CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
It takes faith to be an atheist.
It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith. They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics. They think they know something despite a lack of proof. The same way the faithful do. Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for.
It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith.
Most atheists do say "there is no proof of god," they say things like highly unlikely, doubtful, etc. That is the majority of them from my experience. I do not fall on such formalities, I actually have "faith" that there is no god - since I cannot disprove a negative. In my defence I also say there is no such thing as unicorns... another act of faith. Hence why I'm on this side agreeing, though I do dispute the spirit of your argument.
They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics. They think they know something despite a lack of proof.
Here I think you are misrepresenting what it means to believe, which is the fundamental basis of faith. An agnostic would be one who simply witholds an opinion on the matter. An atheist may be atheist however without "faith" in that they base an opinion on what is seen. They are not agnostic in that they are not on the fence, they don't think there is a god. They simply do not claim to have knowledge of this. Now, that would be faith if it were claimed "I know there is no god" but not when it is "knowledge" of things like fossils, the age of the planet, inconsistancies in faith which leads them to say "these gods people worship cannot be according to this evidence."
You can argue that even knowledge of evidence is faith, but then you're just being silly. By that standard knowledge the sky is blue becomes an article of faith, making the word "faith" itself worthless as a descriptive term.
Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for.
1. Not all atheists hate religion. Most don't actually, some even think it is useful and a nice fairy tale for the dying.
And even I, a religion-hating atheist, wouldn't deny a child or someone on their deathbed the comfort of a god if they choose to be delusioned in such a way for a time. I just see that blind faith leads to blind following which more times than not leads to the mass of religious doing one evil or another, making the world a darker place for it.
2. Atheism is actually extraordinarily reasonable, and more so in light of the social stigmas around it. It is an opinion based on observation. This faith you are comparing it to on the other hand is opinion despite observation.
Worse and my primary disdain for this horrible powerful thing holding back humanity's potential called religion, is that in fact due to the very nature of believing despite observation, it actually rewards "staying stupid." Creating an atmosphere we see right now in real time in pockets of the very religious areas even in this country which is supposed to be religiously neutral, where knowledge is treated almost like witchcraft or sorcery, feared, hated and avoided like a plague.
They do more than this, though, don't they? They draw a conclusion based on this lack of proof: that reality is nothing more than their observation. And it would be illogical to operate as though it were anything more, but it is equally illogical to assume that it is limited to their perception.
I cannot disprove a negative.
To digress for a moment, that's not actually true.
no such thing as unicorns
To compare any omnipotent force to unicorns, Santa, the Easter Bunny or Russel's teapot is missing the point of "god," just to get that out of the way.
They are not agnostic in that they are not on the fence, they don't think there is a god.
Agnosticism doesn't usually imply being "on the fence." More commonly, it's shorthand for a confidence either that the truth about a thing is inherently unknowable or that the necessary premises for drawing a conclusion are currently inaccessible.
Now, that would be faith if it were claimed "I know there is no god" but not when it is "knowledge" of things like fossils, the age of the planet, inconsistancies in faith ...
What is belief if not acceptance of a proposition as truth?
which leads them to say "these gods people worship cannot be according to this evidence."
Hit the nail on the head, dude. That's the faith part.
You can argue that even knowledge of evidence is faith, but then you're just being silly.
I won't argue that. That's not where my position is coming from.
Not all atheists hate religion. Most don't actually, some even think it is useful and a nice fairy tale for the dying.
I realize that. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming that you aren't familiar with belittling generalization, and will instead take that you only disputed this point so that you could make that crack, which ironically supports my point.
blind faith leads to blind following which more times than not leads to the mass of religious doing one evil or another, making the world a darker place for it.
This is antitheism, which is not necessarily incompatible with agnosticism. It's a social school, not a metaphysical one.
They do more than this, though, don't they? They draw a conclusion based on this lack of proof: that reality is nothing more than their observation. And it would be illogical to operate as though it were anything more, but it is equally illogical to assume that it is limited to their perception.
Well, yeah. I draw the conclusion there are no unicorns based on lack of proof. They are basing this on observation though, not on nothingness. Faith is based on nothingness, not on observation.
To digress for a moment, that's not actually true.
I assure you that in fact you cannot disprove a negative. Try all you like.
To compare any omnipotent force to unicorns, Santa, the Easter Bunny or Russel's teapot is missing the point of "god," just to get that out of the way.
So should faith be based on the "point" of something? Very well the point of unicorns is they are omnipotent and they save us from eternal hellfire. Now suddenly are we missing the point of "unicorns"? Perhaps that should be the debate instead.
Agnosticism doesn't usually imply being "on the fence." More commonly, it's shorthand for a confidence either that the truth about a thing is inherently unknowable or that the necessary premises for drawing a conclusion are currently inaccessible.
Okay... so that information being unaccessible would leave them... not on the fence?
What is belief if not acceptance of a proposition as truth?
Anything uttered is a proposition of truth. The point is they are basing their rejection of this specific proposition of truth on observation not blind faith.
Hit the nail on the head, dude. That's the faith part.
... you completely skipped the part that made it not so. You are calling belief faith. They are two different things. Belief is just thinking something. You believe 1+1 is 2, but it is not faith because you have observational evidence of it. Better, I believe trees exist. This is not faith because I see trees. Faith inherently is "not seeing" or in any other way sensing or showing evidence of something, yet still believing it is there.
You are trying to say that not believing this thing you don't see or in any way sense is an article of faith. I'm telling you it is not. You are switching the definitions of faith and belief in order to meet the needs of your own argument willy-nilly. Atheists believe there is no god based on observation. This is a different function than Theists having faith there is a god despite no observation of this being.
I realize that. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming that you aren't familiar with belittling generalization, and will instead take that you only disputed this point so that you could make that crack, which ironically supports my point.
You said the "religion atheists hate." I was correcting you with that crack. Which was not ironic nor does it support your point.
This is antitheism, which is not necessarily incompatible with agnosticism. It's a social school, not a metaphysical one.
Fine. But this human metaphysical debate of the existence of god has social consequence.
I draw the conclusion there are no unicorns based on lack of proof.
I trust you draw that conclusion based on more than a lack of immediately observable evidence, and that you've probably not physically verified every theory you accept as truth. And, like I said, unicorn != invisible man in the sky.
I assure you that in fact you cannot disprove a negative.
