[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

nope, if you believe even a little bit in a God, you are not an Atheist

now some could go back and forth, believe at a time, and disbelieve at another

 

So even if you believe there's only a 1% chance there is a God, you are not an Atheist?
Or if you only believe in God a tiny bit, like suppose you've never been religious but you're in a war, and it seems like you're likely and imminently going to die, and out of desperation and fear you say a prayer. That person could not be considered an athiest, in your view?

 

Atheists lack belief in any and all gods, just like Christians lack belief in Vishnu, Babalú Ayé, or Ebisu. If you believe there's only a 1% chance one or all of these other gods are real, can you name yourself a Christian?

There's no such thing as believing "a tiny bit". Belief is a firm conviction. One might be uncertain though, and in this case a prayer, if it doesn't help, can't hurt either.

 

The problem is that you don't understand what a source is, and think that quoting one magickally transforms your argument into a truth. You seem to think that a source HAS to be a website, dictionary, encyclopedia, university, etc... You forget that mathematics is a source. You forget that science is a source. You forget that engineering is a source. You forget that philosophy is a source.

MOCKING REPLY:
You have no basis for saying all theist believe God exists

SERIOUS REPLY:
Sure I do. Logic and Etymology would be a good place to start.

MOCKING REPLY:
when many theists themselves will tell you they only lack belief in no god.

SERIOUS REPLY:
You are, once again, ignoring the belief that defines atheism, instead focusing on the fact that atheism rejects theism. Well guess what, theism also rejects atheism in the same manner... Why are you okay with defining theism by its belief but NOT defining atheism in a likewise manner? Why are so many atheists unwilling to be open and honest about what they believe?

I don't say that I "lack belief in no God". I say that I BELIEVE in God.

You are conflating "in the conscience belief" with "spoken word belief". In other words, I know the beliefs that people espouse because I hear them say the words. I cannot, however, know what someone believes inside of their conscience (doesn't espouse it verbally, or espouses the opposite of it verbally).

I'm only speaking of what is espoused verbally, and using logic and etymology as my sources.

 

Well, you need some kind of evidence to claim that some theists don't believe in God.

Its literally in the name. Theist comes from the Greek 'Theos' which means Gods. A mono (one) - theist believes in one God, a poly (many) - theist believes in many Gods. A theist is generally someone who believes in one or many Gods.

The narrow definition of atheism is defined by its belief that God doesn't exist. But the broad definition of atheism is a lack of belief in God. Theism is defined by its belief that God does exist. I'm sorry these words aren't "fair" but thats what these sounds are used to mean.

If you lack belief in no God, then you aren't a strong atheist. But you could still be an atheist generally/agnostic. When you say that you believe in God, you clarify that you not only aren't a strong atheist, but you are a theist, not atheist or agnostic.

You can assume that the vast majority of people aren't trying to lie to you about what they are believing. When an atheist tells you he doesn't believe God doesn't exist, and he only lacks belief in God, he is probably telling the truth. The vast majority of people in debate forums want to express their real beliefs and not defend a position they disagree with.

 

No new argumentation presented.

 

Yes sorry playing with one conspiracy theorist is enough. Decided you are not worth debating. Bye.

 

Not what I said. I said that theists lack belief in no God, according to your line of reasoning.

Yup, and now look at the etymology for atheism...

Yup. That is the definition of 'atheism' via etymology, as you just did above with the word 'theist'.

... and now you're denying the etymology that you just got done presenting.

Irrational, due to your denial of the etymology that you just got done presenting to me.

What you need to do at this point is explain to me (and the other viewers of this forum) why one ought to define 'theism' via etymology yet NOT define 'atheism' via that same etymology.

It doesn't make sense to keep this up until you can answer for me the etymology question that I have presented to you above.

 

If you look at the etymology of 'atheist', we find something very different. Atheist comes from the Greek 'a' (not, without, lack of) - theos (Gods). It means someone whose beliefs are without Gods, people without God, someone who does not believe in God, or someone who lacks belief in God.

