Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

What I've presented as "weak atheism" is indeed a form of atheism, and probably the most common form, because the person doesn't believe in gods. I think the agnostic is one who hasn't been able to make up his mind one way or the other. To me, agnosticism is intellectually indefensible. One is either persuaded or he isn't. I personally see no in between position, yet many people claim it.

Again, this is not a question of personal definitions. There are commonly accepted definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist". What you seem to be saying is that there are people who would like to be called "atheist" even though their set of beliefs does not match the term.

And I gave you my reason. Why should I believe in your God and not the gods of any other religion? Why should yours be given special consideration requiring special justification for lack of belief?

Your reason for not believing in God is because there are many different believes to choose from? So, if there are two people with different believes you will automatically choose to believe they are both wrong? How about creationism and evolution? By your argument you must believe that both creationism and evolution are equally wrong - after all there are people who believe in one and there are people who believe in the other.

No, it makes me an atheist. An agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not gods exist. Agnosticism is orthagonal to atheism/theism.

Does your definition of atheism include a possibility that God may exist? If not, what is the meaning of your statement "not convinced"?

It's also up to Hindus to justify their faith, and Muslims to justify their faith. Once again, yours isn't the only religion out there and to me, an atheist, your religion is no more "special" than any other.

We have not, actually, been arguing about superiority of one faith over another. As far as I understand, we were talking about having faith in God and having faith that there is no God.

I've seen that definition. It's crap. Try the American Heritage dictionary for a better definition (it encompasses both lack of belief and outright denial of both general gods and a named -- though not specifically defined -- God). Also look at the roots of the word: "a" means without, "theism" means "belief in a god or gods", therefore "atheism" means "without belief in a god or gods".

I just did a search on the American Heritage web site (http://www.bartleby.com/61/). The definition for atheist came up as: "...One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods....". This is identical to Merriam-Webster's definition. There is nothing here about lack of proof, there is just an active believe that denies existence of God.

I also don't see the need to explicitely define 'atheism' since just like 'asymmetric', 'apolitical' or 'anisotropic' it's just the negation (denoted by the greek alpha privative 'a-' resp. 'an-') of a positively defined term.

What I also never understood is why to so many theists this definition (that from M-W of course) is so important that they defend it almost religiously. If they are not atheists why do they really care? And if those who aren't theists want to use that term to refer to themselves, why is that a problem?

No, this is only a question of consistency. The definition you gave (that of Merriam-Webster) is a strawman and pretty much useless because according to this definition anyone who denies the existence of God (yes, the deity with the capital 'G') is an atheist but this is true of every religion except Christianity and Judaism.

And Islam.

BTW, the definition from American Heritage was identical.

I also don't see the need to explicitely define 'atheism' since just like 'asymmetric', 'apolitical' or 'anisotropic' it's just the negation (denoted by the greek alpha privative 'a-' resp. 'an-') of a positively defined term.

Every word has a defined meaning. In a conversation it is vital that all parties agree on meanings of the terms they use.

What I also never understood is why to so many theists this definition (that from M-W of course) is so important that they defend it almost religiously. If they are not atheists why do they really care? And if those who aren't theists want to use that term to refer to themselves, why is that a problem?

As I pointed out before, American Heritage has the same definition. It's not this definition that is important; it’s having a common definition that is important. Whatever this common definition happens to be.

The resulting definition is virtually identical, namely "...One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods...." Sorry.

No, it's not. It's all-encompassing. Note the word "or" there. Also note the word "disbelieves". The definition of "disbelieve" is "To withhold or reject belief.". Again, note the word "or". This means that it could apply to rejection or to withholding belief. The latter applies to me. Now look at the second part of the definition, "God or gods". This means that an atheist could be someone who denies the existence of God, or it could be someone who disbelieves -- that is, withholds belief -- in gods.

They're not identical. The American Heritage definition, while IMO somewhat awkardly-worded, is accurate because it is all-encompassing.

Your reason for not believing in God is because there are many different believes to choose from?

