Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

[MarkFL]

I have evaded nothing of any substance or meaning. I have largely ignored a bunch of overly verbose hand-waving. I implied once that I am somewhat older than Josiah, if that somehow constitutes being "quite focused" on his age.

But yes, there is a new development...Josiah now seems unclear on his actual position regarding the definition of atheism. However, the bottom line is this: I and others have in this thread and another, presented the correct definition of atheism.

 

[Rens]

No. Mark is steadfast in evading, avoiding, dodging every single question asked of him, every point he is politely asked to consider and respond to. I only learned he's quite focused on my age.

I gave up because OBVIOUSLY he's never going to read or respond or consider anything I post or ask on this. It just isn't going to happen, no matter what. And I'm left to wonder why the persistent felt need to dodge all that. And he left because he's not going to discuss ANYTHING I post, address ANYTHING I ask, respond to ANYTHING I ask him to consider. He has only one thing he's willing to say - and he did that in the op, it never was presented as a topic for discussion or consideration.

I think we remain friends - CERTAINLY and fully from my end (important to me ALSO because he's now a mod, LOL) - and I rejoice in that. There's just SOME mysterious reason why he's chosen to evade everything I ask or post - and I've accepted that reality and that I don't need to know why he's chosen that. It's okay.

Life goes on. :smile:



- Josiah




.

Here are answers from reddit from other atheists:

Nowadays most people describe atheism as only addressing a single prong of the dilemma. Anyone who answers the first prong "Do you believe in any god(s)?" with a No is an atheist. You are not required to answer the second prong the dilemma "Do you believe there is no god(s)?" in the positive to be an atheist.

I've seen a few people lately argue that atheism, by definition, is necessarily accepting the negation. Then they continue by saying "Words have meanings. Atheists can't just go around inventing their own definitions and expect them to be authoritative."

I've thought about responding: atheist thinkers/philosophers have improved our epistemology over the years and made our positions more logically sound, so we've refined the definition accordingly. Secondly, language isn't static, and arguing over semantics, when we are clearly defining our terms, just makes you look petulant, and doesn't do anyone any good.

However, I don't know if this response is good enough or cohesive enough. So I'm looking for a little help here. Maybe an argument that's a little more concise, or better worded

DoglessDyslexic • 267d
Words have meanings. Atheists can't just go around inventing their own definitions and expect them to be authoritative.

What you're hitting is the general issue of semantics. To me, the best resolution of this is to say:

"Whatever you wish to call it, I don't believe in gods. I don't believe we can know for certain that no gods exist, but if any do exist, I'm fairly confident that there is no good reason to believe in them.

If you wish to call that agnostic, then feel free, when we discuss things I can use your term, or you can use mine. I happen to use a definition commonly accepted by philosophers that ponder such issues, but if you find that term difficult to accept then so long as we agree on the meaning behind our terms I don't give a ***.

BlunderLikeARicochet • 267d
Nobody has changed the definition of atheism. Not in the last 180 years, at least. At any rate, this "absence of belief" definition is hardly "new".

Richard Watson - A Biblical and Theological Dictionary (1831): "Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god"

Charles Bradlaugh - The Freethinker's Text Book (1876): "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God"

Annie Besant - The Gospel of Atheism (1877): "The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny 'God.'"

Robert Flint - Anti-Theistic Theories (1885): "The atheist is not necessarily a man who says there is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds."

G.W. Foote - What Is Agnosticism? (1902): "Refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.... Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an A-Theist is one without God. That is all the 'A' before 'Theist' really means."

 

[Josiah]

I have evaded nothing of any substance or meaning. I have largely ignored a bunch of overly verbose hand-waving. I implied once that I am somewhat older than Josiah, if that somehow constitutes being "quite focused" on his age.

But yes, there is a new development...Josiah now seems unclear on his actual position regarding the definition of atheism. However, the bottom line is this: I and others have in this thread and another, presented the correct definition of atheism.

I am unclear about two things: Why the very, very persistent avoidance, dodge, evasion of EVERY question put to you, EVERY point requesting discussion, EVERYTHING posted. But you have made it very clear: you are NOT in any sense, ever, in any way - going to do so. And I've accepted that. My age is the only clue you've given as to why you've taken that absolute evasive stance.

I am unclear about WHY this man in 1888 had this "felt need" to "strip" the position of its meaning and a few people since then have taken that up - but no matter what, you have made it EXTREMELY clear you have a felt need to not address or discuss or even acknowledge that. And I've accepted that and that I may chose to theorize about the reason for this very extreme evasion but you have your reasons and you have no obligation to disclose them. Again, only one tiny clue was ever suggested for this: your being older than I. Okay. True enough.

All you will do is repeat - over and over and over - this new pov created in 1888. No matter what is asked or posted - just keep repeating that, as if stating something exempts it from any discussion or examination. Okay.

No hard feelings. I respect your privacy. I stopped all attempts at anything in this regard.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I and others have posted the correct definition of atheism. You disagree, or you disagreed...now you won't say one way or the other. Everything else you've posted is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

 

[Josiah]

I and others have posted the correct definition of atheism. You disagree, or you disagreed...now you won't say one way or the other. Everything else you've posted is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

I think you already admitted that for many centuries, the pov (and the word used for it) meant something very clear. But - we were told - in 1888, there was this man, and he had this "FELT NEED" (exactly how you TOO have indicated and described) that lead him to "STRIP" the pov and word (strip is the exact word YOU TOO used for what he did). I asked WHY? But in 4 threads..... in post after post after post..... you REFUSED to answer ANY and ALL questions about that, you refused to address ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about that - persistently, skillfullly dodged, ignored, evaded. OBVIOUSLY you have YOUR felt need to to dodge everything posted to you about this, EVERY question asked of you. And you obviously need to keep that close to you, as private. And I have accepted that reality.

The best we got was your statement about how this enables the Atheists to dodge the "burden of proof" Atheists demand of all others.... and that you've been explaining this since before I was born.... but obviously, you have a need to keep it all to yourself here. OKAY.

AND AGAIN (how many times..... Mark, it's frustrating when I post the same thing to you - and it seems you've never read it. Why say it again if you won't read or consider it, friend?).... as I've posted several times here, ITS OKAY. No hard feelings. You've decided to ignore me and everyting I ask, everything I seek to discuss, and OBVIOUSLY you have your reasons for this very, very persistent evasion. I don't take it personally, you have your reasons, I'm sure. I'ts okay. We're FINE (at least from my perspective). You seem to feel that if you post something, it's therefore exempt from discussion and questions or considerations - and that's okay.

Mark, perhaps you and the staff will consider beginning a new section of CH. Not a discussion forum but a declaration forum where all can post something which is not available for any questions or discussions or efforts to understand. That might be useful. Just an idea.


Best to you, Mark!



- Josiah



.