***Dave writes:

I don’t consider church services on Sunday to be a waste (though I once did).  I get a lot out of them.

As do many others and this is something I readily admit is a definite positive of religion. It does indeed help to foster a sense of community and belonging that many people may not have otherwise. I may think there are other similar means of accomplishing the same goal, but I have no real issues with folks who prefer religious services as the means to that end. It’s certainly no more silly a means than your average Moose Lodge.

And while there are Christians who would disagree, this Christian thinks one of the points of praying for someone to get better is to also remind you that you *should* go out and buy them some medicine (or offer other material aid).

Methods of menomics come in all forms so, again, if it works for you then I have no problems with that. There are certainly worse reasons to pray.

That was completely inappropriate, IMO, of the minister.  It doesn’t surprise me (and I can even force myself to see the perspective), but I’d be offended even if I were there and considered myself “saved�? (as I was at a wedding I went to that included the same sort of side show).

It doesn’t bother me as much when this sort of thing happens at weddings as when it happens at funerals as at least in the former setting you’re not trying to take advantage of folks who are in a state of grief. In both situations it’s an annoying attempt to usurp the occasion for your own ends, though.

As usual, I’m left wishing more, if not most, Christians would follow your example as there would be little for me to complain about if they did.

Excellent is the correct word for it.  I find myself leaning more in this direction every day.  I was extremely troubled when attending a funeral recently to be called upon to come forward and be saved. So much so that I didn’t stay for the memorial service of my Grand-neice.  When I am here to pay my respects to someone I don’t want to be reminded that if I want to see them again I have to accept religion into my life. I respect your right to believe your way so I feel you should do the same.

I agree, Momma.  In fact, a similar experience at the memorial service for one of my childhood friends was one of the straws that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, in my own leap from the fence of saying I was agnostic and seeing that I am in fact an atheist.  Claiming agnosticism in my case, when I took a long hard look at it (that “dark night of the soul” I think SS mentioned in another thread), was really my wussing out: just a way to avoid the inevitable, “How can you possibly NOT believe in God?” questions from my believing loved ones.

My friend’s dad, who is and has always been a Catholic, was mightily pissed off that his daughter’s memorial service (at Calvary Chapel) was more about the unsaved among her loved ones being in grave peril than it was about HER life.  Her own 20 year old daughter left the church in tears because she wasn’t allowed to eulogize her mother.  Yet the minister spent the better part of an hour using her mom’s death as an opportunity to proselytize to a chapel full of people who were there to pay their respects to the woman, whether they shared her faith or not.  I admit that after 3 1/2 years, I’m STILL pissed off about that.

To get back to the article, I was surprised at the admission that any parent who wants to raise their child as an atheist or secularist would do best to:

Move to a big city in just about any state, or move to a medium-sized city in a blue state, move to Takoma Park, or move to Canada if you can stay awake. Move to a university town.

It’s nice to see that my own obsessive ruminations over the question, “If I leave Southern California, where can I go to live in peace and avoid being harassed for my tolerant, godless, liberal opinions (which I’m notoriously inept at keeping to myself)?” aren’t necessarily paranoid or abnormal.  Since my family has been subjected to discrimination by religious folks even here in Hollywood, the bastion of tolerance, liberalism and godlessness; I can’t help but wonder how much worse it would be anywhere else… and it’s scary.  Would I have to worry that instead of just being called a Devil Worshipper, my daughter would be physically assaulted by her classmates?

Atheists, here and in other forums in which I participate, have been told that in many instances we come off as “militant and in-your-face” - but for every one of us who’s willing to brave the inevitable browbeating and attacks from the religious, there are probably 10 other infidels who just shut the fuck up and pretend to go along with the believers because they fear for their own and their children’s safety.  Someone has to have the balls to stand up and speak out against the discrimination that’s become somehow acceptable as the US slides ever closer to declaring itself a Christian nation.

I truly wish that rather than having to assemble ourselves around big cities in blue states, atheists everywhere would insist upon their right to live unmolested wherever they wish.  Unfortunately, it’s simply too dangerous in some places for the godless to assert their First Amendment rights.  That this condition exists in America in the 21st century absolutely breaks my heart.

elwedriddsche: Nothing like starting out by pontificating about “The atheist...�? to ensure a warm welcome.

I suppose the distinction between challenging the messenger and challenging the message is lost on you? I’ll try to keep that in mind when reading the rest of your comment.

We are the experts.

