Atheism: a "faith", a "leap of faith", or neither?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Annoying? Delighted to annoy you Wicknight. Call it whatever you want, gods, divine beings, creator entity etc.

But that is exactly the point, by calling "it" all these different terms you get to a point when "it" is so undefined as to be nonsense. And it is impossible to debate the existence of something that can change definition almost mid sentence.

Your god, what you consider God, does not exist. I can say that confidently not because I have reason that he doesn't exist (impossible to know because of the way he defined as existing outside this universe), but because I have reason he was made up by humans. And things humans make up tend not to exist.

If he does actually exist it will be a wild coincidence

JimiTime wrote: »

It comes down to this though. Judging by what is being said, you guys are mis-defined. You are saying that there could be some force/entity/intelligent designer. That does not seem to be the definition of atheist.

We are not mis-defined at all.

There may be some intelligent agent out there, I have no idea. It would be fascinating if there was but as such there is no evidence of one, or reason to believe one is required for anything, but it would certainly be interesting. I sincerely doubt that there isn't life on other planets, and this would extend to other universes assuming they exist.

But if these beings exist they aren't any of the ones that theists claim they are.

Therefore I reject the beliefs and assertions of theists. Hence a-theist.

This is why I keep saying that it is more correct to say that atheism is a rejection of a belief rather than a belief in itself.

You guys don't know what you are talking about and you are making all this stuff up is basically the best way of summing up the atheist position

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

is that not an unnecessary leap though?


But atheist or agnostic specifically deals with, gods, divine beings etc. it deals with the question of our origins. Once we bring things like santa etc into it, it just gets silly. We are talking about a serious question of the origins of the universe and of life. An atheist rules out an explanation(a divine being), without having anything to really base it on. i rule out Santa Claus' existence on the fact that we know from history he was a being made up for children.

Yeah that was a bit silly.:D:D You say a divine being is an explanation, but what really does it explain? There's no need for it, scientists can explain fairly well everything from the start of the big bang. Sure they don't have all the details, and they could be wrong about a few things, but where's the need for a divine being? You might say it started the universe, gave a kick off, but then you just have to explain the existence of the divine being. Infinite regression etc...

I know you think the divine being(God) takes a personal interest in your life, but since you don't have your Christian hat for the moment, let's just ignore that and focus on the deistic part.

A theory that explains the universe by invoking a divine being has a lot of things to explain, not least the existence of the divine being itself.

I still think the Santa Claus example is a good one. A lot of atheists would think of religion as stories for adults, rather than stories for children... Where do you think the example breaks down? It's just on a smaller scale, that's all.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is exactly the point, by calling "it" all these different terms you get to a point when "it" is so undefined as to be nonsense. And it is impossible to debate the existence of something that can change definition almost mid sentence.

I'm just going off the definition as I thought it was. the belief that no gods or divine beings etc. exist.

Your god, what you consider God, does not exist. I can say that confidently not because I have reason that he doesn't exist (impossible to know because of the way he defined as existing outside this universe), but because I have reason he was made up by humans. And things humans make up tend not to exist.

This seems more specific to the Christian God. Atheist is a far looser term.

We are not mis-defined at all.

There may be some intelligent agent out there, I have no idea. It would be fascinating if there was but as such there is no evidence of one, or reason to believe one is required for anything, but it would certainly be interesting. I sincerely doubt that there isn't life on other planets, and this would extend to other universes assuming they exist.

But if these beings exist they aren't any of the ones that theists claim they are.

Therefore I reject the beliefs and assertions of theists. Hence a-theist.

This is why I keep saying that it is more correct to say that atheism is a rejection of a belief rather than a belief in itself.

You may say its a 'rejection of belief'. But there are others here that have said that people are born atheist. It seems that there are alot of definitions doing the rounds.

You guys don't know what you are talking about and you are making all this stuff up is basically the best way of summing up the atheist position

I still think I'll use the dictionary, but I'll bare in mind your own definitions.



All and all guys, its been an enlightening discussion. Thanks to all for contributing, it certainly gives an insight into the various views.
J.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't have faith that the sun isn't revolving around the Earth, you have further evidence that it isn't. If you didn't have further evidence and you believed it wasn't then you would have faith.

