The definition of atheism

Thanks, ass. The way you use words, the dictionary might not help anyways (see OP). Besides, its not that I don't know what the words mean, its that they don't make sense together and the sentence is ambiguous. Among his believers, god is constantly between sessions for good? or are you saying that god is constantly between sessions for 'good among his believers'? Either way, I still don't know what you mean. Why don't you just tell me what you mean? Its impossible to see that it is impossible for god to exist.

God.Get a dictionary.Look up the word "intercede". Inflect it as gerund, and ignore the fact that I spelled it with an "s" instead of a "c".Does it make sense, now? Next time you don't understand a phrase that's perfect plain english, you're going to have to do better than "duh, I don't get it" if you expect a meaningful response from me. I can't read your mind and find out which words you don't understand. Nonsense, unless words have no meaning. Do words have meaning, CS?

oh, i'm sorry that I misunderstood you because you spelled something wrong. I guess that's my fault. IMHO, perfect plain english would be SPELLED CORRECTLY. No, it still doesn't. I don't see how god intercedes for good, and there's still the ambiguity of either him interceding, among his believers, for the good...or him interceding for 'the good among his believers'. Still though, either way, it isn't making much sense. yes, words have meaning. Let me pull some teeth, so your saying that benevolence and omnipotence are impossible qualities for god to have? or is it that if god has those qualities then its impossible for him to exist? If you read the OP, you'd see that the dictionary is what caused this thread.

Of course you don't see it; he doesn't do it. Because he doesn't exist as described by the Christian religion.Which was the whole point. What's the problem here? No, a god could have them. The gods that exist, if any, clearly do not possess both of these qualities, because otherwise we would see a constant intercession for good, the good of their believers, at least.Let's try it another way. Does Bill have a lawn-omnipotence (does he have the ability to mow his lawn and a lawn mower to do it) and lawn-benevolence (does he have the intention of mowing his lawn)? Well, when we look at his lawn and see that it's an overgrown thicket, we know that Bill does not possess those qualities as we have described him. He either lacks the power or lacks the will.

You're not making any sense, and instead of trying to better explain yourself, your saying just figure it out.I don't know what a constant intercession for good means.

quote:

---

intercession ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-sshn)
n.
Entreaty (An earnest request or petition; a plea) in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another

---

So your saying that if god existed then he would constantly be interceding, or pleaing, for the good of his believers? How does that mean anything? Finally, I don't know why it takes has to take three posts. But YOU're deciding how long the lawn should be. Its impossible for you to know that. Maybe the overgrown thicket is how long Bill wants his lawn to be. What if Bill's backyard was a forest, and he has trimmed it down to an overgrown thicket? He could have the power and the will but you don't think he does because of your subjective opinion of how long you think his lawn should be.

quote:

---

Main Entry: intercede
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'sEd
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ceded; -ceding
Etymology: Latin intercedere, from inter- + cedere to go
: to intervene between parties with a view to reconciling differences : MEDIATE
synonym see INTERPOSE
- interceder noun

---

Yes. If God existed, he would be interceding to do good and prevent evil, for either everyone or his followers, constantly and in every case. Then he has no intention of mowing it, now does he? If God wants it to be an evil world then God is not benevolent, unless words have no meaning. Thus, a benevolent God does not exist. Just as Bill and I are both endowed with the same ability to determine when a lawn is mowed and when it is not, so too are God and I endowed with the same ability to determine good from evil. It says so in Genesis. No matter how subjective good and evil may be both God and I are using the same standard so your objection is meaningless.

I seem to recall going over a discussion a little like this with you about a year ago. Experience would lead me to predict that it with smash the crap out of my foot. I have personally carried out a number of experiments with gravity, physics and a number of other things which lead me to that conclusion. No belief involved. You actually believe that stuff? Shame on you.Your point is taken though. A certain amount of belief is required at some point or you could never trust that anything is right unless personally tested. When I hear on the news that there has been a bombing in London, I have no reason to doubt it so I suppose that is belief of a kind.
However it is still a case of scientific methodology determining if a given source of information is trustworthy or not. ie. BBC America have never lied to me before (to my knowledge) so they probably aren't now. In this respect the trust I place in their honesty is not entirely without proven merit so my original argument still stands. Past experience allows me to predict that their information will be correct so I give them the benefit of the doubt and believe what they say until such time as they are caught out in a lie. I realise that I may not be the norm in this case but personally I try to verify everything before I trust it. Possibly. Like I said though, what is in a name? I don't need to be compartmentalized. I am just me.This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 07-20-2005 09:07 AM

But I don't put a label on myself. Others do that for me. First someone calls me an Atheist because I don't believe in god and because they don't accept that there is a difference between absence of belief and belief in absence, then someone else like 1.6 above says that I am a closer fit with the definition "Agnostic". Make your mind up guys! What am I? I couldn't care less either way.I am just here to say that there most definitely is a difference between belief in absence and absence of belief.

thanks for your reply: You do realize that there is no way to KNOW that one set of circumstances has anything to do with another.
Causality is merely postulated. And again we must BELIEVE that the effect was a direct result. We can never really KNOW it for certain. Regardless of how much previous data suggest that the same effect will occur it is still a independant event.You say experience would lead you to predict that it would smash your foot. So you BELIEVE your prediction to be a plausible one based on your knowlege of gravity and past experiances. You can conclude that you will need a cast.I believe the sun will rise tomorrow
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow
I know the sun will rise tomorrow. (really?) and just how do you KNOW?ok try this one:
I believe I will awaken tomorrow
I have faith I will awaken tomorrow.
I KNOW I will awaken tomorrow. (Really?) how do you Know?see my point?

