That is not an article of faith. Disbelief is the opposite of faith.
faith
[feyth]
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Does it match a single definition of faith?
1: confidence or trust? no its called skepticism for a reason.
2: disbelief based on there not being proof =/= belief that is based on proof
3: pretty obvious on that one.
dis·be·lief [dis-bi-leef]
noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
I suppose under some definitions you could say that however if it is a 'religion' then it is one without doctrine, dogma, rituals, etc.
The only theoretical criteria is disbelief in God. Many people termed atheists do not deny that there may be a God. Other's believe that God does not manifest itself as the dogma of any known religion. Others say flat out that there isn't.
So exactly is atheism doctrine? set of beliefs etc?
Is empiricism or existentialism a religion as well?
No, it's the lack of one.... more specifically, it's a school of thought.... a religion would imply that there's a holy book, church services, obligations, membership fees, etc...
Thoroughly wrong... you really don't know jack about atheism, B....Atheists have, as an article of faith, there is no God.
you're combining atheism and agnosticism for one thing. It's one or the other not both. You don't need doctrine for religion. Set of beliefs is the belief there is no God
This is an age old and stupid argument. Atheism is no more a religion than Creationism is science.
how does it not fit this definition
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
Because the single belief that there is no God is not a set of beliefs and practices.
You can live your life an infinite number of ways as an atheist. Your guiding principles are your own and are not based on a guidebook handed down for generations. There's no code for atheists. There will never be anyone telling you you're not a true atheist because you're not following certain specific guidelines.
You are mistaking worldview and philosophy with religion. If atheism is considered a religion, then everyone in the world is religious, and religion is something you are born with. You can hopefully understand why that would be a ridiculous assertion.
Is there a difference in the meaning of saying
1) I do not believe there is a god.
2) I believe there is no god.
I believe there is no god. Does that make you a believer?
I do not collect stamps
I collect no stamps
I collect no stamps. Does that make you a collector?
I do not eat
I eat no
I eat no . Does that make you an eater?
All you are doing is abusing the English placement of a negation in a particular phrasing.
infinite number of ways to live their lives, yet they all believe there is no God. So putting them all under the same umbrella is no different then putting Catholics and Baptists and hundreds of christian sects under the same umbrella even though they have different guidebooks, different codes different people telling them whether or not they are true believers because they are not following certain guidelines. P.S I;m well aware you meant the bible but believe it or not there are different books that some sects use and some do,
can you phrase it in a way without using the word believe
they all do not believe there is a god. Again you are misunderstanding the meaning of the use of a negation in the english language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation_%28linguistics%29Grammar
In grammar, negation is the process that turns an affirmative statement (I am Australian) into its opposite denial (I am not Australian). The linguist D. Biber refers to two types of negation, synthetic ('no', 'neither' or 'nor' negation) and analytic ('not' negation). For example, "He is neither here nor there" (synthetic) or "He is not here" (analytic). Nouns as well as verbs can be grammatically negated, by the use of a negative adjective (There is no chicken), a negative pronoun (Nobody is American here), or a negative adverb (I never was American).
In English, negation for most verbs other than be and have, or verb phrases in which be, have or do already occur, requires the recasting of the sentence using the dummy auxiliary verb do, which adds little to the meaning of the negative phrase, but serves as a place to attach the negative particles not, or its contracted form -n't, to:
I have a chicken.
I haven't a chicken. (Rare, but it is still possible to negate have without the auxiliary do.)
I don't have a chicken. (The most common way in contemporary English.)
In Middle English, the particle not could be attached to any verb:
I see not the chicken.
In Modern English, these forms fell out of use, and the use of an auxiliary verb such as do or be is obligatory in most cases:
I do not see the chicken.
I have not seen the chicken.
The verb do also follows this rule, and therefore requires a second instance of itself in order to be marked for negation:
The chicken doesn't do tricks
not The chicken doesn't tricks.
In English, as in most other Germanic languages (and many non-Germanic languages), the use of double negatives as grammatical intensifiers was formerly in frequent use:
We don't have no chickens here.
Usage prescriptivists consider this use of double negatives to be a solecism, and condemn it. It makes the rhetorical figure of litotes ambiguous. It remains common in colloquial English. In Ancient Greek, a simple negative (οὐ or μὴ) following another simple or compound negative (e.g., οὐδείς, no one) results in an affirmation, whereas a compound negative following a simple or compound negative strengthens the negation.
That's besides the point. It's also a nonsequitor to your premise. How are you to deny belief without using the word?
It's denoting that belief in god is not true not imply that you believe in anything. You simply do not understand negation in the English language. I used those other examples to show how your assertion is absurd. The only reason why you give it credence is because of the other ty reasoning used by others.
Nope, he can't; it's a belief.
It's very telling that you cannot respond to the grammar argument.
I think The Jehovah's Witness is among one of the worse one.
Speaking from experienced and someone that almost got suckered into being one I can tell you the way they view things is so skewed and narrow minded is not even funny man.
They dont celebrate any types of holiday, Have to be home within a reasonable amount of time, have to go to their meetings like 4 times a week, cant date anyone that's not one of your own, cant watch violent movies and so on.
Bunch of fanatics.
What does this sentence mean?
For God so loved the world that he created .
What a friend!
In grammar, negation is the process that turns an affirmative statement (I am Australian) into its opposite denial (I am not Australian).
Moreso, you are taking one interpretation of the word belief ie belief in a religion with a different definition of the word belief ie belief in a conclusion. Equating them and calling it a day.
It's sophist semantic tapdancing.
you're missing a verbIt is denoting that belief in god not true not imply that you believe in anything
Not an infinite number of books. Religions evolve and branch out, sure, but they usually started at a single source and carry enough commonalities that you can distinguish them from other religions.
Conclusions come from something, you can't just conclude out of thin air
not a verb. there are other ways to complete the sentence.
It is denoting that belief in god not true and not to imply that you believe in anything.
It is denoting that belief in god not true and not imply that you believe in anything
It is denoting that belief in god not true, not to imply that you believe in anything.
etc. Could you not really understand the meaning?
Sure you can, it happens all the time in this very forum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote