Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
05-14-2011, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-14-2011 11:08 AM by IMtM.)
Post: #1
IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
I'm creating this thread in order to gather all of my various definitions from the forums into one place, as well as to create a place to add any further terms which my mind feels like conjuring. I'll be posting more as they come up. Feel free to add your own, but be ready for them to be heavily scrutinized by myself and, hopefully, others. Excepted terms must conform to the term Atheism, which is the first definition on this page. Just so you know. Tongue

Atheism - (n.) is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural. (This one is taken from the website of the AFA. Geez, I start a thread for my own definitions and the very first one comes from somewhere else. Smile)

Spirituality - (n.) anything which facilitates the evolution of the consciousness and which lies flatly within the confines erected by the definition of the word atheism. No supernatural entities or concepts of any sort are, or can be, involved.
Some examples of Spiritual practices are Yoga (see here), psychotherapy, guided development of the will, entheogen use, etc..

Prayer - (n.) wishful thinking contingent upon doing the work yourself or waiting for coincidence, while possessing an inherent attitude of superstition and prostration.

New Age - (n.) any practice which is created in order to dupe or manipulate others using pseudo-scientific methods and vague,
unsubstantiated claims, most often with the objective of receiving material compensation for the efforts of the New Age practitioner.
Some examples of New Age practices are tarot readings, yoga classes, crystal healings, chiropractics, chakra manipulation, chi, feng shui, astrology, psychic mediums, reiki, etc..

New Age practitioner - (n.) any person who utilizes New Age methods for personal gain or otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 01:48 PM
Post: #2
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
(05-14-2011 11:03 AM)IMtM Wrote:  Atheism - (n.) is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural. (This one is taken from the website of the AFA. Geez, I start a thread for my own definitions and the very first one comes from somewhere else. Smile)

sorry, I just have to be annoying like this... Tongue

atheism is simply the rejection of the claim that there is a deity, the motive for rejecting a deity is not in any way a criteria for being an atheist. so, one does not need to accept that "there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god" in order to be an atheist.

And I think that that sentence is formulated that way by the atheist-foundation because they want to highlight that the is no "credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god" but its more about propaganda than being correct IMO.

I know that its a stupid thing to argue about but is still matters to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 02:33 PM
Post: #3
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
You're a real snake man, you know that? Wink

Thank you much for bringing this info up, I appreciate it a lot. As a writer I always endeavor to use the most accurate and comprehensive definitions available, and when I can't find such definitions I like to make my own (while making sure that they still conform to the accepted popular definition).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 02:57 PM
Post: #4
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
(05-15-2011 02:33 PM)IMtM Wrote:  You're a real snake man, you know that? Wink

you have no idea Cool
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 05:21 PM
Post: #5
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
I started off writing that both of those definitions meant basically the same thing. But the more I thought about it the more sense it made to me what Tantilla was saying. Definition one (which, by they way, pretty much describes my position) says "I don't believe in god/s because there is no evidence for their existence" the second one simply says "I don't believe in god/s". I think that maybe the AFA is trying to prove themselves intellectually superior to the atheist who simply rejects god/s without supporting their position by adding the qualifying statement. It also seems to me that the AFA definition of atheist is probably closer to what Pain was saying in other threads about weak atheism vs strong atheism.

He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how. - Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 05:50 PM
Post: #6
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
@tantoo: I agree. The AFA definition does not bother me. I understand their motives. Yours is the proper framing of the statement though.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Post: #7
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
Hello,

(05-15-2011 05:21 PM)Flipper Wrote:  I started off writing that both of those definitions meant basically the same thing. But the more I thought about it the more sense it made to me what Tantilla was saying. Definition one (which, by they way, pretty much describes my position) says "I don't believe in god/s because there is no evidence for their existence" the second one simply says "I don't believe in god/s". I think that maybe the AFA is trying to prove themselves intellectually superior to the atheist who simply rejects god/s without supporting their position by adding the qualifying statement. It also seems to me that the AFA definition of atheist is probably closer to what Pain was saying in other threads about weak atheism vs strong atheism.