Surely you can see the fatally flawed premise in that argument. All I need do is set myself up as an expert on Theism and we automatically arrive at a stalemate… with neither of us qualified to speak to the other’s area of expertise even though they both are inherently intertwined.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, atheism a statement about belief. Even absent knowledge, an agnostic can believe in god’s existence.

Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

Les, do you agree with that statement? The rest of you?

If so, then I’m forced to concede that atheism doesn’t require omniscience and withdraw that aspect of my argument.

The word “Fag,�? for example, means many different things today than it did in the past. Go ahead, look it up in the dictionary and see if what you find agrees with how it’s commonly used today.

Yes, I’m well aware of the differences. Although you gotta admit that the root word’s meaning does conjure up a certain mental image which makes the more modern American slang usage of the word not completely inappropriate.

Interestingly, the British also use “fag” as a slang word. But, they mean something entirely different than we do in North America. I found that out the hard way at a public park outside of Geneva, Switzerland many years ago as a poor English girl turned three shades of deeply embarassed after she’d made an off-the-cuff comment intended to express her desire for a cigarette. LOL she was as blissfully unaware of the alternate slang meaning as were her audience of Canadians and Americans who responded with shocked silence for what seemed an eternity. It was hilarious!

Kevin: Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

Les, do you agree with that statement? The rest of you?

I would not agree with that.  I am an a-theist in that, based on my understanding of the universe, I do not believe there is a god. I lack the “god-belief” that a theist has. 

That is different from saying “there is no god” which, while it may be shorthand for my position, is not an inclusive description of it.

Atheism contains a range of degrees of certitude from “I do not know” to “I know there is no god” as theists like to say they know there is one.

Agnosticism is a related but separate thing: a range of assessment about the knowability of god’s existence (which is different from saying he does or does not exist.) An agnostic may say; “I don’t know but it is knowable in principle” or he may say “it is now knowable even in principle.”

All of which is a waste of valuable screen pixels.  Some people look at the universe and say; “God did it” and others look differently at the same universe and say, “A god simply isn’t required to explain this.”

Experts… whatever you think of dualling expertise, Websters is NOT an expert on everything anymore than Consumer Reports knows everything about cars, toasters, etc.  The dictionary is a good starting point but who knows more about atheism… an atheist or a committee of grammarians? If you want to know what atheism is about, ask an atheist!

If you want to know if there’s a god or not, that is a different discussion.

Kevin: You need to read what elwedriddsche wrote. “Agnosticism” and “gnosticism” are statements or descriptions about a human’s knowledge concerning the existence of a god or gods. “Atheism” and “theism” are statements about a human’s belief in a god or gods. They are not statements about the truth or falsity of claims a god or god’s existence or non-existence.

If you get confused, please consult this handy chart:

http://www.brentrasmussen.com/archives/2004/12/the_final_word.html

Thanks, Brent - I forgot about the chart.  Sometimes it’s so much easier to explain with a ballpoint pen and a napkin than with a lot of verbage

Kevin asks…

Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

Les, do you agree with that statement? The rest of you?

It appears to me you’re not reading my replies as otherwise you would already know I would not agree. I realize I tend to be long-winded, but that’s because I’m trying to be clear. I’ll try the short and sweet approach.

Faith is belief without supporting evidence. Atheism is the absence of faith. The suggestion that one can have faith in one’s absence of faith is absurd and illogical.

I’d also question if you understand the meaning of the word “tangible.” How would you have tangible proof of anythings non-existence? If it doesn’t exist then there’s nothing tangible to prove it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist. If we had tangible proof then it’s existence, or at least former existence, isn’t a question.

I suppose the distinction between challenging the messenger and challenging the message is lost on you? I’ll try to keep that in mind when reading the rest of your comment.

You’re the messenger and the author of the message. You started the conversation with an opening that I for one consider rude and I feel well justified to point this out to you. So?

Surely you can see the fatally flawed premise in that argument.

It was not an argument, it was a statement of fact.

Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

You keep arguing against your dictionary-induced straw man. As a reminder, you asked us to educate ourselves about the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals, yet you yourself make no reciprocal effort.

To repeat (as nauseam), at a minimum atheists are without belief that god (definition to be supplied by the theist) exists. It’s not an act of faith to lack belief in something for which no factual support is in evidence.

Regarding the Christian god, its attributes as assigned by Christians lead to logical and moral contradictions. Therefore, omniscience is not called for to prove a negative.

Brent, that’s a handy chart.