No, I'm not sure how you derived this from my statements. My reason for not believing in the God that you worship is the same as my reason for not believing in the gods of any other religions: I've seen no evidence. Should I see evidence for any gods -- yours or another -- I will have to rethink my position of lacking belief in gods. Thus far, no evidence has surfaced, so I remain without belief in all gods.

So, if there are two people with different believes you will automatically choose to believe they are both wrong?

No.

How about creationism and evolution? By your argument you must believe that both creationism and evolution are equally wrong - after all there are people who believe in one and there are people who believe in the other.

Invalid conclusion drawn from a false premise.

Does your definition of atheism include a possibility that God may exist?

My definition of atheism does not address the possibilities for or against the existence of any gods. It addresses nothing more than lack of theism. If any gods actually exist, I'm still an atheist because I currently don't hold belief in them.

I just did a search on the American Heritage web site

Addressed above.

And Islam.

But this doesn't invalidate my argument in the least.
Of course some argue that Muslims also believe in God and that GOD and ALLAH are just different names for the same deity but there are also those who vehemently reject this notion. I suggest you go to the religion board and start a thread like "Is God and Allah one and the same?" if you don't believe me*).

BTW, the definition from American Heritage was identical.

Nope. Not really.

Every word has a defined meaning. In a conversation it is vital that all parties agree on meanings of the terms they use.

Yes, that's certainly true but I'm sure you'd also object to a strawman definition of 'theism' or 'Christianity' even if the vast majority agreed on these strawmen definitions.
And why not change such a useless definition to one that makes more sense and is more consistent than the strawman version in MW?

As I pointed out before, American Heritage has the same definition. It's not this definition that is important; it’s having a common definition that is important. Whatever this common definition happens to be.

No, as I already said it's not the same. And 'disbelief' is not the same as 'denial' so the definition from American Heritage is all-encompassing although I have to agree with Dimensio that it is a bit awkardly-worded. Saying "God or gods" is redundant and they could as well have used "Vishnu or gods" or only "gods" without changing the scope of this definition.
And maybe you also want to read this article where someone already answered the question: Isn't not believing in any gods the same as believing there are no gods?

*) No, really, don't do it ;)

I am combining answers from two of your posts.

No, it's not. It's all-encompassing. Note the word "or" there. Also note the word "disbelieves". The definition of "disbelieve" is "To withhold or reject belief.". Again, note the word "or". This means that it could apply to rejection or to withholding belief. The latter applies to me. Now look at the second part of the definition, "God or gods". This means that an atheist could be someone who denies the existence of God, or it could be someone who disbelieves -- that is, withholds belief -- in gods.

This is getting comical. American Heritage defines disbelief as "...Refusal or reluctance to believe...." Withhold, on the other hand is defined as "To refrain from giving, granting, or permitting. " I don't think "refusal" or "reluctance" is the same as "refrain".

Be it as it may, please tell me what definition of "atheist" you would like me to use and I will use it in our communication.

My reason for not believing in the God that you worship is the same as my reason for not believing in the gods of any other religions: I've seen no evidence. Should I see evidence for any gods -- yours or another -- I will have to rethink my position of lacking belief in gods. Thus far, no evidence has surfaced, so I remain without belief in all gods.

If I understand your statement correctly, you refuse to believe in God because you do not have perfect knowledge about His existence. This is certainly a defensible position. I find only one problem with it (and it’s not a problem with logic) - frequently, in life, we are called to make decisions based on incomplete information. This is true in science, in business, even in games. Should I buy or sell stock? Well, I don't know. Still, I will make a decision based on information available to me and hope for the best. (This decision is aided by the fact that I have faith in liberal capitalism.) You can, of course, choose not to participate in the stock market, not to offer scientific hypothesis, and not to play games that withhold part of the information you need to make a decision. Personally, I think it is far more rewarding to participate in all these activities, even if perfect knowledge is not available.

This is getting comical. American Heritage defines disbelief as "...Refusal or reluctance to believe...." Withhold, on the other hand is defined as "To refrain from giving, granting, or permitting. " I don't think "refusal" or "reluctance" is the same as "refrain".

AH has two definitions. Check again. I quoted one of them verbatim.

Be it as it may, please tell me what definition of "atheist" you would like me to use and I will use it in our communication.