Faith is trusting in the correctness of a position despite the evidence pointing to the contrary position, or trusting in the beneficial actions of another despite the evidence suggesting that this will not come.

That is what faith is. If that doesn't describe your attitudes towards God then fair enough, faith is the wrong word for your state of belief, but there is little point changing the meaning of the word to fit your state of belief.

No, that doesn't describe my attitudes towards God, nor indeed of any other Christians that I know. So, by your humpty-dumpty use of words, Christianity becomes a faithless religion.

Congratulations, you have just rendered the discussion meaningless.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

Yeah that was a bit silly.:D:D You say a divine being is an explanation, but what really does it explain? There's no need for it, scientists can explain fairly well everything from the start of the big bang. Sure they don't have all the details, and they could be wrong about a few things, but where's the need for a divine being? You might say it started the universe, gave a kick off, but then you just have to explain the existence of the divine being. Infinite regression etc...

I'm not even saying its needed. I'm saying why bother rejecting it? There is no grounds for such rejection.

A theory that explains the universe by invoking a divine being has a lot of things to explain, not least the existence of the divine being itself.

Indeed. But thats no reason to rule it out IMO.

I still think the Santa Claus example is a good one. A lot of atheists would think of religion as stories for adults, rather than stories for children... Where do you think the example breaks down? It's just on a smaller scale, that's all.

Well, we know Santa is not real. It has never been claimed he is real. i think we know the origins of the story, and that they originated as just that, a story. It wasn't thought as fact, and did not pertain to anything of importance.

We are talking about the origins of the universe and of life. something science has not been able to answer, but something we'd like to know. Science does not rule out a divine being, nor does it include one. It merely has not got the relevant knowledge. On that basis, I think saying you are 'atheist' is a leap of faith.

Anyway, My heads throbbing, and I'm gettin blisters on the 2 fingers i type with:) I've enjoyed the discussion.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

No, that doesn't describe my attitudes towards God, nor indeed of any other Christians that I know. So, by your humpty-dumpty use of words, Christianity becomes a faithless religion.

Congratulations, you have just rendered the discussion meaningless.

How has it rendered it meaningless, in fact it bring up a rather pertinant point.

In essence you are saying that one of the defintations of faith as defined in the dictionary is not reflective of the reality of how you percieve your faith.

The entire point of this thread has been that the black and white dictionary defination of atheist is not how many atheists is not how many percieve themselves, despite JimiTime's admirable stubborness to stick to it.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not even saying its needed. I'm saying why bother rejecting it? There is no grounds for such rejection.

Indeed. But thats no reason to rule it out IMO.

Well, we know Santa is not real. It has never been claimed he is real. i think we know the origins of the story, and that they originated as just that, a story. It wasn't thought as fact, and did not pertain to anything of importance.

We are talking about the origins of the universe and of life. something science has not been able to answer, but something we'd like to know. Science does not rule out a divine being, nor does it include one. It merely has not got the relevant knowledge. On that basis, I think saying you are 'atheist' is a leap of faith.

Anyway, My heads throbbing, and I'm gettin blisters on the 2 fingers i type with:) I've enjoyed the discussion.

But rejection (based on evidence* pointing towards the non-existance of God) is subtly different to non acceptance (based the lack of evidence* for the existance of God), and both are different potential atheist viewpoints.

* Disclaimer * Don't want to start debate defining this evidence - obviously theistic and atheistic opnions will differ sharply about what is admissable or not *

Anyway interesting discussion, you have certainly given my brain a good workout today

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

We are talking about the origins of the universe and of life. something science has not been able to answer, but something we'd like to know. Science does not rule out a divine being, nor does it include one. It merely has not got the relevant knowledge. On that basis, I think saying you are 'atheist' is a leap of faith.

I don't know why you attribute specialness to a divine creator. If you can say with surety that you don't believe in fairies, unicorns or other imaginary beings, what's the difference with a divine creator. I may be wrong about it, just as I may be wrong about unicorns. But until evidence appears that supports a divine creator, I have no reason to believe in one.

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, My heads throbbing, and I'm gettin blisters on the 2 fingers i type with:) I've enjoyed the discussion.

As have I.

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

In essence you are saying that one of the defintations of faith as defined in the dictionary is not reflective of the reality of how you percieve your faith.

Would that be the English dictionary or the Wicknightian dictionary?