Sure I realize that. Knowing anything for certain is impossible IMO. Agreed! I can see where you are coming from but this is where I disagree with you. I don't think belief is necessary at all. As you pointed out above, I am never going to be certain that one event will follow another just because it did so the last 317 times I did the same thing. If I am not certain then I don't beleive it will happen. I simply calculate that there is a pretty strong chance that the 318th time will result in the same sequence of events. That isn't belief. That is playing the odds in a calculated fashion. No. I calculate that there is a very strong chance that I will need a cast based on my previous observations that the anvil falls. No belief because I don't know for sure without proof. No I don't. There is actually a fairly good chance that I won't. uhhhh! NO! (see above points)I do understand what you are trying to say but I just don't see any degree of absolute certainty about anything, anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Without unfounded certainty there is simply no belief. There is just a tentative prediction of the future based on past experience which may or may not turn out to be correct.

While writing my latest reply to 1.6, it occurred to me that maybe we are not working with the same definition of the word "belief" so I went looking for the meaning of the term.Here is the meaning that I am adhering to. Maybe others see it differently but my argument hinges on this definition. Not too sure about #1 but either way it doesn't fit the context of the question posed. "Is belief in absence" the same as an "absence of belief"Belief in something (anything including absence of something) requires a conviction or acceptance of the truth of one's position.
The absence of belief means that there is no conviction or acceptance of any truth at all. That is my position.I do not accept that there is any way to objectively know the truth of anything. In fact I don't even know that for sure.

Purple Youko, wow! Does that mean you are not sure that you exist? Whatever happend to? "I think, therefore I am." You wrote: "The absence of belief means that there is no conviction or acceptance of any truth at all." Belief in what? I don't believe God or gods exist but that does not affect my recognition of the material universe, or in the objective reality of chemical reactions. I think you have become a bit too etherial. Although I do accept that what I may view as perfectly good theory today (such as the Big Bang)I may have to reject tomorrow.For the record I recognize that word meanings evolve and that different subgroups of us humans have different definitions and understandings of words based on our preconceptions. But for me atheist means one who does not recognize the existence of the Christian God (in his multi-facets) nor in the existence of any other god, no matter what definition you may choose to apply.I hope I have not offended you in any way. I just disagree with what I think you are saying (it sounds somewhat -- Platonist?)Also, this is my first post. Hello everyone.This message has been edited by Born Again Atheist, 07-21-2005 02:11 AM

welcome, have fun. Do you hold a positive affirmation that god does not exist? Do you recognize the difference between not recognizing the existence of god and recognizing the non-existance of god?See the OP (opening post) and if you do recognize the difference, and I see you call yourself an atheist, please answer the questions at the end of the OP.

My take on the word atheist is this.A theist is someone who believes in one or many gods.An atheist is a person who is not a theist.Notice that this fits perfectly with the greek root of the word "godless".A newborn baby is without belief in any gods, actually the concept of gods is unknown to the baby.The strong atheist has been exposed to the concept of a god, but believes that such a thing does not exist. The weak atheist, like the newborn child, does not hold a belief in any gods.But both the strong and the weak atheist have no god. They are godless. Just like the greek root says.Atheism is solely defined by theism. Without theism, there would be no atheism, since without the concepts of gods, we would not recognize individuals who did not have faith in the existence of said entities./SorenThis message has been edited by kongstad, 21-Jul-2005 12:59 PM

No offence taken. I know what you mean about the way my arguments are starting to sound. Before I got into this discussion I probably would have thought the same thing about someone else posting this stuff. It is just that while actually examining the subject and the way I really feel in the most objective way I am able to, I find that my views are actually nothing like I first thought they were. I never did really buy into that line in the first place. "I think therefore I am" is a bit of a large leap of logic. It is also an incomplete statement in many ways.
"I am". I am what though? As an analogy, what if I am just a small subroutine in a large program that has developed some kind of self awareness. I could be completely delusional about what I actually am. My image of myself lives within a framework that appears to follow a bunch of rules. My life and work is in studying (at least some of) those rules, interpretting them and trying to make sense out of what I see. I have no way to know if what I see is correct or even if it exists at all, but that has no bearing on the way I live my life. I have to live within the framework, be it real or not, so learning the way it appears to operate would seem the best approach, right?
When I look really deeply into the rules of this place I find that at some level the things that seem real actually break down under extreme conditions.
We may have found a pretty good way to describe our universe mathematically but nothing is 100% certain ever. All the time our perceptions and models are improving.Admittedly, I am actively exagerating the uncertainty levels to reinforce my position. In the anvil/foot example I am 99.99999999999999999% sure that I am going to need a bunch of repairs done on my foot when I drop the thing but there is a theoretical possibility (incredibly slim) that it could quantum tunnel through my foot without ever touching it. A whole number of other things might also happen to divert its path or forcibly move my foot out of the way. That sounds like the same thing I have been saying. The key words are "not recognize". To me, an absence of recognition is completely different than a positive assertion of non existence and that is the whole point. I can never say with absolute certainty that no god exists. The evidence points that way but if I can't even be sure that an electron exists in a given position at a given time then the best I can say is that I am 99.99999999999% convinced.