Is My Dog an Atheist?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#42 May 1, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>..I think the meaning of words has value, and you do not...
No, I think the meaning of words has value, but not your personal value.

I'm happy with the dictionary's definitions.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#43 May 1, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>No, I think the meaning of words has value, but not your personal value.
I'm happy with the dictionary's definitions.
Uhhh, I exactly agree with your provided definition.
The ones from your dictionary.
I find it conventional, and unbiased.

The other posters disagree, and I find fault with that, and you do not. It does not seem to matter to you that they cherrypick particular usages the fit their purposes.

The meaning of words is from a consensus of the users.

Many atheists want to decide that all should use their meaning.
Linguistis does not work that way.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44 May 1, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
An atheist has a belief in no god.
Not quite. "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Having a belief and disbelieving isn't quite the same. It isn't helpful (and possibly disingenuous) to describe believing as a 'belief in a disbelief'. And there's no reason to do that if one is happy with the dictionary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
More to the point your wording might be intended to try and leave the impression that it's just as reasonable and valid to believe in god(s) or pixies as it is not to do so. There is no more evidence for god(s) than for pixies - certainly not gods that send prophets to Earth for humans to learn from.

You also seem uninterested in the points of view of atheists, but you appear to have come to the Atheist Forum simply to have a pointless dispute about definitions of words.
BeHereNow wrote:
A dog has no such belief, we can presume, so a dog would not be an atheist.
A being who has no belief for or against a god, is simply uninformed, lacking knowledge, an agnostic.
If doge are capable or realizine they lack knowledge of god, they would be agnostic.
Since they probaly lack the knowledge of no knowledge, well, no atheist, no agnostic, no theist.
A being does not "have to be" one of these.
I'd call that verbiage, not valuing the meaning of words.

If it matters to you, I would say my point of view was fairly atheistic. It might be seen as distinctly agnostic. As a non-believer, I couldn't care less.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#45 May 1, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>I'll let you in on a secret.
Words mean what people determine they mean.
They have no meaning in their own right, only what is ascribed to them.
'Agnostic" means without knowledge.
The prefix 'a' means without, lacking, or not.
At least that is what normal people say.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_prefi...
You want to dumb down the English language.
Albert Einstein said he was no Atheist (Time magazine, 1950).
"Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
if we accept you meaning, that meand he believed ia a god, and he never claimed that.
Agnostic is a work, it has a meaning, it does not mean the same as atheist.
An Atheist has a firm belief in no god.
It is a simple concept.
You shouldn't have to be an Einstein to understand that.
Many people in many areas of thought are trying to dumb down language. I see not advantage to that.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The word **********atheist means "not theist"********** nothing more. There is no sumation towards either end of the spectrum, involved in actually being an atheist.
The person you have described is a avowed non-beleiver, as far as any god might be concerned.
You wrote >> I'll let you in on a secret.
Words mean what people determine they mean.
They have no meaning in their own right, only what is ascribed to them.

'Agnostic" means without knowledge.

The prefix**********a' means without, lacking, or not**********
At least that is what normal people say.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_prefi ...

Same thing.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46 May 2, 2013
There is this 2 Ton elephant in the room that everyone seems to want to ignore, so let me point it out.

Einstein clearly said he was no atheist.
Did he mean he had a belief in god? Make the case if you want, all we know for sure is he denied the person god of his family, who were Jews.
Einstein had no clear belief in god, and said he was no atheist.

There is a simple explanation for this.

Those who today say that no clear belief in god means you are an atheist, are using the word (atheist) in a different way than Einstein and his contemporaries did.
They are trying to change the meaning of the word, not for clarity, but for their own purposes.
Clarity would say that someone who has considered the existence of god long, and hard, and reached no conclusion, is in a different subset than those who have gone through the same process and determined to the best of their ability that there is no god.

Putting these two groups together is not for clarity.
Concerning belief in the existence of a god there are at least three groups, those who have a firm belief there is a god, those who have a firm belief there is no god, and those who have considered the situation, and cannot say one way or the other.
A mind that has not even considered the existence of god, is none of these.
This is considering not my opinion alone, but common usage, by those who are impartial.