I’m using a (poorly maintained) glossary that links first occurances of entries and synonyms back to the “house definition”. It removes ambiguity…

With all due respect, I lend no small amount of credence to dictionary definitions because the dictionary doesn’t have an axe to grind. Merriam Webster isn’t arguing for or against any belief system. They merely define the words and leave the beliefs to others. Whereas atheists do have an axe to grind (likewise, I as a theist have an axe to grind).

I realize that I can’t conclude that therefore the dictionary wins by default. But, it does seem to me that y’all are drawing somewhat arbitrary distinctions that are in line with your own professed belief systems. Whereas I haven’t turned to my belief system to define anything. I turned to what I view as an objective 3rd party - an internationally recognized dictionary.

Les, I know that “tangible” can be parsed six ways to Sunday. One man’s tangible evidence is another man’s vivid imagination.

I’ve read your replies. I just don’t find the argument that atheism is faithless to be convincing at all, much less rational.

Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What seems rational to me apparently strikes you as absurd. By the same token, what apparently seems rational to you strikes me as absurd. C’est la vie.

Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

Most people grow beyond the “is not” or “is too” kind of arguement once they’ve passed grade school. You seem to have just added verbosity to it.

Is there a point in continuing discussion with you if you can’t even grasp the basic meaning of the term you’re throwing about?

Let me repeat Les’ statement in case you missed it the last 17 times…

Atheism is the absence of faith.

Period.

I just don’t find the argument that atheism is faithless to be convincing at all, much less rational.

Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What seems rational to me apparently strikes you as absurd. By the same token, what apparently seems rational to you strikes me as absurd. C’est la vie.

You have two choices.

Either you persist in arguing against atheism as defined by a dictionary, in which case you would be better served by seeking out other forums with like-minded members.

Or you can educate yourself on what the position of atheists actually is, although it doesn’t appear that you are willing to make the effort.

Your call.

With all due respect, I lend no small amount of credence to dictionary definitions because the dictionary doesn’t have an axe to grind. Merriam Webster isn’t arguing for or against any belief system.

A term like atheist is far to complex in it’s meaning to be summed up in a dictionary. Likewise terms like christian, muslim, democrat, republican and so on. If you want to know the real meaning of any of those terms, you ask the people who define themselves by them. A dictionary will give you only a basic aproximation.

I just don’t find the argument that atheism is faithless to be convincing at all, much less rational.

That appears to because you’re simple minded and don’t have the ability to understand relatively basic concepts.

KPG, my definition of Christian is very simple - anybody calling himself or herself one qualifies. I have a nagging suspicion, though, that this definition would not satisfy quite a few self-professed Christians.

KPG, my definition of Christian is very simple - anybody calling himself or herself one qualifies.

I agree with that part, but what does the word mean? For that, I believe you’d have to ask the person with the label.

Okay, so by the same token an atheist can disbelieve in god’s existence without certain knowledge? In other words, atheism is a faith-based belief system. Belief without tangible proof being defined as an article of faith, of course.

This is insanity. There is no way to DISPROVE the existence of something, and this is even more the case when the something in question is not expected to conform to any discernable rules. That doesn’t mean, however, that assuming the existence of something on the basis of lack of disproof is just as logical as assuming the inexistence of something on the basis of lack of proof. Belief without tangible proof IS an article of faith, but you are creating a tautology in which disbelief without tangible proof ALSO becomes an article of faith, and therefore EVERYTHING is an equally valid article of faith.

You have two choices.

Either you persist in arguing against atheism as defined by a dictionary, in which case you would be better served by seeking out other forums with like-minded members.

How much can one learn from dittoheads?

Or you can educate yourself on what the position of atheists actually is, although it doesn’t appear that you are willing to make the effort.

I certainly do accept each of your positions as it relates to how each of you defines your own beliefs vis-a-vis god or the absence thereof.

It’s the definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism” that I don’t buy. I mean no offense by that. I’m being perfectly upfront. How you guys are defining the words just don’t make sense to me.

And I’ll grant that a huge part of that is because of the dictionary definitions. There is such an immense gulf between what the language experts say the words mean and what you adherents of those belief systems say the words mean that I’m unable to reconcile the two. It’s as if you were trying to tell me that the four-legged animal which meows when I forget to buy more catfood is in fact an alligator and that the dictionary definitions of “cat” and “alligator” are open to interpretation.

