What being an atheist means in practical terms

They agree with atheists because they are atheists. They don't believe in God.

 

FALSE, agnostics do not believe god does not exist
atheists believe god does not exist
agnostics DISAGREE with both atheists and theists
I should know I am one lol

 

I think the trick to Kokomojojo's logic is that he assumes that atheists use neg-raising (link) even when they explicitly point out that they don't. If you use neg-raising, then to not believe God exists means the same thing as believing that God does not exist. However, that is of course not how atheists tend to use it.

 

you either believe in God or you don't if you say maybe that means you don't.

I get atheists that say maybe are agnostic.

It doesn't seem like that's the case it seems like they agree with atheists. It's one of the other this is a black and white thing. You either believe in God or you don't.

 

Odd distinction. If say without a difference.

 

and 420 really isnt four hundred twenty because thats the way its "used", its really pot!

420 on a mechanical drawing is to be understood as pot! lmao

'I do not believe God exists' in fact carries an identical meaning to 'I believe that God does not exist'. infinitive lol

I went to far as to prove it, you and the bird still dont get it. nothing I can do but lead a horse to the water.

well swensson and the bird made those claims (claiming a difference) and called me names over it but were never able to tell us what that difference was, I asked several times and ultimately gave up. I wrote it off as another atheist nonsense claim

 

btw swensson, the issue has nothing to do with neg raising, your shorthand not withstanding.

consider substituting 'demonstrating' for meaningless pointing out, ie naked statements that you would like us to believe are bonafide on their face with no substantiation.

 

Yeah I definitely don't see it that way.

It depends on the society they're in. It's easier now in America than it is in Islamic countries, or in medieval Europe when heretics were burned at the stake and religion was a central feature of public life.

In terms of how they act, it doesn't mean much other than that they have rejected one illogical type of belief. It could be replaced by another, such as nationalism, where they don't have to believe in a god to marginalize others. In absence of that, being without a religion would probably make them a better person, particularly in terms of how they treat people who are different from them. Is somebody really a better person anyway if they are only avoiding doing horrible things because some god is going to endlessly incinerate them for it?

Atheism definitely isn't a religion, it's only an absence of a particular belief and as such agnosticism clearly falls under its umbrella.

I think the loss of community is a real cost, and it's harder to accept death without some assurance of some happy place to go to, but while these are reasons it would be nice to be a theist, I can't believe something just because I want to. Parents lying to you, not so much. If they believe it themselves they're not lying to you, and if they are it's to make things more pleasant for you. Kind of like Santa Claus, but with my own kids I do find that issue uncomfortable.

 

Thats fine if like antony flew you believe a completely brain-dead person qualifies to be an atheist. Is that what you are saying here? If not what are you saying?

One must have mental faculty to be a theist and agnostic, but apparently thats not required to be an atheist

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-86

furthermore anyone that 'legitimately' fits the definition of agnostic coined by huxley, (the creator of the word), reject atheism!

Agnostics reject atheism how can anyone be something they disagree with? It seems pretty whacky to call someome who rejects capitalism a capitalist, doesnt it?

 

Nop, as I've mentioned, the trick is to go with the intended meaning. When someone writes 420 on a mechanical drawing, intending to refer to the number, it is to be understood as the number. If someone uses 420 to mean pot, and you understand 420 to mean pot, then you have successfully conveyed correct information.

No, you proved that it can carry identical meaning (which I don't really disagree with), you have not shown that it has to carry identical meaning, and more to the point, you have not shown that it did carry identical meaning when Flew used it (and when he explicitly pointed out that that's not how he was using the words).

Sure we can point to the difference, "believes God does not exist" is a very specific claim, whereas the non-neg-raised "not believe God exists" includes any situation in which "believes God exist" would be false (for instance agnostics).

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Which distinction is it you think is odd?

 

which is useless when you dont understand the difference as has been proven

seriously? you have not shown that strawman arguments are logically acceptable

Well the last post you made in my thread was literally groveling the point.
If you have a citation take it to my thread

That is your meaningless regurgitated short hand, please refer to the correct statements.

 

Here I am back to complaining about your grammar skills. simple neg raising by itself does not change the meaning of a statement, neither will you get any counter claim traction to your application. if you think you have a valid argument feel free to make your case in my thread. At lease you tried this time rather than abandoning it entirely with a nonresponse like the bird did. Oh btw I aready told the bird why his now your distinction has no difference back in the other thread. Feel free to review it.

 

You didn't prove it.....here, play with this...
So the next time somebody says "Atheism is a religion" ask them what that means in practical day to day living.

 

you think that is supposed to prove what?
Oh you think I didnt prove it? Well hit my thread, I await your thorough analysis.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-86
you had plenty of chances to help swensson wth were you?

