with some sort of god or gods. I would think there is an objective answer as to what exactly they experienced, whether it be some sort of illusion or not. And I think we are all faced with the basic choices of either believing their accounts to whatever degree, not believing them or expressing uncertainty to various degrees.
Gary Childress wrote:
Fair enough. Call it an "opinion" then. Are all "opinions" equally justified or warranted? Aren't some "opinions" more justified than others? So if a person is of the "opinion" that god exists and someone else is of the "opinion" that god doesn't exist I would assume there is a correct answer out there in the world somewhere, right? God either exists or does not exist. Both people can't be right can they?
When it comes to "god". Two people can agree GOD exists and one could be right, where the other is wrong!
For my money they are both wrong.
Of course, I would think it depends upon what is meant by "god". It's maybe one thing to say Zeus exists and maybe another to say Ahura Mazda exists. Or it could be that Zeus and Ahura Mazda are the same god only having been mistaken for different gods. Or there could be a different god or gods altogether or no gods at all (and those who thought there were gods should stop eating those mysterious mushrooms). But somewhere "out there" in the world (so to speak) there must be an objective answer to the question of whether "the god known as Zeus" exists or not and whether this god known as Zeus uses thunderbolts or not, for example.
Many different people in many different eras of human history (whom some call "mystics") have claimed "union" with some sort of god or gods. I would think there is an objective answer as to what exactly they experienced, whether it be some sort of illusion or not. And I think we are all faced with the basic choices of either believing their accounts to whatever degree, not believing them or expressing uncertainty to various degrees.
Why would you even begin to give any credibility to these myths in the first place?
