Jayhawker Soule

All joking aside, there is a difference. It's the difference between mispronunciation and evolved definition. When Merriam-Webster defines atheism as "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity, b : the doctrine that there is no deity", it's not simply because its authors are muddled and/or ignorant of Koyaanisqatsi's rules of discourse.

WJ

Atheist's ought to get a 'real life' and come up with their 'own word' rather than borrow from the theist. The word atheist seems subord to the word theist, just like typical and atypical.

So, there seems to exist a sort of 'primacy' issue that implies the concept(s) theism takes such primacy over atheism. Otherwise one is back to raising the question of what it means to have and hold a belief.

For instance, if the concept of God is thought to be outside the domain of pure logic/reason (which I agree with), then what is atheism based upon?

What's more, for an atheist to argue and debate God, is tantamount to being nonsensical and demonstrates a question existing within one's mind. That is so because in the process of debate, it reduces the atheist's position to a mere 'belief'.

I agree with Helen, the atheist should simply say "no" and walk away.

It seems there are many agnostic wannabes!

Walrus
---------
What shall it mean to hold a belief?

Mageth

It seems there are many agnostic wannabes!

But then again, those damn agnostics ought to get a 'real life' and come up with their 'own word' rather than borrow from the gnostic.

Adrian Selby

"Fwiw, here's more about why I think the "God is undefined" approach is silly...
I think you could play the same game with anything that we all know does exist, in reality.
"--Helen

I don't think its that easy.

Adrian - the guy typing this, get on a plane, to the UK, come and say Hi, homo sapien, black hair etc. There are many ways to define me, not conclusively perhaps.

God - er, non physical, or umm, physical, at least, affects the physical, infinite, though not able to contradict logical necessity, all powerful, meaning can move mountains and destroy galaxies while also being invisible, no means of understanding the mechanisms by which these things happen, no agreement etc etc

I can go on listing ways to define me, through my family, through other physical evidence, through written evidence, spoken etc. and a growing picture can be built, at least, there is a grounding for the definition, based on the something real.

We don't get that start with God. I disagree only therefore with your notion that the SAME game can be played with anything, I think God is particularly problematic.

Adrian

DRFseven

Because it might not be true! Do you know for sure that an incomprehensibly-described thing doesn't exist? Imagine that someone asks you if you believe some long, extremely complicated equation with all kinds of wierd symbols could be true. If it were me, I'd have to say I had no basis on which to determine such a thing.

Now, don't tell me that "God" is not incomprehensibly-described, because you know it is. You could qualify the answer and I could answer to your specific question, but that's never the way it's asked. Many people (perhaps most; I don't know) define "God" as "something larger than I", which, of course, makes it something I do believe in because I believe lots of things are bigger than I am. Some wave their arms around vaguely, and call it "all this." Well, I also believe there is an "all this." If you specify that it has a human personality (emotions such as love and jealousy, desire, etc.) and that it is also not matter, then you could be talking about something such as qualia. As you see, it gets complicated. Some gods are not supernatural at all and have no special powers; they are fish or fire or something; I believe there are fish and fires in the world. And look at the cargo cults; they worship soldiers and airplanes!

joedad

Did the word God - capitalized that is - have a Classical Roman and Greek equivalent? I mean, was there even such an animal in the parlance of those times?

joe

Theli

Yes, "lack of godbelief" works for christians to explain atheism also. It's non-biased.
While "lack belief in god" only works for monotheists. Therefore - biased.

Theli

Thats because it IS. Just like A-moral based on moral. Without a code of morality, Amorality doesn't mean anything.

Theli

Reasoning with the unreasonable?
I don't think so, as much as you might reject it, your belief does have some sort of reasoning behind it. This is simply how humans think.
And we atheists tries to dig that reasoning up and put it to test. That's all.

HelenM

Yes, but in most contexts where someone would ask, 'no' tells them what they want to know, doesn't it?

If they didn't say 'why' then most likely, all they want is to be able to put a label on you regarding whether you share the beliefs of theists or not.

I'd say that if you try to go into "I can't believe in what doesn't exist/what isn't defined/what none of you theists can agree upon" then you're moving into why you don't believe, which probably beyond what the other person cares about.

It's like - if you go to buy icecream and you're asked what flavor, the storeperson probably doesn't really want to know that you don't like nut icecream because the bits get stuck in your teeth and besides you seem to have an allergy to nuts although it's only mild and you've never been tested for it; maybe you ought to be...etc etc

That may all be true.

But very very often I find that other people don't want to hear something just because it's true.

Even if you're - say - on some, anti-nuts-in-icecream campaign and so at every opportunity you get, you try to explain why that is...

As you see, it gets complicated.

I don't deny it; I take your point; but I also say that most people who ask, just want to label you and they aren't interested in 'why'.

love
Helen