 

I don't see your percentage thing as being meaningful.

Clearly there are people who go through doubts about the existence of god or the nature of god, or the religion they have been practicing. Attempting to measure that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Correct, and that means that the etymology of atheist refers to someone who is "without gods" or "godless". Another way of phrasing that is someone who believes that god(s) do not exist.

Correct. In other words, gods do not exist in their reality.

Correct. See above.

... because they instead believe that there is no such thing as God.

See above.

 

If I am without Gods or Godless, I might be without Gods because I don't see any evidence for or against God's existence. I don't have to be someone who believes God doesn't exist.

 

ie they have reviewed the evidence and disbelieve iow reject the existence of any G/god. Thats pretty straight forward.

Since I never said or implied such a thing who are you going to argue with?

Thanks for your participation!
Its been a pleasure watching you single handedly destroy the LoB theory!

There isnt a neoatheist on the planet that would since its just 'another' one those pesky inconvenient truths they are not capable of dealing with.

 

I don't accept your premise.

I just don't see any way for religious belief to be measureable like that. And, belief that there is a god is a religious belief.

Beyond that, I don't know any religion that would accept your idea.

Matthew 23 doesn't say "more than 50%". I don't see how someone can be half way in with god. There certaily are lots of people who don't live their religion, but that's not the same issue.

Agnosticism may seem somewhere in between, but it really isn't. There, the answer isn't 50% - it is "I don't know". Those are not the same.

 

Many Christians do not know for absolutely certain, but they believe.

 

OK, and perhaps that is part of what this thread is about. And, it's quite true that humans waver.

However Christianity doesn't allow for wavering as far as I can tell. Matthew 23 (verses around 35 or so) gives a strong statement concerning what that god demands as a very first requirement.

That doesn't allow for 90% knowing or believing. Nor do I know what 90% would even mean.

Once one believes there is a god that provides an infinite afterlife, one's life on Earth ends up with no meaning outside of obedience to that god. So, we have martyrs who see being burned to death as inconsequential compared to compromising their beliefs even in outward appearance.

 

On dear won't I play with your little friend, how you doing with a picture of a chopped up belief. No trophy's for you until it is done!

 

That line of reasoning commits the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy, and is thus invalid.

Believe whatever you wish to believe. That decision is up to you. But if you are "without gods" or "godless", then you are believing that gods do not exist. In other words, your reality does not contain gods.


My question still stands: Why ought one define 'theism' via etymology yet NOT define 'atheism' via that same etymology?

 

Why do you have to believe God doesn't exist if you are without God?

 

Because this is a discussion about existence within a reality. To be "with" God is to 'have' God in existence, meaning that God exists in your reality. To be "without" God is to 'not have' God in existence, meaning that God does not exist in your reality.


Why ought one define 'theism' via etymology yet NOT define 'atheism' via that same etymology?

 

God may not be a part of my reality, but I understand that my reality is very limited and he may exist in the real reality. He isn't in my reality not because I think he isn't part of the real reality but because I don't see the evidence to positively confirm he is part of reality yet.

Lets say that I am working on a new theory of organ regeneration. At first, I will have the theory in my mind without the evidence for it yet. I don't believe the theory yet because of the lack of evidence. But that doesn't mean I believe the theory is false. If I believed it was false, I would just give it up.

 

removed

 

That isn't a good analogy. You don't have God on your person, you believe he exists somewhere. A better analogy is water in Jupiter. There is no evidence there is water in Jupiter. That doesn't mean there isn't water in Jupiter, just that I don't have the evidence to claim there is water in Jupiter. So I lack belief that there is water in Jupiter or not - believe there is water on jupiter. But I'm not claiming there isn't water there because there is no evidence to say there isn't.

 

Agreed. I didn't like it when I read it over after posting it, so I have removed it. I'm trying to think of a more visible way to express my position.

 

Well, I've asked you to clarify what you mean by for instance:

but you haven't been able to.

What does 50% lack of belief mean? What does 50% belief mean?