Atheism isn't a belief?

But A-Theism as a definition of being without an active belief in God, very much does sit in a vacuum. My own personal case is not typical.
When a baby is born, it has no concept of God and is therefore by definition lacking an active belief in God. It is an atheist. Beliefs, either positive or negative are built upon later. You are correct that every action or movement has a cause. However Atheism is (again by definition) a complete lack of action or movement. As such it is the default position at which we all start. A cause is required for us to move away from this position but not if we simply do nothing and stay there.The definition of SA that we both arrived at is a different point from this since is was driven toward the position of atheist by positive reinforcement of science. The pure essense of atheism, however, does not require this. All it needs is a complete lack of belief in god.
If someone has never heard of god they have no belief in him. Period. They are as pure an atheist as it is possible to be. Most of us cannot fall into this catagory. Understood. I think the thing that bugs me most is this a-anything which you keep throwing around. If somebody is a-anything then they must not believes anything at all, including the fact that they have hands and feet, that they actually exist, that Chevy Chase isn't actually funny and so on. The term is patently ludicrous.

Thanks for your input Phatboy. I agree with this 100% (except for the bible bit that is ) I quite agree. The very essence of my point is that it cannot be proven objectively, just as you say.

I wonder if finally you are getting it?
I doubt it though.
The point is that this statement actually strengthens the atheist position since the entire concept of god cannot be falsified or verified so this makes any kind of belief in it, utterly non-scientific and irrational. In your own word this makes god the direct equivelent of "nothing at all" so since I have no belief in this "nothing at all" due to its complete and utter insignificance then I am being 100% rational.

See the above statement about athiesm as you (and others) define it. In the light of that is your personal case a belief system? Not falsifiable or verifiable either PY. This presumes the only way to know anything is if you hear it or are taught it etc. This can be falsified by stating that God can put calling card in everyone at birth. I meant it in the sense that of a person who has no comment to make on "why it all is". Ask folk and they'll have an opinion: materialism, humanism, determinism, scientism, Goddidit. Maybe there are folk who have no comment to make on this issue but I've never met one. But if I were to then they would be an a-anything (to do with how and why we're here). I don't mean a-anything-at-all - Sorry for the confusion

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

But you have yet to give a basis as to why (naturalistically) objective is the only way for something to be proven. You put up the limits but can't show why those limits should be regarded as limits - except maybe to point to the 'limits' as defining the limits. Which would be circular.but lets not fall out at this late stage. If you want to believe that atheism isn't a belief system - then by all means believe it.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

This is quite simply not true. Please stop trying to force non-existent beliefs on me. There are no atheistic beliefs just as there is no light in absolute darkeness. Let's look at a few definitions from th eweb to see if we can put this to rest once and for all.
From Religious tolerance .org

quote:

---

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

---

Or this from Atheism about.com

quote:

---

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

---

There are hundreds of definitions out there that support a complete lack of belief in god without any other belief to replace it. Why can't you just accept that the definition of atheism does not stretch as far as reasons for the lack of belief or to any other beliefs that the atheist may or may not have.
The fact that I reached my own position through logical deduction and examination of evidence is completely irrelevent to my atheism.
The difinition of atheism simply stops at a lack of belief in GOD. Nothing else is included or excluded.

Don't try and twist this around. I am not the one making the claim that there are limits. You haven't shown that the limits even exist. You haven't shown that God exists. You haven't shown that atheism includes any beliefs.
Proof can only be objective since it is consists of evidence which is capable of convincing others of your point. You have shown no evidence at all of your point.
You can't prove something subjectively. The concept is meaningless

A statement which cannot be f/v'd cannot be used as a strengthener for anything. It is a non-statement before it can be used as a strengthener... Which is another statement which cannot be f/v'd. I'm afraid the onus on the atheist is to provide a statement of his/her position which can be f/v'd then we can look at it's merits. We can't hop from un - f/v -able statements first then use that to provide backup for the un- f/v -able statementThat would be a bootstrap arguement And whether the theistisc position is f/v or not is not the issue here. It's athiesm.Athiesm a belief system:- the classic atheistic position ("lacks belief in God") is not falsifible nor verifiable. Thus it is a non-statement
- to find out what the actual position of an athiests is we note that athiests all believe in some explanation for "why it all is" which provides them with a reason to say no God (otherwise they are a-anything). The beliefs they hold are not proven (although they may be in the future)
- thus atheism is a belief system based on faith. If it is held with ardor then it is a religion.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

All the way through this people have given the reasons why they hold no God: No objective evidence, naturalistic explanations suffice etc. These postitions were challenged. "you state these things but on what basis" I asked. Given that these statements couldn't be backed up by the people making them (and people made them - I just challenged them) they began to emphasis the 'lack of faith' position (which is precisely why the 'lack of faith' position was formulated)This position is not f/v thus is not a position.So we're back to "reasons for..."Which is belief You are I'm afraid. "There are no proofs that are not objective" is a claim which puts limits on what consitutes a proof (naturalistic objectivity only). But the claim hasn't been backed upThis message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 02:45 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

OK then. What is a proof?
Here is a nice easy definition from The free dictionary.com

quote:

---

proof (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

---

There are a few others but they don't really match the situation.
These all relate to evidence.How about "Objective" (same web site)

quote:

---

objective (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.