Don't wanna get sidetracked, so I'll start another thread about it if you insist. In the mean time, google the phrase and note for future reference that saying this kind of thing reflects poorly upon your rational faculty. You couldn't technically lose a debate because of it, but the bias it imposes makes you a lot less likely to actually convince anybody who happens to know better.
So should faith be based on the "point" of something?
If you're asking if we should choose whether to abstain from judgment of a thing based on its theoretical properties, yes.
Okay... so that information being unaccessible would leave them... not on the fence?
The phrase and the way you used it imply indecision, which is, in the epistemological sense, distinct from uncertainty and not characteristic of agnosticism.
they are basing their rejection of this specific proposition of truth on observation not blind faith.
It's interesting that you should use the term "blind faith," because that's the exact implication of a "lack of observation."
You are calling belief faith.
I am not. If you can specify which part of my message was construed that way, I'll clarify.
Faith inherently is "not seeing" or in any other way sensing or showing evidence of something, yet still believing it is there.
That's true. Yet you consistently, conveniently omit the converse (which, as we all remember from sixth grade geometry class, is necessarily also true [this is half-joke, but feel free to refute it anyway]). Why? I know you stated all of this plainly in your next paragraph, but there wasn't an argument, and I'd like a more thorough explanation.
human metaphysical debate of the existence of god has social consequence
What fucking part of you can't disprove a negative do you not understand? This is getting boring.
I can't prove unicorns, santa, easter bunny or god do not exist. The reason this cannot be proven is because you cannot "prove" non-existance.
BUT I HAVE THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE OF EACH OF THESE ENTITITES
So why the fuck should god be real and the rest not?
Seriously, stop with the symantic bullshit and tell me how there is more proof of god than any of these things mentioned and why I should call it "faith" that there is no god but "knowledge" there is no santa.
And look up disproving a negative. It can't be done. You must be thinking of something else.
As for the rest, I've answered. You are quoting only portions of what I say in order to fit your own argument.
Where you confuse faith with belief is everywhere. You are saying where god's nonexistance is concerned belief must = faith. Where all other nonexistance is concerned (santa, unicorn, etc) you are saying belief is not necessarily faith since apparently you don't believe in these things and whatever you don't believe in is okay.
It's a very one-sided position, as you show in your insistance that I dare not equate a unicorn with an all-powerful being.
Woah, there, tiger, take it easy, let's keep this professional. Like I said, a five-minute web search and reading-up would resolve this, but if you're really as passionate about being uninformed as you seem: debate/show/You_can_t_prove_a_negative
On a depressing but related note, I hadn't realized people had become so unconcerned with the truth of what they're arguing that "Google it" had become more of an empty slur than a genuine recommendation. Unfortunate.
I can tell you the reason you're clinging so desperately to this convenient principle of folk logic, though, is because some part of you realizes that science can neither ask nor answer questions of the supernatural. If the reason you're an atheist is because people haven't proved god exists with science, then your understanding of at least one of those concepts is seriously lacking. And what's worse, it (along with a lot of the other behaviors you've exhibited thus far) suggests you've stopped asking questions, or never did, of your own experiential existence--which has me wondering whether you even exist at all.
(That's a joke, please please please please don't take that literally and try to use it against me, because doing that will cause me to kill myself immediately and there will be another cyber-bullying media scandal and everyone will blame you.)
There are proofs of god inextricably intertwined with the idea itself. None of them is irrefutable, but neither are those refutations. Of equal importance is remembering that none of the proofs of god also apply to unicorns or Santa Clauses (or, to be specific, any supernatural entity you can pull out of the Ditchkins hivemind). Are you seriously saying you've never heard of a proof of god before? Do you want me to buy you a high-school level intro to philosophy textbook or guide you to Reddit? I haven't been coy. As a militant atheist, I assumed you'd be familiar with the ideas most self-anointed "deep-thinking" eighteen-year-olds learn.
Until you disprove unicorns I'm going to go ahead and continue assuming that dissproving a negative is impossible.
You seem to be talking about something else entirely. As I've pointed out.
I can tell you the reason you're clinging so desperately to this convenient principle of folk logic, though, is because some part of you realizes that science can neither ask nor answer questions of the supernatural. If the reason you're an atheist is because people haven't proved god exists with science, then your understanding of at least one of those concepts is seriously lacking. And what's worse, it (along with a lot of the other behaviors you've exhibited thus far) suggests you've stopped asking questions, or never did, of your own experiential existence--which has me wondering whether you even exist at all.
I have a significant religious background, not that it has a bearing on this debate, but I've asked plenty of questions. Asking questions is what necessarily leads to atheism more than leading to religion, religion being the accepted norm, asking questions is necessary for most to go against the norm.
There are proofs of god inextricably intertwined with the idea itself. None of them is irrefutable, but neither are those refutations. Of equal importance is remembering that none of the proofs of god also apply to unicorns or Santa Clauses (or, to be specific, any supernatural entity you can pull out of the Ditchkins hivemind). Are you seriously saying you've never heard of a proof of god before? Do you want me to buy you a high-school level intro to philosophy textbook or guide you to Reddit? I haven't been coy. As a militant atheist, I assumed you'd be familiar with the ideas most self-anointed "deep-thinking" eighteen-year-olds learn.
There are no proofs of any god intertwined anywhere. Nor have you shown how or why I should not compare Santa to god in this debate. And I'm not "militant" atheist because I don't care if someone else wants to cling to a superstition. Perhaps you're speaking of my dissaproval of christians shoving their religion down everyone's throat, rewriting history specifically of this countries founding in their favor, creating quazzi scientific "proofs" for ridiculous shit like finding the arc and whatnot and passing it on as fact, and in areas like this, where christians insist on giving a god that none have had an ounce of proof of somehow magically more credence than, say Santa Clause, and insisting everyone go along with it or their dumb or something.
In those areas I'm certainly outspoken. That's more like militant freedom of mind and choice than it is militant atheism though.
Nor have you shown how or why I should not compare Santa to god in this debate.
Okay. First, we have to define the necessary properties of each of these entities and agree upon them. Let's take from common mythology for Santa Claus: A fat man who makes and delivers gifts for all the world's children in the span of 24 hours using a sleigh guided by eight flying reindeer. There's a lot to take issue with there physically, practically, ethically and emotionally, but the best argument against the existence of Santa Claus is: virtually everyone who propagates his existence admits to doing so for the sake of maintaining an illusion that pleases children.
