What exactly is atheism? [Archive] - Page 2

greenberg

10-30-08, 06:01 AM

Actually, christianity wasn't my concern.

What was it then? Impersonalism, for example? I know there are many other disputes among religionists about the nature of God. Interestingly, although I know of those disputes, I have never been all that concerned about them. Which goes to show that my tendency to give so much credence specifically to Christianity and its disputes is possibly just circumstantial, not essential - and that if I had been raised under the influence of some other religion and its disputes, I'd possibly be dealing with those problems, not Christianity's.

And what is their authority based on, why it would have such a profound effect on your very essence?

I think a lot about these things, obviously :( :o

So I think the formula is basically this:
1. Fire and brimstone Christianity has from early on conditioned my body and mind.
2. My body in mind are in constant stress.
3. I identify with my mind and body.
4. I feel stressed out.

Possible solution: 1. de-stress the body and mind (such as with proper diet and exercise), 2. disidentify with the body and mind (such as with using it for transcendental service - yay, I used the word "transcendental" for the first time without feeling like trash at it!! seriously).
It seems no direct confrontation with Christianity is necessary (of course my "inner Christian" is convinced differently).

Jan Ardena

10-30-08, 06:33 AM

You strongly implied, if not stated outright, the teachings of Jesus are easy to understand & should be followed.
I showed a small part of the evidence that is not true.
You then think it's up to me to explain it further. It's not. At this point, anyway.
Do you think those things I mentioned are easy to understand & should be believed & followed & lived by as a good example?
1111

Let's look at your first example; "Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?"

This is quite simply a demonstration of faith.
If you like we can go into it more.

jan.

phlogistician

10-30-08, 10:27 AM

Misonception.

Throughout history, philosophers discuss their views on various subjects. Some views building on others. Typically, when there is a popular view, there tends to be those with a counterviewpoint.
View = X
Counterview = -X

Atheism is not the 'counter view' of theism though, this is where you fail.

It's simply not being a theist.

Atheism is not -X it's \overline {X}

lixluke

10-30-08, 11:43 AM

Lixluke, that "article" is flawed due to the simple fact that it does not understand what agnosticism is.

It treats agnosticism as a middle path - between "believing in X" and "believing in not-X"... the undecided.
But this is an incorrect understanding of agnosticism... and as such the rest of the article is rather moot.

FYI - agnosticism is the position that the object in question (e.g. God) is inherently unknowable, or that one lacks personal knoweldge of the object.
Usually, but not always, this leads rationally to a position of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in God) but you DO get agnostic theists: people who understand God to be unknowable, but nevertheless believe in his existence.

Until you, and I presume whoever wrote that article you posted, can understand and appreciate what agnosticism actually is, I guess you will forever be misunderstanding the term "atheism".

To recap for you:

Theism / atheism is one's stance on the existence of God.
Agnosticism is a stance on the epistemology of God - i.e. whether God is knowable, personally or inherehently.

I, for one, am an agnostic atheist.
But I know agnostic theists - and surely their very existence sure scuppers your entire argument, no? Afterall, how could one possibly be both agnostic AND a theist?? :o
This definitions are incorrect.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Theism is the belief that God does exist.
Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists.

In this case, it is impossible for either theist or atheist to also be agnostic. If one believes that man can or cannot know that God exists, one cannot be theist or atheist. Agnostics are not Godless or Godful so to speak. The simply do not know, and believe such knowledge is not possible.

Skepticism is the belief that man cannot know anything. Thus, all skeptics are agnostics by default. All agnostics, however, are not necessarily skeptics.

lixluke

10-30-08, 11:43 AM

Atheism is not the 'counter view' of theism though, this is where you fail.

It's simply not being a theist.

Atheism is not -X it's \overline {X}
Wrong. Anybody who is not a theist is not necessarily an atheist. Atheist is the counterview of theism.

lixluke

10-30-08, 11:46 AM

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods.
Those who claim that certain knowledge of God cannot be known, and those who simply do not know are not atheists. Atheists are only those who claim they know for certain there is no such thing as God.
Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.

The ideologies and terms created by infidels.org are all concocted to indoctrinize atheism.

Enmos

10-30-08, 11:56 AM

Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.
That's just stupid. It should be: "Because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, there is no reason to assume he exists".

SkinWalker

10-30-08, 12:35 PM

Those who claim that certain knowledge of God cannot be known, and those who simply do not know are not atheists. Atheists are only those who claim they know for certain there is no such thing as God.
Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.

The ideologies and terms created by infidels.org are all concocted to indoctrinize atheism.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

phlogistician

10-31-08, 05:04 AM

Wrong. Anybody who is not a theist is not necessarily an atheist. Atheist is the counterview of theism.

Dude, you clearly aren't armed for this debate.

'a-theist ' = \overline {theist}

Someone who is not a theist. It's simpler than you are.

lixluke

10-31-08, 04:24 PM

That's just stupid. It should be: "Because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, there is no reason to assume he exists".
That is not Atheism. Atheism simply nothing more than the belief that God does not exist. The part of "until you show me evidence/proof" or any other extra reasons/contingencies are more not necessarily the case for 100% of people who claim that God does not exist.

lixluke

10-31-08, 04:28 PM

Dude, you clearly aren't armed for this debate.

