Philosophy Now Forum

Thundril wrote:Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

Notvacka wrote:

Thundril wrote:Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

O ye, of little faith?

attofishpi wrote:Atheists have a belief

Theists have a belief

Atheist have many beliefs, just like everybody else. However, the one you are hinting at here ain't one of them, as I will demonstrate.

Atheists believe god is non existent and hence forth shall not be spoken of.

Incorrect. Atheists lack the belief that god(s) exist. This is not the same (as I will show) as entertaining a belief.

Theists believe God does exist and should be addressed accordingly.

AGNOSTIKA for presidentente!!!

Thundril wrote:Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:

Thundril wrote:Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

Well, you won't like me for this, . .

Notvacka wrote:

Thundril wrote:IF theists regard the term 'atheism' as referring specifically to a position rejecting the existence of their god, then they might feel justified in regarding that position as a 'belief'. Well, I henceforth do not call myself 'atheist'. I call myself 'infidel'. This expresses more clearly a lack of belief.
Q. Does my change of label indicate any change of belief?

I like it. In Christian circles I usually refer to myself as "heretic".

chaz wyman wrote:I'm a heathen, atheist, infidel, atheist, agnostic, heretic, pagan, apostate, skeptic - this depends on who is shouting. They all are true , more or less - but none of them involve me believing in anything.

Thundril wrote:Pagans (Related to peasant, - people of the fields) traditionally do worship summat-or-other.

The word "Pagan" is another reflexive term applied by the members of the largely urbanite Christian movement in the first millennium AD to traduce and insult the 'village dwellers" who were seen as witches and bumkins. The Pagani were those that had not yet heard of or accepted Christianity, and were eligible for persecution.
The reason I chose the word was that they never self-identified as 'pagan". It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers self-identified as pagan.


Heathens are all sinners! Hathan - anglo-saxon, pretty much the same as the slightly-more-french sounding payan. - paysant
Infidels (Latin: lacking faith) have nothing in common except dodgy facial hair.
I am an infidel. (I'll send a piccy when I develop the requisite savvy.)

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I'm a heathen, atheist, infidel, atheist, agnostic, heretic, pagan, apostate, skeptic - this depends on who is shouting. They all are true , more or less - but none of them involve me believing in anything.

But the heathen, pagan and heretic pretty much do have religious beliefs?

It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers

Thundril wrote:

It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers

There but for the sheer happenstance of luck, go I.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:Here's the atheist's problem. We think we know (some of the time, depending on who is talking) what they mean when the say God, but every time we say, "well, no, I can show you quite reasonably how that definition doesn't exist," then the definition shifts. Between different religions, between different denominations within those religions, and between different adherents of even the same denominations, the definition shifts and wiggles.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described."

evangelicalhumanist wrote:Let me ask you a very simple question, to demonstrate the difference between a belief, a lack of belief, a disbelief and agnosticism.

Do you believe that Fratchley exists? I am not going to tell you anything more about Fratchley, and I command you not to go surfing the internet to find out what it might (or might not) mean (that would betray your doubt, after all, and Fratchley may not like that). And even if you did, I'd bet that you'd find some number of definitions -- other than exactly 1 -- for what Fratchley might be. So, do you believe or don't you?

Since I will not tell you what Fratchley means, you must decide that you are agnostic. It might exist. It might not. Without further information, you can't say.

If, on the other hand, I define Fratchley as a loaf of raisin bread somewhere between the size of the planets Earth and Mars, you might have a different answer. You could not, of course, be absolutely certain (after all, it's a big universe and we know little about it), but you would probably feel pretty justified in thinking that, "no, Fratchley doesn't exist."

Here's the atheist's problem. We think we know (some of the time, depending on who is talking) what they mean when the say God, but every time we say, "well, no, I can show you quite reasonably how that definition doesn't exist," then the definition shifts. Between different religions, between different denominations within those religions, and between different adherents of even the same denominations, the definition shifts and wiggles.

So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described.

And that is not "holding a belief."