Truth be told, I didn’t realize that so many of you were professed atheists when I first posted a comment. Had I known, I probably would not have commented.

Yes, Kevin, we atheists may meow, but when we see fresh theist meat we’re alligators.
I’ve followed this discussion, and it seems to be an excercise in futility, largely because you cannot accept that it’s possible to simply not believe in something without having “faith” or absolute knowledge that it doesn’t exist.  But it’s easy.  I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, and my disbelief is not a matter of faith.  It’s simply that I don’t believe in things for which I see no evidence, and especially things which can be explained by wishful thinking (such as the Tooth Fairy and God).  And absolute knowledge is not to be had, but can I assign the probability of the Tooth Fairy’s, and God’s, existence a number so close to zero that even God (and the Tooth Fairy, to be sure) wouldn’t know the difference.  Makes no difference to my belief- academic causistry.

It also seems to me a bit arrogant to insist on accepting a dictionary definition of “atheist” over what thoughtful atheists say their position is.

Truth be told, I didn’t realize that so many of you were professed atheists when I first posted a comment. Had I known, I probably would not have commented.

How charming. Well, goodbye.

Kevin responded to the suggestion he seek more like-minded company,

How much can one learn from dittoheads?…

But then went on to say,

Truth be told, I didn’t realize that so many of you were professed atheists when I first posted a comment. Had I known, I probably would not have commented.

Kevin, I just don’t understand you.  First you want to learn something, but then you don’t. Maybe the problem is here in the middle:

There is such an immense gulf between what the language experts say the words mean and what you adherents of those belief systems say the words mean that I’m unable to reconcile the two.

It’s not necessary to reconcile them. “Language experts” follow language around and try to codify what they can.  With hundreds of thousands of words to “define” the best they can do is approximate.  Usually it’s a committee that reviews each word.  The result is a helpful general tool but for more specific knowledge in any field, you have to go to the source.

Suppose I showed up at the People’s Cafe in nearby Farmer City, IL and started telling the farmers gathered there that they didn’t really understand farming, because of something I read in some book. 

It might make a difference if the book in question were a book about farming by someone with credibility in the field (pun intended) rather than a general book about lots of things, like a dictionary.  But they’d be pretty amused (if I was lucky) if the first words out of my mouth were, “The farmer still is adhering to a...”

To date I have seen no evidence that there is a god.  Do you have any?  Anything at all that we can see, touch, taste, hear, smell, record on instruments, or calculate from experimental data.  Even one phenomenon that can in principle only be explained by a universal mind.  Anything at all?  That would be a much more interesting discussion.

Your analogy doesn’t work, decrepitoldfool. If I showed a bunch of farmers a dictionary definition of “farming” they’d more than likely agree with it completely. Then perhaps some of them would point out varients on the form. But, I don’t think they’d disagree.

Now, likely there’d be one or two who would exhibit some confusion over the difference between “farming” and “ranching” (and yes, there is some overlap between the two), but that would soon be sorted out by the group themselves and I’ve no doubt that it wouldn’t contradict the dictionary definitions.

You guys, on the other hand, are turning the dictionary definitions on their heads. And then, in some cases, citing yourselves as the authorities… even though that’s a classic logical fallacy.

I was raised by a farmer/rancher. So, perhaps a different example might have worked better. Not likely given the way you used this example, though.

You guys, on the other hand, are turning the dictionary definitions on their heads.

While I believe that it’s futile to continue with you, consider this:

Historically, theists assign the group label ‘atheist’ to anybody that doesn’t share their (or at least another) god-belief, regardless of the position of the person that doesn’t have a god-belief. Given that atheists have always been in the minority, it is rather unsurprising that the dictionary definition is almost maliciously inaccurate.

The reason why we tend to get annoyed with theists arguing from the dictionary is that we are first assigned a one-size-fits-all label and then told which position we are supposed to hold.

So we turn the dictionary definitions on their heads? Damn right and about time, too.

There is no contradiction with the dictionary, just simplification. You seem unable to comprehend it, that’s all.

Let’s look at your definition.

An Atheist, by definition, is one who believes (ie. to accept as true, genuine, or real) that there is no deity. In other words, an Atheist believe that there in fact is no diety.

Nothing wrong with that at all. We have no faith or belief in the existence of a diety, therefore “a lack of faith” not a faith in non existence. You’re getting caught up in ridiculous semantics that are all in your head.

I maintain that the definition is simplistic and needs expanding, whiich Les did marvelously, but as it stands, it is accurate.