 

Between atheists and agnostic.

 

There's that, but he also tries to equate "There are atheist religions" and "there are atheists who are religious" with "atheism is a religion." After years of discussion, he still doesn't get the difference between those statements. He thinks the one proves the other. No matter how many counterexamples prove his a is wrong.

There are Chinese religions, therefore being Chinese is a religion.
There are baseball players who are religious, therefore playing baseball is a religion.
Etc. etc.

 

There are, of course, multiple things people mean when they say some words, including "atheist". It has more than one common meaning. One meaning is that the person isn't theist, with theist meaning a person who believes at least one God exists. For added fun, you can then squabble over what is meant by "God". Another commonly used definition of "atheist" is what some others call "hard atheists" or "positive atheists" who hold a strong belief that God doesn't exist.

That latter group excludes those who don't believe (making them atheist by the first above definition) but don't hold strong a strong belief against either, and are unsure, which many call "agnostic". But another commonly used meaning of the word "agnostic" has more to do with claims to knowledge than to believe. Some mean "a person who thinks it impossible to know if Gods exist" by the term agnostic.

Now, this is all just terminology. And words are a stupid thing to fight over if it means losing the making of any point or losing any coherent conversation. You are welcome to use any definition you want of any of words, so long as you are clear on what you mean by them, and productive conversation can flow from there. Speak the same language, understand what you both mean by the utterances you use and you're off to a good start. Demand there is only one proper meaning of a word, and demand somebody meant that by the word even when they clearly state they didn't, and you land yourself in Kokomojo land, where people talk in circles and productive conversation is impossible.

 

Brain dead persons don't have active or passive beliefs, so no -isms apply. Atheism is the default position though, because the prefix a- only means "without." If it meant what you say, the word would be antitheism. In terms of staying true to the meanings of prefixes, atheist is anybody who doesn't have an active belief that any god exists. We could then divide it as active (positive) vs passive (agnostic) atheism, and IMO the word should only be applied to a being sophisticated enough to know what a god is supposed to be.

What people feel and what is logical are not the same. Doubtless many people called themselves agnostic to avoid the historical stigma associated with atheism. Agnostic just means "without knowledge." It usually reflects an uncertainty about the existence of gods. But if you're uncertain, you do not have belief. If you lack belief, you're an atheist. Though I have met some theistic agnostics, who believe there must be a higher power, but its nature is unknowable.

 

define active and passive beliefs and explain why you think isms do not apply

 

yes its a common BS line made by atheist proselytizers on this board

 

As usual making **** up again, I never had that discussion on this board. talk about hard up.

 

I don't, that is how you present it. You declare that everyone has a worldview and for anyone who is atheist, that is their worldview.

No, it is a singular characteristic. I can relate to a vast range of consequential things but those things can and will be vastly different between individuals. There is only one simple statement you can legitimately make about all atheists - that they don't believe in any gods. Anything else you might like to attribute to the label is entirely conditional and optional. Every single atheist (and everyone else) has a worldview that is individual and unique to them.

A worldview is just a set of beliefs. A religion is a set of beliefs and practices. If they were exactly the same thing, we wouldn't need two different words for them. There are thousands of different religions, many theistic, a few atheistic and a massive range of varying beliefs and worldviews within each religion, let alone between them. A simple statement on the existence or not of any gods is just one tiny aspect of that.

 

It describes a religious position that carries a plethora of associated information about the individual.

well everyone that is conscious and capable of rational thought

same as theists
If I say cake we know you immediately are informed there are several associated ingredients and processes attached to be able to call it a cake, regardless of not knowing its flavor.
The nonreductionist argument fails muster, not sure why people still use it.

Thats admission of course.
every theist regardkess they may be in the same religion has different beliefs/disbeliefs and practices as well. It would be patently absurd to claim the only thing an atheist does or believes God does not exist and it carries no expanded meaning or information about them. Theists arent clones any more than atheists, they mere place a label to identify and create a distinction of their particular set of beliefs from other groups sets of beliefs.

 

No, you presume a whole load of things about anyone defined as an atheist but that doesn't mean any of your presumptions are actually valid about all (or even any) of those individuals. You've never been able to define any of this "plethora of associated information" that is automatically and unconditionally true of all atheists.

Typical evasion. Why not address the actual question - Are you asserting that there is a singular atheist worldview that any and all atheists share?

Cake can refer to lots of things that don't share any of the characteristics you're presuming. Some "cakes" aren't even food.

I'm not claiming they don't believe other things, I'm saying they all believe different things so those things can't be fundamental to atheism.

I know you want to attack all atheists on the basis of your gross stereotype of them but that position remains indefensible, logically as well as morally.