Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[eyeball]

Non-believers of virtually all stripes have always been more reviled than any other by theists. When theists try to convert other theists half the battle is already won.

An atheist's capacity to resist suspending their disbelief is by far the greater threat. Ignorance has always been theism's staunchest ally.

[sharkman]

Non-beleivers are not all atheists. I'm not sure where you are getting that chip on your shoulder, but the term reviled is not an accurate description of the situation. Also, there are plenty of 'theists' that are not believers. The world of religion is not so black and white. I would say your world view is far more worthy of the description 'reviles theists' than any person of faith I know who is uncomfortable with atheists. I can get along with anyone, can you?

[cybercoma]

Non-beleivers are not all atheists.

Only if you make up some other definition of atheism to suit your opinions. Atheism literally means non-believer.

[sharkman]

An agnostic is also an unbeliever.

From a christian/bible point of view, anyone who does not accept the lordship of Jesus is an unbeliever, belief in God is not enough. And since christians are the ones who are doing at least some of the reviling that eyeball was referring to, understanding this particular definition helps you understand the christian's motivation in considering whether one is to be 'reviled' or not.

And I'm sure Muslims have much the same idea with infidels. Whether they are wrong or not is irrelevant. They will revile you anyway.

Edited January 19, 2014 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

An agnostic is also an unbeliever.

And as such, agnostics are also atheists.

[TimG]

And as such, agnostics are also atheists.

Nope. The two different words exist for a reason and are not interchangeable. Atheists believe that god does not exist. Agnostics simply do not know or do not care. Agnostics are neither theist or atheist. Edited January 19, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Nope. The two different words exist for a reason and are not interchangeable. Atheists believe that god does not exist. Agnostics simply do not know or do not care. Agnostics are neither theist or atheist.

This has been explained many times on forums. All agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics.

[TimG]

This has been explained many times on forums. All agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics.

And those explanations are full of crap. Words mean what the mean no matter what you would like them to mean.

Atheism is the belief that god does not exist. Agnostics don't know or don't care. It is logically impossible for all agnostics to be atheists.

b Harvey, Van A. "Agnosticism and Atheism", in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."

We are dealing with a 3 state situation: gods do not exist, gods do exist, no opinion. There are three words to distinguish between the 3 states. You debase the meaning of language by trying to merge two of the states into one. Edited January 19, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I'm not going to get into the discussion again. The thread where it was discussed is here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21938-atheism-explained/

Edited January 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

I'm not going to get into the discussion again. The thread where it was discussed is here:

At best you are expressing your *opinion* on the definition of agnosticism. Nothing in that thread represents a fact. So if you are going to make comments that agnostics are the same as atheists then you should qualify it as an opinion. Edited January 19, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

I'm not going to get into the discussion again. The thread where it was discussed is here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21938-atheism-explained/

So since it's been discussed before, then the matter is settled? Everything has been discussed before, so maybe we should just talk about tomorrow's weather? I here it's gonna rain. Agnostics are not atheists, that's why they don't call themselves atheists.

Edited January 19, 2014 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

Agnostics don't call themselves atheists because they don't want to hurt the tender sensibilities of theists. The very fact that their agnosticism is generally about God and almost never discussed as gods plural means their focus is on monotheistic religions. They would probably call themselves atheists when it comes to the hundreds of other gods and do so without reservation. They call themselves agnostic for the Judeo-Christian God because it's annoying as hell having people who should know better calling atheism a belief or a religion. There is absolutely no debate amongst atheists about the definition. They know exactly what is meant and if you watch the video in that thread, you will see why agnostics are atheists, while not all atheists are agnostic. If you have no belief about God or gods and give no judgment true or false to their existence, the you have no belief about gods; no belief in gods is THE definition of atheism. Since you guys have not in that thread nor this one provided any reasonable argument to the contrary other than to say, "nuh uh! You're wrong!," I'm done explaining this. I have clearly explained why agnosticism is atheism. The only people that say otherwise are theists who try to redefine atheism as something it's not and agnostics that want to have a smug sense of superiority.

Edited January 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

no belief in gods is THE definition of atheism.

No, that is *your* definition. I provided a quote from a book on the issue that acknowledges that your definition is NOT universally accepted. The idea that the opinion of a group of people who self identify as atheists has any merit is laughable because we are not talking about the definition of atheist - we are talking of the definition of agnostic and people who self identify as agnostic choose that word specifically because they do not want to identify as atheist.

I will go one step further and say that it makes no difference what the dictionaries say if the popular understanding of the word is different that what the dictionaries say (the dictionaries will eventually change). In this case, I would say that the popular understanding of the word agnostic is that it is not the same as atheist.

Now you can come up with condescending rationalizations for why the popular understanding differs from the definition you like but it makes no difference. If you use a word in a public forum you need to understand the meaning it has to people who read it even if that meaning is different than what you would like it to be.

Edited January 19, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

Only if you make up some other definition...

Uh, you were saying?

Edited January 19, 2014 by sharkman

[eyeball]

I'm not sure where you are getting that chip on your shoulder...

The same point singularity of wilful stupidity that cybercoma's frustration comes from. To insist that disbelief is a belief system is a perfect example of someone wilfully suspending their own disbelief. Why anyone would do that is unfathomable to the point of alienness to me.