Now god. How exciting. The one necessary property I'd ascribe to god is omnipotence, and people usually like to throw omniscience and omnibenevolence in there as well, but we can make it easy on ourselves. What can we deduce or induce from that single property? Well, an omnipotent entity would have the power to fill the position of the "unmoved mover" of the cosmological argument, and is presumably the absolute infinite mentioned in the ontological argument. If we've dispensed with that "omnibenevolence" nonsense (which we can do quite easily either in assuming dystheistic properties or simply denying the existence of objective morality, which seems to be the prevailing consensus these days anyway), we can extend this entity to an even wider variety of arguments. Do I seriously have to work through those with you, or can you handle it on your own from here? Googling either of those argument names above should get you well on your way to an elementary understanding of the implications of a god figure.
in areas like this, where christians insist on giving a god that none have had an ounce of proof of somehow magically more credence than, say Santa Clause, and insisting everyone go along with it or their dumb or something.
Are there Christians afoot? I wasn't aware.
I do hope that, someday, you're able to understand everything that makes this sentence so hilarious. You'll be a lot happier in life once you learn to stop taking yourself so seriously. (Just in case you're doing this intentionally, you might seriously consider a career in comedy. You're really fucking good.)
You keep only quoting parts of my sentences. I'll take that as an admission you cannot argue the actual points I keep making with the entire sentence intact.
Sure. Check the other thread.
I did, and I say unicorns are everywhere and all powerful and you just can't see them but there's proof of them and blah blah blah plus unicorns died for our sins. Therefore they exist and you just have to really really really really believe me for no reason when I tell you that.
Then don't mention it.
And here's how the entire conversation went:
Assface: "You this that and the other"
Me: "Concerning me and this that and that other, X, not that it has a bearing on this debate"
Assface: "Then don't mention it."
You see how in context, it was actually you mentioning it and me replying. It is not until my reply proves a false assumption on your part that you take a portion of what was said than state it as if I'm talking out of the blue.
Okay. First, we have to define the necessary properties of each of these entities and agree upon them. Let's take from common mythology for Santa Claus: A fat man who makes and delivers gifts for all the world's children in the span of 24 hours using a sleigh guided by eight flying reindeer. There's a lot to take issue with there physically, practically, ethically and emotionally, but the best argument against the existence of Santa Claus is: virtually everyone who propagates his existence admits to doing so for the sake of maintaining an illusion that pleases children.
Okay, now try the same thing you just said put this way:
Okay. First, we have to define the necessary properties of each of these entities and agree upon them. Let's take from common mythology for god: A infinite man who makes and delivers gifts for all the world's children and adults if you pray enough maybe in the span of 24 hours or the blink of an eye, him being god and all using a sleigh guided by eight flying reindeer; why not a sleigh, he's all powerful, its as good a means as any. There's a lot to take issue with there physically, practically, ethically and emotionally, but the best argument against the existence of god is: virtually everyone who propagates his existence does so simply because they were told the tall tale as children, and being children tend to believe whatever is told to them.
- Substantially it is all the same argument.
If one does not need faith to disbelieve in santa, one does not need faith to disbelieve in god. Disbelief is not a matter of faith, only belief. Otherwise you are blurring the definitions of the two words rendering the word "faith" obsolete for all intents and purposes.
Do I seriously have to work through those with you, or can you handle it on your own from here? Googling either of those argument names above should get you well on your way to an elementary understanding of the implications of a god figure.
Blah, I did half a semester on the ontological theory alone. It's full of false assumptions just like your argument, and any fantastic creature could be fit into the scenario just as easily as a god and it would not make that mythical creature magically so.
As for the infinite proportion of the god argument inherent there, the idea that simply because you can imagine "something greater" does not mean you must have in some sense experience of "somehting greater" necessarily, the core of the argument. It just means people know how to exagerate... which is hardly proof of any sort of cosmic character.
Are there Christians afoot? I wasn't aware
Again, you've taken a portion of what I said to fit your argument. My entire statement was defending your insistance I'm "militant" atheist. I was in the midst of explaining I'm "militant" freedom of mind, not necessarily atheist, but that you confuse me for such perhaps because I take a lot of time making fun of the silly religion. Never did I say there was "a christian afoot" - I was explaining why your were wrong about your label of myself.
I do hope that, someday, you're able to understand everything that makes this sentence so hilarious. You'll be a lot happier in life once you learn to stop taking yourself so seriously. (Just in case you're doing this intentionally, you might seriously consider a career in comedy. You're really fucking good.)
._.
There's almost as many false assumptions there as in your continued insistance non-belief requires faith.
For the sake of brevity, I quote only the relevant bits of your angsty dissertations. Bold the parts you want me to quote if you find this is a problem. Or, better yet, practice concision.
I'll take that as an admission you cannot argue the actual points I keep making with the entire sentence intact.
I'll take that as desperation.
I say unicorns are everywhere and all powerful
Then why not just cut the pandering and call them "god?" You know that applying godlike attributes to non-god figures makes them godly. You don't have the world's worst case of FAS.
it was actually you mentioning it and me replying.
The part you replied to, though, was the joke (the joke I specifically asked you not to respond to seriously for fear that I could no longer conscionably carry on living. I persevered, by the way, and I think I deserve recognition for that), and your replying to it was an obvious attempt at securing "cred" or "rep." The part that actually warranted response and would have had something to do with the discussion went unanswered.
Okay, now try the same thing you just said put this way:
When I was in high school, my hobby was finding official school documents, going through them with a red correction pen and replacing every instance of a noun with the word "cunt." You seem like the kind of guy who'd've been amused by this.
Substantially it is all the same argument.
However, it kind of takes the power away from your naughty mad libs when you have to alter whole phrases and clauses to suit your ends. I could have just as easily written "cunt" over the whole paper, but it wouldn't've had the same effect.
any fantastic creature could be fit into the [ontological argument] just as easily as a god
Only Anselm's is open to this objection. There is not just one ontological argument.
the idea that simply because you can imagine "something greater" does not mean you must have in some sense experience of "somehting greater" necessarily
Conceiving something as real in your understanding is arguing from conceivability to possibility. If you haven't understood this, you wasted a quarter of a school year.
Again, you've taken a portion of what I said to fit your argument.
No, I'm mocking you. You should really learn the difference.
For the sake of brevity, I quote only the relevant bits of your angsty dissertations. Bold the parts you want me to quote if you find this is a problem. Or, better yet, practice concision.