JimiTime

marco_polo wrote: »

The entire point of this thread has been that the black and white dictionary defination of atheist is not how many atheists is not how many percieve themselves, despite JimiTime's admirable stubborness to stick to it.

Ehh, hang on there. Firstly, different atheists have different views on atheism. that is what this thread has shown. Seeing how 'atheism' is not an organisation etc, the only thing one can really do is use the dictionary definition. I can see that many don't hold to this definition, but seeing how it depends on the individual, its not really definable apart from the dictionary. Its like, 'this is the definition' however some keep the title but change its meaning, or elaborate its meaning etc.

I'm officially gone now though Ow me pointin' fingers.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

Would that be the English dictionary or the Wicknightian dictionary?

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3..8 (Nothing interesting here wouldn't even bother looking them up )

This is the defination that I am conviently and mischievously using for the purpose of my point

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehh, hang on there. Firstly, different atheists have different views on atheism. that is what this thread has shown. Seeing how 'atheism' is not an organisation etc, the only thing one can really do is use the dictionary definition. I can see that many don't hold to this definition, but seeing how it depends on the individual, its not really definable apart from the dictionary. Its like, 'this is the definition' however some keep the title but change its meaning, or elaborate its meaning etc.

I'm officially gone now though Ow me pointin' fingers.

Consider the amount of time that has been spent by philosophers on the subject, it is probably the case that the wording of the dictionary definations of atheist / agnostic is too simplistic.

Anyone fancy another thread on this topic ?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Bertrand Russell said to the Philosopher I am an agnostic, to the layman I am an atheist.

Just quoting this again for emphasis, as I think it explains a lot regarding the discrepancies JimiTime is seeing in the definition of "atheist".

I know your fingers hurt, Jimi, but does that quote shed any light?

Good thread - and not done yet I'd say!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, that doesn't describe my attitudes towards God, nor indeed of any other Christians that I know. So, by your humpty-dumpty use of words, Christianity becomes a faithless religion.

No, under your insistence that you base your belief in God is based simply on the evidence put to you that clearly demonstrates (to you at least) that God obviously exists and is what you believe him to be, you render your religion a religion not based on faith but on evidence.

But then I thought that was exactly what you were trying to do, because you seem to bring up the issue of evidence when ever someone made the claim that religions are faith based not evidence based, a common attack against religion as simply being wishful thinking or the desire to believe in a protector that will make everything ok. You are insistent that your belief in God is based on a rational and reasoned judgment of the evidence for his existence. That is not faith.

I would point out that this position is some what contradicted by the rather common comments you make about not understanding or knowing aspects of the doctrine of your religion, but still trusting God that he knows best. That is certainly faith.

The most obvious example is the genocide in the Old Testament. All the evidence seems to point to a contrary position, but you side with the doctrine of your religion and your god based on your faith that there is a good reason this was done, despite you not knowing about or understand that reason. To me this would be strong evidence God doesn't know best, but you have faith (a trust not confirmed by evidence) that he does, even if you can't explain why killing all these people was "good"

PDN wrote: »

Congratulations, you have just rendered the discussion meaningless.

No idea what that refers to

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm just going off the definition as I thought it was. the belief that no gods or divine beings etc. exist.

Yes, but you need to understand that "gods" and "divine beings" are human constructs, and that if someone is out there (to quote X-Files), it isn't one of these things. It is something we have no concept of.

Thing of this way. A conspiracy theorist on the Internet might constantly be coming up, in his own imagination, all these conspiracies that he says the FBI and the CIA are doing.

If by pure coincidence he actually does think up a scheme that the CIA actually are doing, the fact that they are the same thing or similar does not mean that the theorist is actually right. His theory in his head is not the same as what is actually happening, even if they are the share properties. The theory in his head is simply imagination.

There are hundreds if not thousands of different ideas of gods or divine beings. I reject all of them, even if they may some how by sheer luck match some property of a being that actually is out there. I do this in the same way that I know the conspiracy theorist is wrong, all the time, even if one of his theories by sheer luck match some property of a real CIA scheme.

Or another way, say two authors come up with the same story independently as each other. Even though the stories are similar they are not actually the same concept, one author did not steal the other authors story. Each other can correctly say that the story is their own.

