Oh, come off it. Do you believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? How about the Flying Spaghetti monster?
You are conflating a disbelief in an intellect without innate definition with a disbelief in specifics. Atheism doesn't mean "I don't believe in Jesus," it means "I don't believe in any gods."
And yes, I am stating a difference between a passive lack of belief and an active one.
I stated that Atheism -- the active belief there is no deity or intellect behind the scenes -- as a religion. And you know what? You're right. I was wrong to say so. Because what I meant -- and what I should have said -- was that it was a faith. Atheism requires the faith -- the 'courage of one's convictions,' to paraphrase the coworker I was originally speaking of -- to say "no, there is no imaginary friend behind the scenes. There is no Jesus, no Allah, no nobody. It's just us and the void, baby, and you should enjoy life now because there's nothing after it."
Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct)
Utterly correct. Scientists might take a stand on religion. They often have -- both for and against. But the only stand science can take on religion is in the area of verifiable claims. Science can test whether or not the Earth is more than 3,000 years old or whether or not homo sapiens were contemporary of the dinosaurs.
Science can't test whether or not a guy named Steve created the universe during a long lunch, or who created Steve in the first place. Science works with the observable, and leaves the ineffable to philosophy. And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.
"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.
"There is no God" is a definite statement. Positive, negative or otherwise, it is a statement of belief.
and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.
I stand by my earlier statements. An atheist is one who asserts there is no God. That doesn't make them incapable of changing their mind later (see Mr. Adders's comments for proof).
You're trying to expand my statement to include people who say 'I haven't seen any reason to believe in gods, and I don't care to look.' And I said before and I say now that that statement's too complex to just take as one value.
However, it seems more and more that you're describing a form of agnosticism instead of atheism on your side of the table. Which makes me wonder why we're even having the argument, unless it comes down to you wanting to call yourself an atheist. In which case, feel free. It's nothing to me whether you do or you don't.
And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:
You feel you don't have an answer to the question.
I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.
Which are, as you say, perfectly valid different philosophical positions. None of which makes me an atheist.
Finally, you quoted several times:
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
I stand by this. If you don't want to be tagged by that statement, don't call yourself an atheist. I'm entirely comfortable with Mister Grant's assertion he's an Atheist. He's come right out and said it: he doesn't believe in anyone's imaginary friend. And however he and I debate -- and however he takes exception to my definition -- I think he'll be happy to call himself an atheist and happy enough to let me call myself an agnostic. What he calls me will be more colorful.
One question I do have for you, however. If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?
no subject
You are conflating a disbelief in an intellect without innate definition with a disbelief in specifics. Atheism doesn't mean "I don't believe in Jesus," it means "I don't believe in any gods."
And yes, I am stating a difference between a passive lack of belief and an active one.
I stated that Atheism -- the active belief there is no deity or intellect behind the scenes -- as a religion. And you know what? You're right. I was wrong to say so. Because what I meant -- and what I should have said -- was that it was a faith. Atheism requires the faith -- the 'courage of one's convictions,' to paraphrase the coworker I was originally speaking of -- to say "no, there is no imaginary friend behind the scenes. There is no Jesus, no Allah, no nobody. It's just us and the void, baby, and you should enjoy life now because there's nothing after it."
Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct)
Utterly correct. Scientists might take a stand on religion. They often have -- both for and against. But the only stand science can take on religion is in the area of verifiable claims. Science can test whether or not the Earth is more than 3,000 years old or whether or not homo sapiens were contemporary of the dinosaurs.
Science can't test whether or not a guy named Steve created the universe during a long lunch, or who created Steve in the first place. Science works with the observable, and leaves the ineffable to philosophy. And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.
"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.
"There is no God" is a definite statement. Positive, negative or otherwise, it is a statement of belief.
and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.
I stand by my earlier statements. An atheist is one who asserts there is no God. That doesn't make them incapable of changing their mind later (see Mr. Adders's comments for proof).
You're trying to expand my statement to include people who say 'I haven't seen any reason to believe in gods, and I don't care to look.' And I said before and I say now that that statement's too complex to just take as one value.
However, it seems more and more that you're describing a form of agnosticism instead of atheism on your side of the table. Which makes me wonder why we're even having the argument, unless it comes down to you wanting to call yourself an atheist. In which case, feel free. It's nothing to me whether you do or you don't.
And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:
You feel you don't have an answer to the question.
I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.
Which are, as you say, perfectly valid different philosophical positions. None of which makes me an atheist.
Finally, you quoted several times:
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
I stand by this. If you don't want to be tagged by that statement, don't call yourself an atheist. I'm entirely comfortable with Mister Grant's assertion he's an Atheist. He's come right out and said it: he doesn't believe in anyone's imaginary friend. And however he and I debate -- and however he takes exception to my definition -- I think he'll be happy to call himself an atheist and happy enough to let me call myself an agnostic. What he calls me will be more colorful.
One question I do have for you, however. If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?