You've missed the relevant bits obviously. It's not my job to hold your hand through my relatively clear explanations like a child on a field trip. Perhaps you should practice reading instead of trying to be insulting or clever or smart... whatever it is you seem to think you are.
I'll take that as desperation.
Don't. Your arguments are pseudo logic typical of a 1st semester logic/philosophy student impressed with their own wit. You mistake the ability to debate anything (which is nothing special) with the ability to prove anything (which is impossible). You also favor the semantics of each reply ignoring the underlying meaning. Which is why I'm winning the debate. The meaning of what I'm saying is correct regardless how many times you reply or how many side debates you create (without inviting me) to try to prove otherwise.
Then why not just cut the pandering and call them "god?" You know that applying godlike attributes to non-god figures makes them godly. You don't have the world's worst case of FAS.
Very well. A unicorn is just a unicorn. No super powers and they still exist and you just haven't found any yet. You still cannot prove they don't exist. The point was not unicorns, it was you changing meanings to fit your argument again... but don't get sidetracked. Stick to unicorns are real and you just haven't found any.
[edit: to the entire cunt/ad lib commentary]
Brilliant. I agree that is hilarious.
But the length of my edit did not change the meaning, it added additional attributes to god--if anything that should make your argument stronger should it not? Alas though it did not. If you take away the indoctrinated and automatic acceptance of a god, replacing anything with a god in anything about a god makes no more or less sense. Satsquach, easter bunny, santa, boogie man, it doesn't matter. Whether they are all powerful or not, doesn't matter. It all sounds the same if one is never first introduced to the idea of, and told over and over, that there is a god.
That's the point of the ad lib, why you're wrong in this debate, and why instead of trying to be insulting you should move along to something that suits you better because you're starting to look silly.
Conceiving something as real in your understanding is arguing from conceivability to possibility. If you haven't understood this, you wasted a quarter of a school year.
You're missing something. Perhaps it was not brief enough for you. Go re-read it. I'm correct and you have no idea what you're replying to in this bit apparently.
No, I'm mocking you. You should really learn the difference.
Hm. You're not very good at it then. You just sound douchie, which might be kind of funny if you weren't so clearly out of your league in this debate. So, you're like wrong, and a douche about being wrong. No wonder your list of enemies and hostiles includes half the active members on this site.
What's a "false assumption?"
... the one's I quote. Right there where you are replying. I copied and pasted it for you so it should be easy. I don't even see the point of this reply.
You seem very invested in the idea of your own perceptiveness--that I'm trying to prove some extraordinary intelligence to you (or the internet generally). I'm not. If I were, I'd take public issue with the obfuscatory (apparently due to incompetence rather than malevolence, but I could be wrong) nature of your syntax and grammar. I'm no pedant; you're just not very good at arguing, communicating or both.
If you honestly believe that it's not your responsibility to ensure the comprehension of your interlocutors of whatever it is you're saying, maybe you shouldn't talk to people.
It it will help, I can start sharing the processes I go through trying to make sense of your arguments, but I fear that'd come off as more "douchie" than I'd like.
to prove anything ... is impossible
Wrong again.
(without inviting me)
Have I already committed a CreateDebate faux-pas? Linking you here has the same effect. I skip the invitations step habitually, because I hate having my inbox crowded with them myself. I'll be sure to note your sensitivity about this in future interactions.
You still cannot prove [unicorns] don't exist.
Yes, I can, and have. You never answered my question, but it's becoming more and more evident that it very much is the source of our problems. Just what do you think "prove" means?
one ... never first introduced to the idea of, and told over and over, that there is a god.
Discussed this point earlier; this is one we agree on, in case you didn't see. But how many Atheists do you know who meet this criteria? And further, who've never thought it up themselves?
you have no idea what you're replying to
Your objection to the ontological argument was that conceivability does not translate to existence, correct? "You can't argue something into existence!!! :( :(" This was my response to that line of thought. If it wasn't yours, clarify.
You're not very good at it then.
I've literally won medals, chief.
No wonder your list of enemies and hostiles includes half the active members on this site.
Actually, I just add everyone who catches my eye to my enemies list. I don't think a single one of those users has been the initiator of our enmity, and I've had to tell a few of them not to take it personally. But nice attempt at the "YOU HAVE NO INTERNET FRIENDS" jab. Keep reachin' for the stars.
... the one's I quote.
Here's an excellent example of you failing to understand not just an attempt at humor, but also the basic purpose of fundamental components of language. Notice the use of an indefinite article and quotation marks. Are you really this daft?
But there is a difference in believing in that you can find the answers of science then in believing there's a bearded man in the sky.
Faith is not exclusive to the religious. All people have faith in SOMETHING. So you cannot argue that having faith in your ability to use the scientific method is exactly the same as having faith in something that was thought up without reason.
But in the end, atheists do have faith. All humans have faith. This debate is ridiculous. All the atheists who are saying they don't have faith is just them trying to reason something impossible because you're purposefully trying to incite their discomfort. They are being as silly as you are being mean.
There is a difference, but there's also a difference between believing that you can find the answers of science and believing that there specifically isn't a breaded man in the sky (or the general concept that diminutive caricature represents, anyway).
All people might have "faith," but it is only the truly dogmatic who allow that faith to govern their active belief or disbelief in anything. Some are able to divorce their faith from their ideas about reality, and Atheists do not belong in that category.
Reality is entirely perceptual, so I don't see how it's a rational conclusion to assume that you believing in yourself has no bearing on reality when reality is only what you make of it.
I'm not sure this applies to all atheists, but many think that any potential proof of God that is offered is simply irrational and illogical. Therefore, they have faith, in that, they are claiming a claim to be illogical based on their own set of values. This is also referred to as faith.
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." —Carl Sagan, critiquing New Atheism long before it became the circle-jerk of bad ideas and poor scholarship that it is today.
yes it sure does! it takes more faith to not believe in god then to believe in him. if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us.... not saying learning about science and the world is bad, its great i just know intelligent design is more logical then coming from nothing or matter thats been her forever.... come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb. we come from something we cant even rap are little minds around but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way. sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.
if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us....
People who thought like this is the reason we had the Dark Ages. It's a cop out to the millions of people who have contributed to human knowledge and understanding of the world just to say "Well fuck your science, magic did it". I'd rather an explanation, thanks. What you're basically saying is "If you're religious you don't need to worry about fancy pants explanations and logic". Well, good luck convincing anyone.