If you guys happen to randomly match a property of your invented beings with something that actually exists, that doesn't stop me rejecting your invented being.

JimiTime wrote: »

You may say its a 'rejection of belief'. But there are others here that have said that people are born atheist. It seems that there are alot of definitions doing the rounds.

Those two things aren't in conflict. People say that because if you are not aware of any human invented concepts of gods or deities, then you won't accept them (you can't, you don't even know they exist).

The collection of accepted ideas is therefore the same. I accept your theories and beliefs about gods as much as someone who has never heard them (ie not in the slightest).

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3..8 (Nothing interesting here wouldn't even bother looking them up )

This is the defination that I am conviently and mischievously using for the purpose of my point

And it is a definition that I am totally comfortable with. Maybe, while you have your dictionary open, you might look up 'evidence' and 'proof' and appreciate the difference.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

And it is a definition that I am totally comfortable with. Maybe, while you have your dictionary open, you might look up 'evidence' and 'proof' and appreciate the difference.

You have just hit impresive new heights of pedanticalness even for this thread.

The existance of evidence to the contrary implies that something is not proven.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No, under your insistence that you base your belief in God is based simply on the evidence put to you that clearly demonstrates (to you at least) that God obviously exists and is what you believe him to be, you render your religion a religion not based on faith but on evidence.

But then I thought that was exactly what you were trying to do, because you seem to bring up the issue of evidence when ever someone made the claim that religions are faith based not evidence based, a common attack against religion as simply being wishful thinking or the desire to believe in a protector that will make everything ok. You are insistent that your belief in God is based on a rational and reasoned judgment of the evidence for his existence. That is not faith.

I would point out that this position is some what contradicted by the rather common comments you make about not understanding or knowing aspects of the doctrine of your religion, but still trusting God that he knows best. That is certainly faith.

The most obvious example is the genocide in the Old Testament. All the evidence seems to point to a contrary position, but you side with the doctrine of your religion and your god based on your faith that there is a good reason this was done, despite you not knowing about or understand that reason. To me this would be strong evidence God doesn't know best, but you have faith (a trust not confirmed by evidence) that he does, even if you can't explain why killing all these people was "good"

Oh come on, there is a world of difference between how you defined 'faith' earlier and the fact that I trust God even though there is some stuff that I don't understand.

I see evidence to support my beliefs. Let's say that I see that evidence as being powerful, but that there are some smaller matters that I don't understand. Let's say that the evidence makes me 90% convinced that all this Christianity stuff is true - but that the things that I don't understand create a 10% doubt. Faith, based on the 90% of evidence, certainly 'fills in the gap'. But that is a very different thing from pretending that faith somehow involves believing despite the evidence.

In fact, I would suspect that most atheists, if they were honest enough, would admit that they reach conclusions by a very similar manner. They see evidence that they think argues against God's existence, and they believe that evidence is weighty enough to overrule anything that might create doubts.

However, most atheists seem to prefer to pretend that they have reached their conclusions solely on evidential grounds and are therefore more rational than theists who, they pretend, operate without, or even in the teeth of, any evidence. Then they wonder why they appear arrogant to believers.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

And it is a definition that I am totally comfortable with. Maybe, while you have your dictionary open, you might look up 'evidence' and 'proof' and appreciate the difference.

Dunno what dictionary you are using but they are synonyms.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/proof

Every single dictionary I have looked at has an antonym reference to the other word in the entry for the word I looked up.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Oh come on, there is a world of difference between how you defined 'faith' earlier and the fact that I trust God even though there is some stuff that I don't understand.

I see evidence to support my beliefs. Let's say that I see that evidence as being powerful, but that there are some smaller matters that I don't understand. Let's say that the evidence makes me 90% convinced that all this Christianity stuff is true - but that the things that I don't understand create a 10% doubt. Faith, based on the 90% of evidence, certainly 'fills in the gap'. But that is a very different thing from pretending that faith somehow involves believing despite the evidence.

In fact, I would suspect that most atheists, if they were honest enough, would admit that they reach conclusions by a very similar manner. They see evidence that they think argues against God's existence, and they believe that evidence is weighty enough to overrule anything that might create doubts.

However, most atheists seem to prefer to pretend that they have reached their conclusions solely on evidential grounds and are therefore more rational than theists who, they pretend, operate without, or even in the teeth of, any evidence. Then they wonder why they appear arrogant to believers.

