Cliche Opening Statement

I have a generally apathetic or haphazard view of the various philosophies on that highly debated "Why" that we are here. I really don't adhere to any particular view and I migrate depending on what rational and/or convincing information or argument I happen to stumble across...or learn myself in. An atheist? Well there are so many definitions that the ones I most put stock in, no, not an atheist at all. I grew up without a religion- not atheist though, I didn't even know there was such thing as a god until I was 12- And ever since then I haven't known what to think. Life was so much more simple before this whole deity concept entered into my field of vision. Then again, I'm only 19- I'm allowed some time to figure this "life" thing out.

I've been through many faiths and lack thereof and I haven't yet found the quintessential representation of what I want to refer to myself as or what best resembles my beliefs, so until I do, I find its pretty unintelligent to present myself as anything given the my volatile mood and what one could call beliefs. At best, a wandering free thinker.

I can get along with the religious and irreligious well and am fortunate enough to have intelligent friends from the wide spectrum of religious, philosophical and ethical views. So, I can't say that I've been exposed much to the creationist crybabies, secular imbeciles or those few and far between. Perhaps I'm heading toward a rude awakening on this forum however one can't always expect to win the lottery every time one decides to place a bet.

Other than that, I'm a science major/ photojournalism major and its been a pleasure to introduce myself to such an interesting forum.

[dogpet]

Hi Allighiero. Many on here will envy your first twelve years. Unlucky 13 huh?

[Tenspace]

Allighiero wrote

An atheist? Well there are so many definitions that the ones I most put stock in, no, not an atheist at all.

Well, the traditional meaning, before it was usurped by every religious group that hated those not like themselves, is really self-defining:

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Welcome to our forums, A.

[Eva]

welcome to our humble forum, Allighiero!

[Choobus]

Tenspace wrote

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Does that mean christians are without holes?

[Kate]

Not exactly.

Tenspace wrote

Well, the traditional meaning, before it was usurped by every religious group that hated those not like themselves, is really self-defining:

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Welcome to our forums, A.

Over one hundred year ago the etymological meaning of the word would have been the accepted view, however, I wasn't born 100 years ago. I disagree that "religious groups" usurped the definition, like most words they evolve from their original usage because each decades contemporary vernacular differ from the past decades. The word as it is defined today in most lexicons and by many philosophers isn't anywhere close to that etymological meaning. I believe we should look to how it is defined in the present day instead of erroneously believing that the past is a continuous representation of the contextual and defined meaning of a word. I also think it is severely unwise to continue to cling to those archaic representations. If we did look to the "traditional" meanings of many of the words we use, we'd see some stark differences.

So, I look toward contemporary not traditional representations of what this or that is, instead of debating what it is or isn't, when it comes to the semantics and the general example of what a word examples. Though, I'm hardly trying to change your mind- I'm not here to argue semantics.

[nkb]

Not to continue the argument about the meaning of the word "atheism", but it is relevant here. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, which is how you appear to have lived for your first 12 years.

What you seem to be bristling against is the definition of a militant or strong atheism, which generally involves the position that there is no god.

So, to address your last point, the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in a god is not archaic, and absolutely still applies today, religious people's protestations notwithstanding.

nkb wrote

Not to continue the argument about the meaning of the word "atheism", but it is relevant here. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, which is how you appear to have lived for your first 12 years.

What you seem to be bristling against is the definition of a militant or strong atheism, which generally involves the position that there is no god.

So, to address your last point, the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in a god is not archaic, and absolutely still applies today, religious people's protestations notwithstanding.

I respectfully disagree. The etymological definition "A = Sans Theism = God" Is an archaic representation of atheism and wholly irrelevant to the contemporary understanding. That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God. As I did not know of the concept of God for 12 years, I was neither able to believe or disbelieve in that concept. There was no active force occurring.

You may retort, "You're an implicit atheist then." Well that is a compelling argument for some, implicit/explicit atheism, however I see no validity in those arguments from George Smith. There are a few mainstream atheist authors who do, like Richard Dawkins, accept the weak/strong and implicit/explicit stances. However, I also don't look to a prominent atheist figure to define to me a concept. I look to a lexicon, to get a unbiased and objective stance. So you say I am confused on strong and militant atheist, however, I suggest that you are confused and put too much weight into the philosophical understanding of atheism versus the commonplace understanding.

