Originally posted by ChickenPie
To be frank, I think you're just bull#ting to avoid the strong points I've made. You didn't even bother to rebut what I wrote. Instead, you decided to argue over the definition of atheist again.

If you want to define an atheist as someone who is without belief in God, then fine, but I don't see how that refutes the points I've made. One who is without belief in God must have had reached that point in some fashion, one reason being that the person is utterly ignorant. For example, babies are utterly ignorant, and if we're using the definition of atheist given by you, then all babies are atheists. But then there are also the educated and intelligent adults who are atheists by choice. Surely you can see the difference between a baby who is an atheist out of utter ignorance and a grown man who is an atheist because he feels it to be a logical stance? Regardless, the former realize the possibility of there being an entity who created everything; they then weigh that possibility against empirical evidence, logic, etc., and then they reach a final conclusion. Thus, my posts are for those who choose to be atheists.

Now that we understand each other... how does this not make sense to you?

Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.

Your argument is sound, but it can easily be used against you when applying a different religious framework from the one in which you currently believe...

Do you believe in Allah? If not, then you believe there is no Allah. Will you admit that you do not believe in Allah? If so, then disbelief in Allah is a belief in itself.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

I am an Atheist and strongly assert that is it a belief.

I admit Allah doesn't exist to me.

If appearing in a book made a fact claim correct, then we'd all be Christians. Then again, we'd all be Scientologists, too. Hmm... this looking-things-up-in-books theory needs work.

Mike, back in grade school, dictionaries were touted as the place where you find out "what words mean." Like many things grown-ups tell children, that isn't entirely true.

Now that we are grown up, we know that a dictionary "definition" is a record of how people have used words. Period.

That record only sometimes includes the context where the use occurred, and may or may not make any attempt to distinguish among similar words. Therefore, a dictionary definition is a poor guide to usage.

An atheist is a person whose credal state is incompletely described by a lack of belief in any god. Similarly, an agnostic's credal state is incompletely described by the same lack. So, too, as another poster has mentioned, a baby's credal state can also be incompletely described by this lack.

If a speaker happened not to be interested in giving a full account of what some particular atheist believes, or spoke about how a particular atheist's beliefs differ from those of some, but not all, other people, then that speaker might use atheist only in the sense of "lacking belief in god."

Hypothetical example:

Bruce, a native speaker of English: "John didn't go to church today."

Emily, a lexicographer: "Why not?"

Bruce: "John is an atheist."

Emily: "What does that have to do with not going to church?"

Bruce: "Atheists don't believe in God."

Woohoo. Based on that exchange, it is permissible, by the professional standards and trade practices of lexicography, for Emily to include in a dictionary "definition" of atheist "someone who does not believe in God."

Why? Because Emily can attest that the word was used that way by a native speaker. It obviously does not follow, however, that atheist is an appropriate word to describe everybody who doesn't believe in God, and ludicrous to say that that is what atheist means.

Emily's dictionary entry will have served its purpose if it ever helps me to understand some particular writer's or speaker's intention.

"Ah," I think, "so this speaker didn't care what atheists believe, but was happy to cite any aspect of an atheist's credal state that would answer the specific question that he was asked."

That furnishes no reason, however, for me to repeat that speaker's usage in a context different from the original context.

In any case, I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am not any kind of atheist.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by faceoff85
You just cheated
I never included a 3rd option... Adding in variables is indeed important... its the variables that decide wether you'll be atheist (agnostic 3rd? ) or a theist..

The point I was trying to make is that everybody believes... even if its only belief in themselves...

I'm not a cheater - or don't want to be one at least. Can you give us the variables that are put forth to these scientists in the experiment?

I see what you are saying. But you fail to realise that with this criteria you are unwillingly a disbeliever in a billion+ concepts. You believe in the disbelief of a billion+ ideas. What makes this idea of God or no God so worthy of attention?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Do you believe in Allah? If not, then you believe there is no Allah. Will you admit that you do not believe in Allah? If so, then disbelief in Allah is a belief in itself.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Allah is Arabic for God... and I believe in God, so I guess I believe in Allah. However, Allah is typically associated with the Islamic God, which I may not believe in.

I see your point though and I have no problem with people using my own rationale against me. It wouldn't bother me at all if somebody said, "You don't believe in Zeus!?" That's right, I don't believe Zeus exists, but I don't *know* Zeus does not exist.

Originally posted by IamBoon
I am an Atheist and strongly assert that is it a belief.

I admit Allah doesn't exist to me.

I'd strongly assert otherwise.

Disbelief does not equal belief.

"Doesn't exist" does not equal "exist".

"Not A" does not equal "A".

But if you want to hold your disbelief as a belief then ultimately it matters little to me. Rock on

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So you are basically saying everyone has an infinite number of beliefs although the theists infinite belief set will be larger than the atheists.

So? Is that bad?

Originally posted by ChickenPie

So? Is that bad?

I makes the term "believe" meaningless, as everything becomes a believe. But still it is used to attack atheists. "You also believe so your position is as weak as mine", and that is a straw man.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So you are basically saying everyone has an infinite number of beliefs although the theists infinite belief set will be larger than the atheists.

So? Is that bad?

Well as a belief is something you remember otherwise you couldnt believe in it, then an infinite number of beliefs in the non existance of something is impossible, therefore they cant be classed as beliefs.

Now that was a well structured sentence lol.