You have 90% proof of God's existence?:eek: Please produce it, you might have a new convert!!

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

You have just hit impresive new heights of pedanticalness even for this thread.

The existance of evidence to the contary implies that something is not proven.

There is nothing pedantic in what I am saying. Maybe you just have difficulty with someone thinking rationally?

You can evidence both for and against a given proposition. We weigh up the evidence and come to a verdict - and not everyone will agree on that verdict. However, the issue is not proven.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

Before we move any further. Give me the evidence of this claim.

ROFL

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Dunno what dictionary you are using but they are synonyms.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/proof

Every single dictionary I have looked at has an antonym reference to the other word in the entry for the word I looked up.

You think 'evidence' and 'proof' are synonyms. :eek:

Is English your first language?

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

You think 'evidence' and 'proof' are synonyms. :eek:

Is English your first language?

Instead of resorting to your usual insults, why not prove me wrong and produce a reputable link of some kind that highlights the difference. I just linked you to one of the most respected dictionaries in the world (Oxford one), which supported my assertion.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

There is nothing pedantic in what I am saying. Maybe you just have difficulty with someone thinking rationally?

You can evidence both for and against a given proposition. We weigh up the evidence and come to a verdict - and not everyone will agree on that verdict. However, the issue is not proven.

Perhaps your standards of proof are just lower than mine, in order to accept the existance of an all powerful god I would set the bar pretty damn high.

Since we are getting personal I'm going to call it a day on this thread.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

In fact, I would suspect that most atheists, if they were honest enough, would admit that they reach conclusions by a very similar manner. They see evidence that they think argues against God's existence, and they believe that evidence is weighty enough to overrule anything that might create doubts.

However, most atheists seem to prefer to pretend that they have reached their conclusions solely on evidential grounds and are therefore more rational than theists who, they pretend, operate without, or even in the teeth of, any evidence. Then they wonder why they appear arrogant to believers.

No way. That's complete rubbish. There is a valid a priori deductive logical argument for there being no all loving, all knowing, all powerful God. I gave it earlier in this debate. There is no deductive logical argument which concludes the existence of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful or Abrahamic God.

Q.E.D.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Instead of resorting to your usual insults, why not prove me wrong and produce a reputable link of some kind that highlights the difference. I just linked you to one of the most respected dictionaries in the world (Oxford one), which supported my assertion.

I have made no insult. I asked a perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances. I thought it was preferable to asking if you had any idea how to read and comprehend an entry in a dictionary.

Let's look again at your link to the Oxford dictionary.

proof
• noun: evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Just use your common sense. In a trial you have evidence presented for both the prosecution and defence. This does not necessarily constitute proof because much of the evidence is not conclusive. It does not establish a fact, but merely suggests that something may be true.

Evidence that establishes a fact is proof. Evidence that does not establish a fact is not proof. This is because the words 'evidence' and 'proof' have quite distinct meanings.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Oh come on, there is a world of difference between how you defined 'faith' earlier and the fact that I trust God even though there is some stuff that I don't understand.

It is not simply that you trust God even though there is stuff you don't understand.

It is that you trust God even though there is evidence to the contrary for the position and you don't understand why this evidence is invalidated.

Using your example of the Sun moving around the Earth. The obsevation is evidence for that position, but you don't accept it because there is even more evidence for the Earth moving around the Sun. As such it is not a faith based assertion to say that the Earth moves around the Sun even though it looks like the opposite.

If you could say "Even though the genocide in the Bible looks really bad, it actually isn't because of all these reasons here ... therefore God was right to do what he did" that wouldn't be faith based position.

But by your own admission it did look bad, you don't know what God did what he did, but you trust that it was the right thing for him to do

That is almost exactly how one defines "faith", you have faith that God knew what he was doing and that it wasn't in fact really really bad, despite evidence to the contrary. (I don't have that faith, so I just think it was really really bad)

And it is that exact action that your religion, and others, have traditionally valued as a strong virtue in followers

You should have faith in God, both that he exists (despite evidence to the contrary) and that he knows what he is doing and is doing good (despite evidence to the contrary).

PDN wrote: »

I see evidence to support my beliefs.