---

"Something that exists." I like that. I also like "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"
So when I ask for objective proof, I want evidence that exists. Is that too much to ask for?
Now can there be a proof that is not objective? That would be (by dictionary definition) evidence that does not exist.OK I have now thoroughly backed up my claim that evidence that actually exists is the only form of evidence which has any meaning.Over to you nowThis message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 08-29-2005 10:08 AM

10:4 Good buddy Your multiple defintions of 'proof' didn't once use the word 'objective'. There were plenty of them that didn't even imply objective. "Consideration of the evidence" but without it necessarily being naturalistic evidence.Neither did your defintions of objective use the word 'proof'Over....and out?Edit: your demand for objective proof is a demand that stems from the belief that objective is all there is. This hasn't been shown. And there's only a couple of posts to go PY. (p.s.:Maybe edit the existing post to add argument if you want to get in under the 300 limit)This message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 03:48 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Unfortunately, iano keeps twisting the meanings of words to suit his purpose. He confuses belief as a religion with believing that something is true.As a person who has no god and worships no god, then I am classified as an atheist. No more, no less. Anything else that I believe to be true in life does not fall under this heading.I found this web site on Religion of Atheism which I think presents our case very well, and also addresses iano's irrational "reasoning".

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I was just using the definition in the dictionary. People who write dictionaries are very careful to provide accurate meanings of words. If 'proof' was something that had to have the words 'naturalistically objective' associated with it then those words would have been included/implied in all the definitions. If there is any twisting then it would be profitable to demonstrate rather that assert it. By whom - athiests? That's a bootstrap argument. A dictionary may describe a thief as someone who steals others goods - period. But here as with atheism, it makes no comment on why a thief steals others goods. Where else in life do people have views /take particular actions for no reason? Now we are into reasons for atheism. Which is what I have been saying all along. The athiest can get into discussion about these reasons and then come to a conclusion about them. If given a reason as to why there is no contradiction he may chose to to say it is unreasonable but his reason needs to be complete. If he says things like 'no objective evidence' then such things need to be backed up as being reasonable.Is it his opinion? If so could it be made under conditions which are described in the verse in the signature below? If so, it may seem that there is a contradiction but in forming that judgment the athesit would be forming it without access to the knowledge which reveals that it is not a contradiction. A shot in the dark as it were.Anyway...we're nearly at an end PD. Thanks for the discussion. I've enjoyed it. Hope you have tooThis message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 05:03 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

This is just getting silly.
Proof = Evidence
Objective = Something real, that exists.It quite obviously follows that "Objective Proof" is the same thing as "evidence that exists"The fact that the definition of "Proof" does not include the word "Evidence" and vice versa is utterly irrelevent.Look up the word "big" if you like. You will find that it means large, huge, not small etc.
Now look up the word "Elephant". (An african or Indian mammal with a trunk). It doesn't say "Big" in it does it?
Does that mean that the definition of "Big" is invalidated because it isn't included?Of course not.Proof and Objective are not the same word are they. Why the heck would the definition of one include the other. They are totally unrelated except when placed together in a sentance just like Big and Elephant.If you are going to twist things around beyond all sensible meaning just for the heck of it then this whole debate is pointless.Give us credible, believable, objective ("Real") evidence or don't expect any more responses at all.All you are doing is disputing reality.

That is because big is a relative term. An elephant is big but an ocean liner is big. So is your average star. Compared to these an elephant is small. Deciding that you want words to mean certain things doesn't mean they do. In appealing to 'everyone knows this is what it means' you jump outside debate. Millions of people know that God exists - far more that believe he doesn't. Does this mean that their definition of 'know' should hold sway? Of course not.PY, you want people to accept 'naturalistic objective evidence' is all there is. That there is no way to know anything except by those means. You ask people to just be reasonable and believe your belief. That isn't what this gig is about. You've valiently attempted to show objectivity is all - but you've not achieved that goal. Thus a belief it remains. You don't have to believe this view. You may know otherwise. But you'd be in precisely the same position as a thiest. You know something but you can't objectively show it.Thanks for the effort put in. Your a trooper There is a by product to all this and it is 'understanding through discussion'. I understand more about the atheistic position than I did at the start. I hope you got something from it too (a definition of SA at least)This message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 05:47 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14