One who is without belief in gods, or one who lacks belief in gods.

If I understand your statement correctly, you refuse to believe in God because you do not have perfect knowledge about His existence.

No. I have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the god that you worship and call "God". I also have no evidence whatsoever for the god worshipped by Hindus called Vishnu. As such, I lack belief in both gods (in addition to the gods proposed by anyone and everyone else).

But this doesn't invalidate my argument in the least. Of course some argue that Muslims also believe in God and that GOD and ALLAH are just different names for the same deity but there are also those who vehemently reject this notion. I suggest you go to the religion board and start a thread like "Is God and Allah one and the same?" if you don't believe me*).

Well, the discussion is not really about comparing one religion to another, but comparing having faith in God (in any form) and having faith that there is not God (in any form).

Yes, that's certainly true but I'm sure you'd also object to a strawman definition of 'theism' or 'Christianity' even if the vast majority agreed on these strawmen definitions. And why not change such a useless definition to one that makes more sense and is more consistent than the strawman version in MW?

We need a common language in order to communicate. Why not simply accept the definition favored by "vast majority"?

And 'disbelief' is not the same as 'denial'

I am sorry, I would rather not go to American Heritage (or another) dictionary to compare definitions of "disbelief" and "denial"

AH has two definitions. Check again. I quoted one of them verbatim.

AH has 10 entrees for "disbelief". Why did you choose the second one? I would assume that the first entry would be the most common.

[Atheist] One who is without belief in gods, or one who lacks belief in gods.

Does this include a possible that an atheist will accept belief in God, if presented with sufficient proof?

No. I have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the god that you worship and call "God". I also have no evidence whatsoever for the god worshipped by Hindus called Vishnu. As such, I lack belief in both gods (in addition to the gods proposed by anyone and everyone else).

Does this mean that you refuse to make a decision because you lack the knowledge, or does this mean that you have taken the apparent lack of information as proof that there is not God?

AH has 10 entrees for "disbelief". Why did you choose the second one? I would assume that the first entry would be the most common.

I only saw two, and I chose the one that seemed most appropriate for its usage in the definition of "atheist" without making the definition redundant.

Does this include a possible that an atheist will accept belief in God, if presented with sufficient proof?

Some would not, but some would. Some theists claim that they were atheists until they found sufficient reason for believing.

Does this mean that you refuse to make a decision because you lack the knowledge, or does this mean that you have taken the apparent lack of information as proof that there is not God?

I mean that I lack belief because I've thus far not seen reason to believe. I tend to withhold belief in things for which I've seen no evidence, it makes life less complicated.

NEITHER POV should be "Relevant" to a "Medical Student."

While the "Theory" of ANYTHING about "Life" is an ALWAYS FASCINATING SUBJECT for students struggling to be "Docs," the "Subject Matter" of "Contemporary Medicine" PRECLUDES ANY "Theoretical Discussion" regarding "Evolution" vs "Creation."

The Study of the "Minutia" of "Medical Care" doesn't allow it's students to debate "Evolution vs. Creation."

Most Medical Students are FAR MORE WORRIED about your Hematology than your Theology!!

Doc

Some would not, but some would. Some theists claim that they were atheists until they found sufficient reason for believing.

OK, I think I finally understand. There are people, who call themselves atheists, who deny God's existence under any circumstances. There are people, who also call themselves atheists who would accept belief in God, if presented with sufficient evidence. Somebody, earlier today posted these definitions as "strong" and "weak" atheism. (At a time I pointed out that they are not too different from commonly accepted definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism".) I have no problem with these definitions, but I do think that they are, probably, not very well known outside atheist community. (I also think they are a little clunky.)

To clarify my initial post - when, way, way, back I called atheism a religion, I was referring to a set of beliefs you would describe as "strong atheism".

I mean that I lack belief because I've thus far not seen reason to believe. I tend to withhold belief in things for which I've seen no evidence, it makes life less complicated.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a perfectly respectable position. While it certainly makes your life less complicated, I think it also causes you to miss out on a lot of joy. Being single also makes once life less complicated. I would not recommend that either.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.