The difference between the two is far greater than that. The 1. definition just describes the lack of credible evidence for the existence of God, gods or the supernatural and not the belief in these. According to this definition quite a bunch of christians and possibly also believers of other faith's who believe there is no objective evidence for God would be atheists which is quite absurd. Tantilla's definition on the other hand is more logical coherent since his definition refers not to the question of what evidence is there for these claims but to the rejection of these claims. A second note for the definition of the AFA. the notion of the supernatural is not relevant for the position of atheism as such. In fact there are quite some atheist's who believe in the existence of the supernatural. Two contemporary examples would be the following. A lot of mathematicians believe that numbers, set's and theorems are necessarily existing, eternal, immaterial abstract objects. Also moral platonism would be a good contemporary example of supernatural belief which are entirely compatible with atheism.

I would stick with the classical definition of atheism which is quite simply the position that God or gods do not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-15-2011, 07:50 PM
Post: #8
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
(05-15-2011 07:15 PM)Hamza Abdulhakim Wrote:  Hello,
The difference between the two is far greater than that. The 1. definition just describes the lack of credible evidence for the existence of God, gods or the supernatural and not the belief in these. According to this definition quite a bunch of christians and possibly also believers of other faith's who believe there is no objective evidence for God would be atheists which is quite absurd. Tantilla's definition on the other hand is more logical coherent since his definition refers not to the question of what evidence is there for these claims but to the rejection of these claims. A second note for the definition of the AFA. the notion of the supernatural is not relevant for the position of atheism as such. In fact there are quite some atheist's who believe in the existence of the supernatural. Two contemporary examples would be the following. A lot of mathematicians believe that numbers, set's and theorems are necessarily existing, eternal, immaterial abstract objects. Also moral platonism would be a good contemporary example of supernatural belief which are entirely compatible with atheism.

I would stick with the classical definition of atheism which is quite simply the position that God or gods do not exist.

G'day Hamza,

I can see your point but in the context of a definition of atheism I think it is pretty safe to assume that the AFA definition takes for granted that an atheist doesn't believe in god/s or the supernatural because of the lack of evidence.

Many people believe many things without any evidence, which I find highly illogical. To me it doesn't make any sense to believe something for which there is no evidence. If some one says to me that they believe something I will ask them why, if the answer is faith alone then I will tend to dismiss their claims, if they can offer some evidence then I will gladly examine that evidence and decide for myself whether or not the evidence requires a change of position.

Quote:A lot of mathematicians believe that numbers, set's and theorems are necessarily existing, eternal, immaterial abstract objects.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here Hamza, I'm not a mathematician, but surely these beliefs are based on evidence that exists within the natural laws of the universe? To my mind, once something is demonstrated to exist within the natural laws of the universe it ceases to be supernatural. Kind of in the same way that ancient Egyptians believed the the sun was moved across the sky in the chariot of the sun god Ra. That to me is a supernatural proposition. Scientific evidence now tells us that the Earth is rotating around the sun and spinning on it's access which gives us the illusion of the sun rising and falling and there is therefore no longer required a supernatural explanation.

He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how. - Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-16-2011, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-16-2011 06:11 AM by jrpurdon.)
Post: #9
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
Agnosticism (n.) - 1) a stance regarding human knowledge of the existence of gods, specifically that their existence is either unknown (sometimes called weak agnosticism) or unknowable (sometimes called strong agnosticism); 2) a state of uncertainty about the existence of gods, fence-sitting; 3) the belief that gods might exist, but there is not yet credible evidence to support that position (sometimes called weak atheism).

I think that covers how the word is typically used. Of course, I'd argue that definition (1) is correct and definitions (2) and (3) are technically misuses.
Atheism (n.) - 1) a worldview which does not include the existence of gods; 2) the belief that gods might exist, but there is not yet credible evidence to support that position (sometimes called weak atheism); 3) the belief that gods do not exist (sometimes called strong atheism); 4) a religion that rejects the notion of gods in favor of secularism.

Again, this seems to cover common usage, although definition (1) I'd argue is correct and the remaining definitions seem to miss the point.

Join Atheism Today! Be sure to ask about our sexy parties. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-16-2011, 10:55 PM
Post: #10
RE: IMtM's Dictionary of.... oh, Words!
(05-16-2011 06:05 AM)jrpurdon Wrote:  Atheism (n.) - 1) a worldview which does not include the existence of gods;
So, can we all agree that this is a stable hypostasis from which to begin building a definition?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)