"come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb"
We are made from matter. Scientists know in very specific detail how matter rearranged itself to form us. Are you seriously saying that matter rearranging itself due to genetic variation/natural selection into differently arranged bits of matter is 'dumb', whereas believing a bearded wizard in the sky thought it all into existence as a perfectly legitimate theory? Seriously? Are you a troll?
but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way
Scientists like most people recognise that they don't know anything. This is one of the core reasons why people choose to do science - To understand more about the world, to gain information and knowledge. This is a much better idea than saying "Fuck we're dumb, I guess god just did it all... Yeh let's teach that in school".
sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.
Yes, God is so smart that he decided he would create faulty humans then command them to fix themselves and start worshipping him. Then he decided to send his son to a desert in bronze age palestine where most people couldn't read or write. Yeh, that'll get the message across! Bloody genius.
One would be right in saying that " It takes faith to be an Atheist " whether you are talking about the past faith in religion they once had or the fact that they have faith in their belief that there is no god. Although, faith is an extremely general ideal to have. Everyone has faith in something, if not, then they would just go through their lives being unsure about everything that goes on around them.
One of the many problems is there are some people (such as the person who posted this question) who are fundamentalists, and disregard all other opinions. I personally believe it does take atheism to be an atheist because you are, like believing in God, having a belief about something. However, not all Atheists are arrogant as many are saying, neither are all Christians judgemental/oblivious (as many others are saying). To be honest, I just think its best to live your life to the best you can, have faith in what you believe, and even if you are wrong about your Religion, if you live your life well you will still end up in the best position after you die.
"It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." But they don't. They say, "There is no god." They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith"
well we kinda do when we need to explain our position, our stance on god is the same stance on unicorns basically or anything else considered ridiculous to believe in. If someone asked you on weather or not unicorns exist, you would say no, but how can you prove that unicorns don't exist. At this point you realize that you assume it doesn't exist because you never seen proof of it or had reason to believe it to exist, and you realize that saying unicorns do not exist is somewhat illogical, but is silly to even humor the idea to even begin with. Its the same thing with god and atheists, we say "there is no god" but that's because there is barely any difference at all between believing something doesn't exist and simply never thinking it did exist. Things we never think to exist we treat like things we know don't exist, but the reality is we don't have a reason to believe it. So yes atheists do say god doesn't exist sometimes, just like how you say unicorns don't exist yet if you were asked to prove they don't you'd have to explain why you don't believe it instead of why you believe it doesn't. there two things we tend to mix up a lot, however that does not take away from our point.
" They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics."
you've never heard of agnostic atheism? agnosticism does not replace atheism because they answer two different questions about a person.
A = not or without, or simply non (its a prefix that turns everything into a negative.)
theism = a belief in god
Atheism = not or without; non belief in a god AKA lack of belief
gnosticism = knowledge (in today's society we associate this with god almost completely strictly if not completely.)
agnosticism = not or without; non knowledge AKA lack of knowledge
you cannot be just an agnostic or just an atheist same with theism and gnosticism
here are the four correct labels
agnostic atheist: lacks belief in god claiming no knowledge of his existence
gnostic atheist: lacks belief in god claiming knowledge of his existence therefore turning therefore there lack of belief is followed by a belief of gods nonexistence.
agnostic theist: belief in god claiming no knowledge of his existence
gnostic theist: belief in god claiming knowledge of his existence.
ask majority of atheists if they are agnostic and they will tell you that they are agnostic so you're accusation of us not claiming to be agnostic is ignorant and incorrect.
" They think they know something despite a lack of proof."
most atheists Iv talked to and myself do not claim to know of his existence, most atheists in my experience are agnostic atheists, not gnostic atheists, even though the majority of us that even get more attention get lumped in with the minority that don't get a lot of attention due to misunderstanding on how we come off to people. we do sound like we think we know he doesn't exist but its not as much knowing he doesn't exist as much as it is us not being convinced of his existence what-so-ever. if a salesman came to your door claiming that their lotion would make you younger and immortal you would come off to them as someone who knows that isn't true because your sure it isn't true because there isn't a reason to think so.
" Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for."
religious? no not really atheism doesn't have dogma because atheism exists as much as dark does, its a lack of belief therefore no dogma, no belief, nothing comes with it. claiming knowledge of something they actually don't know? Im sorry most atheists I have talked to have repeatedly admitted again and again that they do not know weather or not they exist. we don't need reason to not believe something just lacking reason for believing something to not believe it.
Fortunately, I have already responded to every single argument you submit here. Check the rest of my posts in the thread and respond accordingly if you feel like it.
There are two different definitions for 'atheist'.
1: a person who doesn't believe in god.
2: a person who believes god doesn't exist.
In the first sense of the word, often called 'weak atheism', it is actually an agnostic stance. The weak atheist doesn't claim to know that god doesn't exist, and as such, has no faith in the matter.
The second sense of the word, often called 'strong atheism', only fits the idea of requiring faith in a very broad sense of the word. Typically faith refers to confidence placed in a person. You would have to extend that definition to be 'confidence placed in a person or concept', meaning having faith in the idea that god doesn't exist.
With the common usage of the word faith, atheists don't have faith.
Perhaps, but the entire purpose of debate (the idea of which a "debate community" kind of hinges on) is coming to resolutions on tough problems through the use of logos, ethos and pathos, and having multiple people make the same argument repeatedly does not serve that end in any way. If might made right, there wouldn't be any conflict at all. We'd all just be wrong about .5 times more often than we are now.
Using faith, a type of belief, to describe atheism, a type of disbelief, is inherently self-contradicting. You are essentially saying that disbelief requires belief, which is false by definition.
It requires no faith to not believe in something. To insist otherwise, only elucidates the level of absurdity that the religious are willing to stoop to make their absurdities seem less absurd.
First note that I have neither asserted nor implied the positive existence of god (least of all the Christian God) anywhere in this thread.
Second, note that I've made no equivalence between "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow (or in the non-existence of unicorns or Russel's teapot or basically anything else) and faith in the non-existence of god. I can only assume you're replying to the Christian apologist in your mind who likes to quote Aquinas and otherwise serves in your tireless construction of strawmen.
First of all, my response was joke to poke fun at your silly “assertion”. It’s silly, because it attempts to shift the burden of proof to those who say “there is no evidence that god exists”. I think Dan Barker summed it up best like this…
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.
Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?