Well, when asked you seemed unable to explain why that genocide was just beyond simply that God did it so it must have been just.

Lets be clear, if you have this explanation then it isn't faith/trust based. You have said that your belief in the existence of God is based purely on the evidence for God being stronger than the alternative explanations. That is fine, but then that isn't faith.

You appear to want to say that your belief is based solely on strong evidence, and that it is faith based. Which is rather contradictory.

I'm a bit puzzled why you are doing that. But it is making for an interesting discussion.

PDN wrote: »

Let's say that I see that evidence as being powerful, but that there are some smaller matters that I don't understand. Let's say that the evidence makes me 90% convinced that all this Christianity stuff is true - but that the things that I don't understand create a 10% doubt. Faith, based on the 90% of evidence, certainly 'fills in the gap'. But that is a very different thing from pretending that faith somehow involves believing despite the evidence.

You are believing despite the evidence. You don't understand the 10% (that all? Really?), but you accept it because of faith

Do you believe in the stuff you don't understand even though you don't understand it?

PDN wrote: »

In fact, I would suspect that most atheists, if they were honest enough, would admit that they reach conclusions by a very similar manner.

I certainly hope they would, faith is a very common trait in humans.

Well all, from time to time, put trust in people or authorities or hope for the best in situations that look grim.

For example some one may say to their mates "I know you guys don't trust her but I have faith that my girlfriend isn't cheating on me, despite seeing her out with another guy. I love her and I have faith she loves me too"

Or a mother may say "I don't care what the cops and the DNA evidence says, I have faith that the justice system will not send my boy to prison"

Or someone trapped in earthquake may say "I may be running out of air and water, but have faith that the rescue workers are going to dig me out before it is too late"

I would be worried about someone who said they never experienced this at some point in their lives.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

They [atheists] see evidence that they think argues against God's existence, and they believe that evidence is weighty enough to overrule anything that might create doubts.

However, most atheists seem to prefer to pretend that they have reached their conclusions solely on evidential grounds and are therefore more rational than theists who, they pretend, operate without, or even in the teeth of, any evidence.

I'm missing the difference here.

PDN wrote: »

Then they wonder why they appear arrogant to believers.

Frankly, I'd rather appear arrogant to a believer than appear [insert common generalisation here] to a non-believer!

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

I have made no insult. I asked a perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances. I thought it was preferable to asking if you had any idea how to read and comprehend an entry in a dictionary.

Let's look again at your link to the Oxford dictionary.



Just use your common sense. In a trial you have evidence presented for both the prosecution and defence. This does not necessarily constitute proof because much of the evidence is not conclusive. It does not establish a fact, but merely suggests that something may be true.

Evidence that establishes a fact is proof. Evidence that does not establish a fact is not proof. This is because the words 'evidence' and 'proof' have quite distinct meanings.

Ok here are two sentences. "Do you have any proof for that assertion?" "Do you have any evidence for the assertion?" They mean exactly the same thing.

I could give you many dictionaries such as Webster that would back me up. Actually, after research I think we are both right. Evidence is used both as a synonym:

1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
Syn: Testimony; reason; argument; trial; demonstration; proof. See Testimony.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

and proof is also used in the context you described it as being used:

2. That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Ok, I've had more than enough semantics for one day. I hope that is settled. We could both find references that support our cases for hours on end, so it is reasonable to assume that both meaning are correct. (I'll admit when I'm wrong.) Btw, you never said what dictionary you used?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Just quoting this again for emphasis, as I think it explains a lot regarding the discrepancies JimiTime is seeing in the definition of "atheist".

I know your fingers hurt, Jimi, but does that quote shed any light?

Good thread - and not done yet I'd say!

It does shed some light. I think overall though, it depends on the atheist you ask as to what 'his(or her)' atheism is. I stand by my view though, that if one says that 'there is no god, devine beings etc' then that view requires a leap of faith. if a persons atheism is for want of a better term, agnostic atheism, then this bridges this leap somewhat.

I suppose I'm left with the question still, why does one want to call themselves 'atheist' if in reality they are a bit more open to the possibilities? Instead of messing with its meaning, why not just, not call yourself atheist. just curious.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

ROFL

Exactly, and neither will I partake in such silly points. Be it flying tea pots or spagetti monsters or whatever.