In order to answer the question of the OP one must define 'atheist', and 'dog' as well, although the second is less troublesome.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#47 May 2, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
There is this 2 Ton elephant in the room that everyone seems to want to ignore, so let me point it out.
Einstein clearly said he was no atheist.
Did he mean he had a belief in god? Make the case if you want, all we know for sure is he denied the person god of his family, who were Jews.
Einstein had no clear belief in god, and said he was no atheist.
There is a simple explanation for this.
Those who today say that no clear belief in god means you are an atheist, are using the word (atheist) in a different way than Einstein and his contemporaries did.
They are trying to change the meaning of the word, not for clarity, but for their own purposes.
Clarity would say that someone who has considered the existence of god long, and hard, and reached no conclusion, is in a different subset than those who have gone through the same process and determined to the best of their ability that there is no god.
Putting these two groups together is not for clarity.
Concerning belief in the existence of a god there are at least three groups, those who have a firm belief there is a god, those who have a firm belief there is no god, and those who have considered the situation, and cannot say one way or the other.
A mind that has not even considered the existence of god, is none of these.
This is considering not my opinion alone, but common usage, by those who are impartial.
In order to answer the question of the OP one must define 'atheist', and 'dog' as well, although the second is less troublesome.
Make no mistake "A" means NOT!
ATHEIST = not theist!

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#48 May 2, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Make no mistake "A" means NOT!
ATHEIST = not theist!
Don't step in the elephant crap you obviously can not see.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#49 May 2, 2013
Negative atheism vs active atheism:

The view presented by the atheistic posters in this thread is the minority view.

Richard Dawkins, who some of you may be framiliar with, agrees with me that rightfully used, atheism require an actual belief in no-god.
it is presumed such thing are not possible for dogs.

~~
The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.

This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

This understanding of atheism is fairly commonly accepted by other atheists, although some theists complain that 'negative atheism' is trivial or evasive.

William Lane Craig argues that Martin is 'redefining' the term to argue for the presumption of atheism, and it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists. As well as the claim that it represents the etymology of the term, atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the 'null hypothesis', and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given.

One criticism of Martin's definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by 'atheism', and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful.

As well as Martin's acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God.

For example, Greeley's 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves 'atheist'.

Martin's appeal to etymology does not necessarily make his definition more helpful if it is not how the word is understood: and his use of agnosticism to be a question of belief rather than knowledge sits uneasily with this etymological approach. Putting to one side the question of what atheism 'should' or 'really' means, the positive-negative distinction is certainly useful in philosophical discussions as a shorthand for different sorts of atheism.

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian' suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'. Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1:'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7:'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6:'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.

Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#50 May 2, 2013

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#51 May 2, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't step in the elephant crap you obviously can not see.
The elephant crap is like the god, you can't see it, you can't feel it, it's not there, but when someone starts yammering on about it, everybody can smell it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#52 May 2, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
Negative atheism vs active atheism:
The view presented by the atheistic posters in this thread is the minority view.
Richard Dawkins, who some of you may be framiliar with, agrees with me that rightfully used, atheism require an actual belief in no-god.
it is presumed such thing are not possible for dogs.
~~
The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.
Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.
This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.
This understanding of atheism is fairly commonly accepted by other atheists, although some theists complain that 'negative atheism' is trivial or evasive.
William Lane Craig argues that Martin is 'redefining' the term to argue for the presumption of atheism, and it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists. As well as the claim that it represents the etymology of the term, atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the 'null hypothesis', and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given.
One criticism of Martin's definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by 'atheism', and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful.
As well as Martin's acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God.
For example, Greeley's 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves 'atheist'.
Martin's appeal to etymology does not necessarily make his definition more helpful if it is not how the word is understood: and his use of agnosticism to be a question of belief rather than knowledge sits uneasily with this etymological approach. Putting to one side the question of what atheism 'should' or 'really' means, the positive-negative distinction is certainly useful in philosophical discussions as a shorthand for different sorts of atheism.
Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian' suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'. Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1:'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7:'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6:'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.
Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'
Make no mistake "A" means NO, NOT, NONE!
ATHEISM = no ism!

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#53 May 2, 2013
I liked tha part where 31% of Britons did not believe in god, but only 10% considered themselves atheist.

yak yak

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#54 May 2, 2013
Who comes up with this trash now, wait it's Buck Crick, what trash.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#55 May 2, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The elephant crap is like the god, you can't see it, you can't feel it, it's not there, but when someone starts yammering on about it, everybody can smell it.
First of all it is fallacious to think a lack of evidence is evidence for the opposite or contrary.