"Burden of proof-shifting" has already been discussed in this thread. In fact, it's one of the only things that's been discussed here at all, and it's getting kind of tiring. There exist countless proofs of God that simply aren't as easy to poke holes in as most Atheists seem to believe. Those proofs were theists accepting the burden of proof; the ball's in your court.
I'm not saying that, say, the ontological argument is a good reason to believe God exists; just that, where tireless parroting of onus probandi would save you from a tedious argument about the existence of a teapot in space, the same cannot be said of one about an entity whose every property, even in conception, violates logical law.
The subject of Metaphysics has always been controversial. Especially for the believers in the Scientific method, such as I. We have been searching for proof for many, many years and found none. The current belief that the Universe is only 50,000 years old by the teachers of Intelligent Design is completely false.Carbon-14 dating is proof. Several stories in the "Bible" has already been proven to be false or misrepresented. The cities of Saddam & Gomorrah were destroyed by volcanoes and massive earthquakes not by the hands of an angry, fictional being that wanted to show how angry he was with us. There is no true evidence that the "Great Flood" ever really existed. Plus this new "God Particle" that was made up by high ranking religious scientists to make an attempt to give somewhat an answer to everything that is physics and other things has yet to be found. Not even by the largest detector in the world called the "Large Hadron Collider" cannot find it.
A non-scientific creator need not reflect the writings of clear allegory and mythology; that's not what's up for debate here, and is a non-sequitur. All of the arguments you submit attack points made by no one present. Please try to stay on-topic.
Your assertion only works for strong/positive atheists. Weak/negative atheists only claim that they do not not believe in God. I do not know the actual numbers, but it appears to me that a significant majority of modern atheists, especially on this site, are of the weak/negative variety. Without making a truth claim, this variant of atheism is not intrinsically reliant on faith.
Re-read the post. My assertion applies all to those who "claim that they do not believe in god," insofar as their belief reflects what they find to be true in the world (and I think that's the definition of the word). Append as many conditionals and qualifiers ass you please, but the word you're modifying remains.
"It would be one thing if atheists said, "There's no proof for god." "
As a matter of fact, that is all that many of us say. Specifically negative atheists.
"But they don't. They say, "There is no god." "
Not all atheists say this. It is not definitive of all atheists.
"They make a definitive metaphysical claim based on the absense of proof. AKA faith. They're not claiming a lack of knowledge; if they were, they'd call themselves agnostics."
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge, atheism refers to a lack of belief. It is possible to be both simultaneously, and many modern atheists claim both categories.
"They think they know something despite a lack of proof. The same way the faithful do. Atheists are just as religious as the religious people they hate, claiming knowledge of something they don't actually know and have no reasonable basis for."
Well, some do believe they have proof, usually based on logic. I personally don't have this belief so I won't argue for them. But I know they exist.
My assertion applies all to those who "claim that they do not believe in god," insofar as their belief reflects what they find to be true in the world (and I think that's the definition of the word).
Most inclusively, atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
EDIT: sorry, obviously meant to dispute, not support. Damn.
You're thinking of belief as math, which isn't accurate. That theism = 1 and gnostic atheism = 1, while agnostic atheism or "dictionary.com" atheism is the reasonable and coveted 0, right? I'm telling you that's not true, and that what you're leaving out of the equation is that belief (or "lack of belief" as you and so many of your brethren like to put it) requires a catalyst. The only way an atheist could be faithless as you're defining it is if they'd somehow never heard or thought of the idea of an omnipotent entity before. Babies, lower primates and inanimate objects are probably atheistic. Once one is aware of and rejects the idea of a god, however, he ceases to simply "lack" faith.
I'm telling you that's not true, and that what you're leaving out of the equation is that belief (or "lack of belief" as you and so many of your brethren like to put it) requires a catalyst.
If you wish to put it that way, then I assert that one does not have to be catalyzed at the moment of introduction to the concept. It is possible to take a stance and use it as a sort of default or placeholder, but this stance does not equal a belief in and of itself. In my case, the default is a lack of belief because I have never heard a convincing argument regarding the existence of God. I can't say I've heard a convincing argument saying that God definitely does not exist either. However, the existence of God needs to be assessed as a positive statement, so without convincing positive evidence I am left to skepticism.
And where does the faith lie in that stance? I am making no definitive claim regarding God's existence. The strongest claim I make is that I, personally, have not been convinced. I don't need faith for that either. And I am not obstinately holding my position out of any emotional need either. Should evidence that I cannot refute be provided to me, something that I've missed but manages to pull everything together in a perfectly logical pathway that renders refutation of God impossible, at that point I would become a theist. But this has yet to happen. So here I am. I don't believe that God does not exist, I simply don't have a reason to believe that he does. Please highlight any faith you see in my stance.
Except that agnosticism refers specifically to knowledge of regarding a deity, most commonly espousing the belief that it is impossible to attain certain knowledge about such a thing.
Atheism refers to a lack of belief.
They are not mutually exclusive categories. Agnosticism is not "atheist light".
agnosticism refers specifically to knowledge of/regarding a deity
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but it's not true. One can be agnostic about anything from the existence of god to the efficacy of acupuncture.
most commonly espousing the belief that it is impossible to attain certain knowledge about such a thing.
The word has multiple meanings. Epistemological agnosticism does indeed mean that, but metaphysical agnosticism is defined literally as your expression above.
They are not mutually exclusive categories.
They're not, as I've acknowledged, but unless your contention is that they're also indistinguishable, your argument can't go much further from here.
One can be agnostic about anything from the existence of god to the efficacy of acupuncture.
True, but I was speaking in reference to this specific debate.
but unless your contention is that they're also indistinguishable, your argument can't go much further from here.
It can in the sense that all I've been arguing from the beginning is that your assertion considering atheism does not include all of us, and therefore your argument amounts to generalization.
The generalization is grounded in definition. It's pointless for "atheists" like yourself to call yourself Atheists, because there's already a term that adequately describes your stance, and it's not that one. The reason the term "atheist" exists (to paraphrase Sam Harris, it shouldn't exist; there's no term for "not a neurosurgeon") is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief, and that something is faith.
And like many words in the English language, it has multiple meanings. In this case it is matter of inclusiveness. All atheists have to lack a belief, not all have to have a disbelief, although some do.
It's pointless for "atheists" like yourself to call yourself Atheists, because there's already a term that adequately describes your stance, and it's not that one.
Assuming you are referring to agnostic, that does not adequately describe my stance because it doesn't say whether I believe in God or not. Agnostics are capable of being theists.
(to paraphrase Sam Harris, it shouldn't exist; there's no term for "not a neurosurgeon")
Sam Harris does not represent me. And anyway, if neurosurgeons were the norm and an integral part of international society, I imagine there would be a word for not being one. By the logic Mr. Harris is using, unemployed should not be a word either. Single shouldn't be a way to describe one's relationship status.
The reason the term "atheist" exists is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief, and that something is faith.
Or because a lack of belief runs directly contrary to almost every religion. It is, from the point of the specific religion, a form of out group. But there are reasons to differentiate it from other out groups, such as those who believe in a different religion.
It's always been a semantic argument.
Sure. But the very semantics that you are using have compelled me to dispute you instead of support you, so it is an important distinction to make. A successful debate is generally reliant on proper use of words.
"It's pointless for "atheists" like yourself to call yourself Atheists, because there's already a term that adequately describes your stance, and it's not that one."
so who do you think you are saying that agnosticism is a better term than agnostic atheism? I can say to agnostics (which are technically atheists because they lack belief in a god) that it is pointless to call yourself's agnostics because there is a term better for it.
" The reason the term "atheist" exists (to paraphrase Sam Harris, it shouldn't exist; there's no term for "not a neurosurgeon") is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief, and that something is faith."
where is your evidence that this is where atheism comes from? are you saying that we invented a word with the prefix that negates and a suffix that describes belief because we have faith? so people came up with atheism to describe faith that there is no god, and somehow accidentally used a prefix and suffix combo that describes lack of belief? I doubt that. even if that were true, in today's world atheism refers to people who lack belief, why would it matter where the word came from? I know you think its pointless to label oneself an agnostic atheist when one can just call themselves agnostic but the reason many people do call themselves agnostic atheists because agnosticism would only imply that we don't know god exists, where agnostic atheism is supposed to make the statement that we don't know god exists and are skeptical. also the reason there isn't a term for "non-neurosurgeon" is because the majority of humanity aren't neurosurgeons therefore we do not need to distinguish from those who are and those who aren't, while the majority are theists, those of us who's opinion on the matter that god deserves skepticism need something to imply as such. We still have to distinguish a lack from something, if not then we would have never labelled darkness, why does the word darkness exist when all it is, is a lack of light? because its quicker to call something "dark" than it is to describe something that is lacking light.
EDIT: I figured this was important, agnosticism is technically atheism, but adding on and empasizing one is an atheist helps get the point across that they are skeptical, I saw a misunderstanding coming so I figured I better address it.
You're sort of missing the point, which is the emphasis of the limits of your knowledge. "Agnostic" does that; "atheist" doesn't. A fantastic demonstration of that is the number of self-proclaimed atheists who've come here to defend their choice of title by arguing that it's accurate, rather than admitting their ignorance and going to semantic route as the chap above has, and like you seem to be debating with yourself over doing.
I can see you fancy yourself a linguistics buff, having gotten all As in your morphemes studies in high school or read the wiktionary entry on "atheism" or something, but etymology is a bad basis for argument in any subject that isn't etymology. Language is more convention than consistency.
Heads up: prefixing any rebuttal with the words are you saying almost guarantees your opposition that what follows is a misrepresentation, either intentional or unintentional, of their argument. In your case, you proceed to argue for the equivalent of two long paragraphs against something I never said, (which, if intentional, would be a strawman [but I don't think it was]) primarily using etymology as your support.
"You're sort of missing the point, which is the emphasis of the limits of your knowledge. "Agnostic" does that; "atheist" doesn't."
No, your missing the point, Atheist does that exactly. agnostic emphasizes limits of knowledge, atheism in no way emphasizes an assertion, it emphasizes skepticism, or simply finding god not worthy of believing in due to reason, atheism can go hand in hand with agnosticism or gnosticism which is the point I'm trying to make. Some don't feel as though agnostic alone describes them, but agnostic atheist describes someone who knows god is unknowable, and is therefore skeptical of his existence, agnosticism alone emphasizes that god is unknowable and that's it. atheist does emphasize limits of knowledge alone as well, now if you put gnostic before atheist, atheist implies a lack of belief, but gnostic implies claimed knowledge of his existence therefore, for an gnostic atheist to justify his lack of belief, he must hold a belief god doesn't exist. An agnostic atheist however is someone who does not think god deserves belief and acknowledges the fact that we can't prove him. I understand the point you are trying to make is atheist means an assertion that god doesn't exist, I'v completely acknowledge that, so in order for you to say i'm not getting the point, I would have had to ignore that you said that, and I didn't. You however are ignoring what I am saying and that is agnostic on its own does not fully describe some people's stance, and that atheist is a label used in todays society (and probably the same way as long as its been around) as a label that describes someone who simply doesn't believe.
"A fantastic demonstration of that is the number of self-proclaimed atheists who've come here to defend their choice of title by arguing that it's accurate, rather than admitting their ignorance and going to semantic route as the chap above has, and like you seem to be debating with yourself over doing."
He is coming from the same place I am coming from and probably most other atheists here are, my argument is not much different than his. His response to your first point explained how atheist can mean a lack of belief or a disbelief which I have been trying to explain to you this whole fucking time, and you still don't get it. his second response explains how agnostic alone does not adequately describe his stance, which I told you, that you are no more right in labeling me than I am, and anyone else, his respones to your third point was to explain why we have words describing lacking things since you tried to make the point that we shouldn't have a label to describe a lack of belief, he made the point that we do need such words, otherwise we wouldn't have the term unemployment, and single because we need to distinguish between people who are in a relationship and peope who LACK a relationship, people who are employed and people who LACK employment, and I tried to make the EXACT SAME POINT that in order to distinguish dark from light, we need the word dark which is a LACK of light.
"I can see you fancy yourself a linguistics buff, having gotten all As in your morphemes studies in high school or read the wiktionary entry on "atheism" or something"
I do not look at myself as a great professor of words, or someone who understands the english language like a pro, Im simply someone who has been in touch with his atheist community, has spoken to other atheists before, and know you are full of fucking shit. the reason Im geting somewhat hostile with you is because you are accusing me of missing the point even though I completely acknowledges everything you said but here you are ignoring everything I say.