The fact that atheists actively resist believing theists is what makes them so reviled, especially to theists that also happen to be control freaks. The chip on their shoulder is more like the proverbial splinter in their mind that drives them nuts.

As I said, other theists are easier for theists to deal with because their minds are already messed up and well prep-ed for conversion. Atheists on the other hand are more like...aliens from another planet, dimension or continuum I guess.

Edited January 19, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Saying atheism is a belief system or a religion is like saying abstinence is a sex position. (Credit to Bill Maher for that one)

Edited January 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

[TimG]

As I said, other theists atheists are easier for theists atheists to deal with because their minds are already messed up and well prep-ed for conversion. Atheists Thiests on the other hand are more like...aliens from another planet, dimension or continuum I guess.

Fixed it for you.

What I find so ironic is the how atheists resort to exactly the same language and rhetoric in an effort to distance themselves from theists yet they cannot see that they are no different. Both groups of people have vested their belief system and defend it against the "aliens" from the other side.

Atheism *is* a belief system no matter what contortions atheists make in order to convince themselves that not believing is not a belief in itself (much like claiming that not deciding is not a choice). The only way for a person to not have a belief system is to simply not care about the issue. And people in that category don't post on discussion boards.

Edited January 19, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Fixed it for who and what issue are you talking about? There's no issue here that I can see, touch, measure, weigh or test in any way fashion or means at all.

[sharkman]

The same point singularity of wilful stupidity that cybercoma's frustration comes from. To insist that disbelief is a belief system is a perfect example of someone wilfully suspending their own disbelief. Why anyone would do that is unfathomable to the point of alienness to me.

The fact that atheists actively resist believing theists is what makes them so reviled, especially to theists that also happen to be control freaks. The chip on their shoulder is more like the proverbial splinter in their mind that drives them nuts.

As I said, other theists are easier for theists to deal with because their minds are already messed up and well prep-ed for conversion. Atheists on the other hand are more like...aliens from another planet, dimension or continuum I guess.

Okay, you've completely lost me.

No where did I say or infer that disbelief is a belief system, I was saying something completely different. You appear to completely misunderstand religious people, and this is a common mind set you have. The argument that it's more common for one to switch from one religion to another ignores the fact that each faith holds the others as being heretical to one degree or another, and willfully leading people to hell. The unconverted is held more as untainted than other faiths are.

But since you've now described me as being willfully stupid, I see that you yourself are reviling me as you accuse others of. I'll step out of this thread so as to not upset you further.

Edited January 19, 2014 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

This discussion again...sigh.

Placing theism, agnosticism and atheism on some continuum of belief is common misuse of the terms. This has been spread, in part, because christian leaders would like to portray atheism as a belief system, rather than a lack of belief. Having a lack of belief in gods is no different than having a lack of belief in fairies or unicorns.

The theism/atheism pair refers to belief and lack of belief.
The gnosticism/agnosticism pair refers to knowledge and lack of knowledge.

I do not believe in gods, yet I will not claim to know 100% that they do not exist. Hence I am an atheist and agnostic. One who believes in a god and claims to know it exists would be a theist and a gnostic.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

[TimG]

The theism/atheism pair refers to belief and lack of belief.

The gnosticism/agnosticism pair refers to knowledge and lack of knowledge.

Putting the two on separate independent axes works for me but this definition also repudiates cybercoma's original comment about all agnostics being atheists. My point is they are different words with different meanings and they cannot be interchanged.

As for the 'atheism-is-a-faith': for some atheism is a religion. i don't believe this can be reasonably claimed otherwise. for them the repudiation of the notion that there are gods is very important to them and they zealously try to convert the unbelievers. there are even atheist churches:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/atheist-mega-churches/3489967/

The real issue is many athiests need to believe in their own superiority so they get very annoyed when people point out that zealous adherence to any metaphysical creed is a "belief" - even the "non-belief in gods".

Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

for some atheism is a religion.

This statement is total nonsense.

A religion has organized tennets of belief (not non-belief)... worship of a deity... religious symbols... moral codes... often an origin of life mythology... clergy... rituals... BELIEF systems...

Atheism has none of those. If there are any, please inform us of them...

Atheist "churches"* are idiotic and not actually a church in any sense of the word. There is no worshipping.. no clergy... nothing that a church would have. They are more akin to a meeting than a religious service.

* editied to add: the term "church" is the idiotic part. Getting together to yap about atheism is fine, I guess. Not for me, but to each their own.

Edited January 20, 2014 by The_Squid

[TimG]

Atheism has none of those. If there are any, please inform us of them...

The belief that there is nothing to the universe other than what can be explained by science *is* a belief. It has to be because it is claim that cannot be proven one way or another. Edited January 20, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The belief that there is nothing to the universe other than what can be explained by science *is* a belief. It has to be because it is claim that cannot be proven one way or another.

Once again, you are twisting the definition to suit your own silly beliefe that somehow a non-belief is actually a belief.

Atheism is the disbelief of any gods or the supernatural. "I don't believe in gods"

not "I believe there are no gods". Who says that?? "I believe there no sasquatches"... No one says that.

"I don't belieive in sasquatches".

See the difference? Subtle... but not that hard to grasp as it seems to be for some people.