Of course, this means I disagree with the stances that children are born atheists, and that agnostics can only be atheistic or theistic. Much as Socrates did, I do not like viewing the world through a black and white filter and accept there are excluded middles. I understand that you seem a bit hostile to religion however, there isn't any religious group directly involved or threatening semanticists when they labouriously try to determine the contemporary understanding of a concept from an objective standpoint.

Hopefully this disagreement with you and Teenspace won't serve to make you both irate.

[Choobus]

Allighiero wrote

That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God.

Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

I respectfully disagree. The etymological definition "A = Sans Theism = God" Is an archaic representation of atheism and wholly irrelevant to the contemporary understanding. That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God. As I did not know of the concept of God for 12 years, I was neither able to believe or disbelieve in that concept. There was no active force occurring.

You may retort, "You're an implicit atheist then." Well that is a compelling argument for some, implicit/explicit atheism, however I see no validity in those arguments from George Smith. There are a few mainstream atheist authors who do, like Richard Dawkins, accept the weak/strong and implicit/explicit stances. However, I also don't look to a prominent atheist figure to define to me a concept. I look to a lexicon, to get a unbiased and objective stance. So you say I am confused on strong and militant atheist, however, I suggest that you are confused and put too much weight into the philosophical understanding of atheism versus the commonplace understanding.

Of course, this means I disagree with the stances that children are born atheists, and that agnostics can only be atheistic or theistic. Much as Socrates did, I do not like viewing the world through a black and white filter and accept there are excluded middles. I understand that you seem a bit hostile to religion however, there isn't any religious group directly involved or threatening semanticists when they labouriously try to determine the contemporary understanding of a concept from an objective standpoint.

Hopefully this disagreement with you and Teenspace won't serve to make you both irate.

Actually, I'm guessing that it is likely to be the beginning of a serious ass fucking for you. You obviously haven't observed Raving Atheists toying with their food before they kill it and eat it. I'm breaking open the beer and peanuts and gettin' ready for the show. Chew toy! This could be entertaining.

Choobus wrote

Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.

Merriam Webster, American Hermitage and among others. You will see it commonly listed as "A doctrine which states there is no God" or "A disbelief in God or Belief there is no God." Disbelief itself, is active because it requires ones to know of the concept to form that opinion. They aren't my definitions, but they are a credible source, and if you want to dispute them- Contact the respective companies.

You did not quote it, but I again reference the implicit/explicit atheism stance. It is a philosophical argument from an opinionated and brilliant man but one I hold no stock in. It find it silly and quite incorrect that when one does not know of God, one is an atheist given the contemporary bastardization and/or meaning of the word based on ones view. Now later in my life, I was an atheist however, not my first 12 year

[ghoulslime]

Choobus wrote

Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.

A very valid point, sir!

Allighiero, I am a Leprechaunist, a believer in leprechauns. (It is my sincere prayer that you will mend the error of your ways and join me on the true path to the Emerald Lawns of Eternity.) I suspect that you do not believe in Leprechaunism.

Is your disbelief in Leprechaunism the antithesis of my belief? Is your position opposed by an equally assertible and contradictory proposition to my devout Leprechaun fundamentalism? ? It would seem to me that the semantic juxtaposition is a little off balance there, buddy.

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

Merriam Webster, American Hermitage and among others. You will see it commonly listed as "A doctrine which states there is no God" or "A disbelief in God or Belief there is no God." Disbelief itself, is active because it requires ones to know of the concept to form that opinion. They aren't my definitions, but they are a credible source, and if you want to dispute them- Contact the respective companies.

You did not quote it, but I again reference the implicit/explicit atheism stance. It is a philosophical argument from an opinionated and brilliant man but one I hold no stock in. It find it silly and quite incorrect that when one does not know of God, one is an atheist given the contemporary bastardization and/or meaning of the word based on ones view. Now later in my life, I was an atheist however, not my first 12 year

What does Merriam Webster have for someone who is obstinately and willfully obtuse?
I’m having a hard time thinking of the right word. I was thinking maybe you could help me out because you are obviously such a smart guy.

[Kate]