"Heads up: prefixing any rebuttal with the words are you saying almost guarantees your opposition that what follows is a misrepresentation, either intentional or unintentional, of their argument. In your case, you proceed to argue for the equivalent of two long paragraphs against something I never said"
my argument in no way was a strawman, you tried to tell me that the term atheism did not originate meaning lack of belief, the point I was trying to make against that which went completely over your head, is that in order for the term atheist to not originate that way would mean the prefix and suffix that it contains describing it as such would have to be completely accidental. in other words you are telling me a word thats prefix and suffix combo that describes a lack of belief is describing an assertion, which makes no sense and to quote you " The reason the term "atheist" exists (to paraphrase Sam Harris, it shouldn't exist; there's no term for "not a neurosurgeon") is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief, and that something is faith." I also did not start out with "are you saying" I started out with pretty much along the lines as "show me evidence that atheism means that" if you still don't understand how my response to your second point acknowledges what you are saying I have to say you are one dense blockhead.
Not conducive to productive debate, guy. Don't be a child.
atheism ... emphasizes ... simply finding god not worthy of believing in due to reason
Bingo.
atheism can go hand in hand with agnosticism or gnosticism which is the point I'm trying to make.
That's a point both that works not so much in your favor as you seem to think, and that I've understood, not only because everyone in this thread has tried to make it, but because I also used to believe it myself. You're repeating yourself.
agnostic atheist describes someone who knows god is unknowable
Well, goll. There's something we have in common!
and is therefore skeptical of his existence
Therein lies the faith. Seriously, dude, read the rest of the thread, it doesn't take long.
atheist does emphasize limits of knowledge alone as well, now if you put gnostic before atheist, blah blah blah
Need I state again that you don't need to give me an English lesson? I do own a dictionary. Keeping that in mind will save you a lot of time.
agnostic on its own does not fully describe some people's stance
Those people are faithful.
atheist is a label used in todays society (and probably the same way as long as its been around) as a label that describes someone who simply doesn't believe.
At least read the entirety of the particular chain of responses you're responding to.
my argument is not much different than his.
It is, actually; but if you believe that, why are you making it?
you still don't get it
One of the great arrogances of argumentum ad nauseam is precisely this: the staunch belief that your opposition has simply failed to understand you, rather than the problem being the deficiency of your own argument. I stopped having opinions at all for a while, not wanting to be "that guy" who assumes that he's so terribly reasonable that anybody who doesn't agree with him simply hasn't heard the flawless arguments he got from a Richard Dawkins YouTube video, and if only he could enlighten the masses to this infallible line of thinking, they'd be saved. That's not what debate is about, and carrying on as thought it were makes you a blowhard. One big difference between you and the guy above is that he's arguing coherently; you're not.
you are no more right in labeling me than I am
Don't ever say anything like this if you want to be taken seriously. It makes you sound like a petulant fifteen-year-old.
know you are full of fucking shit
Also not an exercise of your soundest judgment if your aim is to argue cogently.
you tried to tell me that the term atheism did not originate meaning lack of belief
I didn't say that, kid. Again, might be wise to question yourself before anyone else.
went completely over your head
See ad nauseam point above.
I also did not start out with "are you saying"
CTRL+F, bud.
I started out with pretty much along the lines as "show me evidence that atheism means that"
I did that. Of course, linguistic "evidence" is off the table for reasons elucidated above.
if you still don't understand how my response to your second point acknowledges what you are saying I have to say you are one dense blockhead.
The reason the term "atheist" exists (to paraphrase Sam Harris, it shouldn't exist; there's no term for "not a neurosurgeon") is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief
No, it exists because historically atheists have been the vast minority, whereas non-stamp-collectors and non-neurosurgeons have been the majority. It exists because it is useful to have a term to describe such a minority group, whereas it isn't useful to describe non-neurosurgeons and non-stamp-collectors.
is because it describes something more than a mere lack of belief, and that something is faith.
When it comes to describing those who simply lack a belief in a god figure, that simply isn't true. The minority it does describe are the Ditchkins variety who, as I say, possess more faith than they profess.
When it comes to describing those who simply lack a belief in a god figure, that simply isn't true.
I'm just torn as to whom I should believe, you or The Gallup Poll an objective and highly respected national polling organization. It's a toss up really.
Atheism doesn't mean "believing there isn't a god"
Atheism means "not believing in god"
Theism meaning belief in god, and the a prefix meaning not. This is not a difficult concept.
There could be invisible pink unicorns wearing top hats living at the edge of (or just beyond) the universe that secretly watch over us and are actually everywhere and actually came to Earth in human form (As Billy Mays). Many books were then written about Billy Mays and the invisible pink unicorns. Oh, the unicorns also created the universe. And they want you to mutilate your genitals and not make sculptures of any unicorns.
Hell, this could be the case, However there is no evidence for such. If I believe there are no such unicorns, is that really equivalent (in terms of faith) to saying I believe there is? The burden of proof is still on theists to prove that their god exists. Until that time, I shall not believe that there is a god. I call myself an atheist, meaning a person who does not believe there is a god.
Theism meaning belief in god, and the a prefix meaning not. This is not a difficult concept.
So your whole argument boils down to etymology? That's pretty weak, dog. Why not just call yourself agnostic? It means the same thing, but emphasizes your lack of knowledge rather than your belief (which is what a religious title does).
Yes, it boils down to etymology. Why is this important? Because it changes the meaning of the word, significantly. I do call myself agnostic. I don't think humans can know whether or not there is a god or gods. However, because I do not strictly believe in one, I am not a theist, ergo I am an atheist.
As has been stated many times before, the word 'atheist' shouldn't exist as a title, it's like 'non- stamp collector'.
Before you radically generalise what atheists believe, look at the word actually means. Theist meaning believer in god, 'a' prefix meaning not. I can't stress enough the simplicity of the word.
Your concerns: already addressed; Sam Harris: already quoted. Read the rest of the thread.
Etymological arguments on topics other than linguistics can be boiled down to somebody taking an interesting fact about a Greek root or their high-school-level knowledge of morphemes as justification for calling other people morons for understanding the basic fact that we speak American English, not Greek.
Atheism neither has nor needs evidence. One does not need evidence that something isn't true. Most things aren't true simply as a function of probability. There are an infinite number of false claims and only a finite number of true claims. For this reason, skepticism is the logical default position. I do not need evidence to justify my disbelief in the tooth fairy.
faith, what is it? I'm atheist i believe in faith but nothing have ever happening to me yet to prove that any of this is real i mean you cant decide without evidence, i have never used faith if i have it was something really small that almost didn't matter to the world or make a dent in an act made by a single person.