A lack of convincing evidence is not convincing evidence.
It takes more to overcome that fallacy, it holds little merit on its own.
You totally avoid the point ( straw man response), or did it go over your head?

Einstein gave us many points about what he believed it means to be an 'Atheist'. Surely his opinion is worthy of discussion.
To totally ignore the obvious, and then to make some joke about the value of particular knowledge, is lacking any substance.

You disagree with the beliefs of Einstein on this matter, and offer no response why he is incorrect.
All you have to do, is admit that some group(s) is trying to change the meaning of the terms associated with 'Atheism'.
This happens all the time, in all areas of life.

It is a common thing, but it seems to me explanations are in order.
Why do you disagree with Einstein on this?
But of course you are too busy, or too important to bother with my nonsensical ramblings.
The fact that you, as part of a minority of Atheists, who are themselves a minority of planet inhabitants, would think that your meaning of the term 'Atheist' should be observed, instead of the will of the majority of Atheists, or others, speaks volumes.

You seek to includes as members of your group, individuals who do not consider themselves as part of your group.
You say they are Atheists, they say they are not, but it is your opinion we should recognize.
And why is that?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#56 May 2, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>First of all it is fallacious to think a lack of evidence is evidence for the opposite or contrary.
A lack of convincing evidence is not convincing evidence.
It takes more to overcome that fallacy, it holds little merit on its own.
You totally avoid the point ( straw man response), or did it go over your head?
Einstein gave us many points about what he believed it means to be an 'Atheist'. Surely his opinion is worthy of discussion.
To totally ignore the obvious, and then to make some joke about the value of particular knowledge, is lacking any substance.
You disagree with the beliefs of Einstein on this matter, and offer no response why he is incorrect.
All you have to do, is admit that some group(s) is trying to change the meaning of the terms associated with 'Atheism'.
This happens all the time, in all areas of life.
It is a common thing, but it seems to me explanations are in order.
Why do you disagree with Einstein on this?
But of course you are too busy, or too important to bother with my nonsensical ramblings.
The fact that you, as part of a minority of Atheists, who are themselves a minority of planet inhabitants, would think that your meaning of the term 'Atheist' should be observed, instead of the will of the majority of Atheists, or others, speaks volumes.
You seek to includes as members of your group, individuals who do not consider themselves as part of your group.
You say they are Atheists, they say they are not, but it is your opinion we should recognize.
And why is that?
It just might be, because unlike you I do know what the word "atheist" means.

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people who are non-theist, knocking down the door, protesting being labeled as atheist, also much has been attributed to Einstein, and some of it (just some of it), was stuff he actually said.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#57 May 2, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>It just might be, because unlike you I do know what the word "atheist" means.
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people who are non-theist, knocking down the door, protesting being labeled as atheist, also much has been attributed to Einstein, and some of it (just some of it), was stuff he actually said.
It is not me alone, I provide references.
Like the Sanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agn...

Denial required, not merely ignorance.

You provide an opinion, a minority view, with no explanation why it should be accepted as common usage, when the opposite is true.

Funny how someone who depends on evidence, has ZERO evidence Einstein Did not say what I quoted, and I even referenced the TIME magazine it was in.
It is easy to substantiate, and impossible to successfully refute.
Why don't you give it a try.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#58 May 2, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Make no mistake "A" means NOT!
ATHEIST = not theist!
That's not what it means.

"Atheist" comes from the greek root word "atheos".

It means "no god".

An atheist is one who believes there is no god.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#59 May 2, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>It is not me alone, I provide references.
Like the Sanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
No, it doesn't.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#60 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what it means.
"Atheist" comes from the greek root word "atheos".
It means "no god".
An atheist is one who believes there is no god.
Yes, it is.

It is the "a", that is pivotal here. It is the "a", that keeps the word from being simply "theist". It is the "a", that says, this word means "not theist".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#61 May 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what it means.
"Atheist" comes from the greek root word "atheos".
It means "no god".
An atheist is one who believes there is no god.
Atheism - lack of belief in god.

STILL trying in vain to change the definition of atheism according to your cult's ways LMAO.

You guys seriously are mentally ill.

Atheists converted by buck = STILL ZERO.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 52 min Science 83,230
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr Dan78iel 3,989
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Wed Science 2,576
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct 24 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web