'a-theist ' = \overline {theist}

Someone who is not a theist. It's simpler than you are.
As stated, this is a misconception. In actuality, the origin of the term "atheism" was never meant to signify not-theist in the sense of a-theism. It is by standard, intended to signify athe-ism which is the antithesis of theism. Those who abide by the view that atheism "should" signify non-theists are the exception to original intent of the term "atheism".

StrangerInAStrangeLa

10-31-08, 10:53 PM

The ideologies and terms created by infidels.org are all concocted to indoctrinize atheism.

For the past 9 years they've given me an award for indoctrinizing the most people.
1111

lixluke

10-31-08, 11:36 PM

For the past 9 years they've given me an award for indoctrinizing the most people.
1111
Congratulations. There is no doubt there is a growing movement to change the definition of atheism from 'those who belive there is no god' to 'all non-theists'. But doesn't using tactics such as falsifying history or rewriting it exemplify what they claim to be atrocities committed by religions they hate?

Furthermore, what do they expect to accomplish? By claiming that an agnostic (who does not abide by theism or atheism) should be engulfed under atheism.

shaman_

11-01-08, 12:03 AM

As stated, this is a misconception. In actuality, the origin of the term "atheism" was never meant to signify not-theist in the sense of a-theism. Then why is the term atheism and not antitheism?

The prefix a means without. The prefix anti means against.

lixluke

11-01-08, 02:07 AM

Then why is the term atheism and not antitheism?

The prefix a means without. The prefix anti means against.
It's not that complicated. Does this really need to be explained? Is it not completely in your face obvious that people who do not beleive in X cannot be against X? "Anti" signifies disfavor.

Even if terms such as antitheism and antiatheism existed, they would signify those who disfavor or are prejudice/hostile against theism or atheism. Similar to antisemitism. Protheism and proatheism would signify those in favor of theism or atheism.

StrangerInAStrangeLa

11-01-08, 02:14 AM

It's not complicated. You make it complicated. It shouldn't need to be explained if 1 knows what the root, suffix & prefix mean & how the word is formed.
People who do not believe in X can be against the concept & against the actions of those who do believe in X.
The WORD antitheism DOES exist.
1111

lixluke

11-01-08, 09:43 AM

Any word anybody makes up can be said to exist, but it is not acknowledged in any legitimate arena. Not all people who believe there is no God are anti-theists (those who disfavor theists for whatever reason).

shaman_

11-01-08, 09:14 PM

It's not that complicated. It's not complicated at all. You are making it complicated because you refuse to accept the blatantly obvious.

swarm

11-02-08, 05:22 AM

Atheism simply nothing more than the belief that God does not exist.

Close.

Atheism simply is no belief or acceptance in your claim that there are gods, whatever "gods" supposedly means.

lixluke

11-02-08, 11:21 AM

Close.

Atheism simply is no belief or acceptance in your claim that there are gods, whatever "gods" supposedly means.
Wrong:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2070303&postcount=242
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2072988&postcount=263
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2072700&postcount=261

Enmos

11-02-08, 11:22 AM

Enmos

11-02-08, 11:22 AM

Lix, are you an atheist ?

SkinWalker

11-02-08, 01:02 PM

Wrong:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2070303&postcount=242
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2072988&postcount=263
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2072700&postcount=261

Yeah. Well, your wrong. And have been demonstrated to be time and again. What's fascinating, however, is the psychology of your denial of the self-identity of atheists. One wonders what it is that informs your insistence that those who don't think as you must therefore not have valid opinions.

This, I must point out, is a bigoted perspective in the most liberal sense of the word.

Just out of curiosity, what do you call those who believe in gods other than the one(s) that you believe in? Or do you simply hold that believing in anything is okay as long as you believe?

And yes, lixluke is an atheist, whether he's willing to admit it or not. Ask him if he believes in the Mesoamerican god Quetzacoatl.

lixluke

11-02-08, 01:28 PM

Ask him if he believes in the Mesoamerican god Quetzacoatl.
According to your warped logic, everybody is an atheist. So why not just say what you believe? Everybody is in atheist. Is anybody supposed to take somebody seriously that claims all people are atheists?

There are a number of dillemas that occur when using the incorrect definition of atheism. When defining atheism as those who believe there is no God, these dillemas are not present. When defining atheism as everbody that is not theism, you get multiple dillemas. Including the one that everybody is not theism, and therefore, everybody is atheism.
DILLEMA 2: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068486&postcount=1

SkinWalker

11-02-08, 01:51 PM

According to your warped logic, everybody is an atheist. So why not just say what you believe? Everybody is in atheist. Is anybody supposed to take somebody seriously that claims all people are atheists?

I don't expect a blind-faith believer to take anyone serious that doubts their blind-faith. That would be contrary to their blind-faith and, once other positions are seriously entertained, blind faith is no longer possible. The continuation of blind-faith, therefore, is evidence that rational thought isn't taken seriously.

That having been said, everybody is an atheist. Everyone rejects gods of some sort or another (unless they try the intellectually dishonest and non-demonstrable argument that "all of humanities gods are simply the same 'one' god"), making them atheists with regard to those gods. There are thousands of extant and extinct gods invented by human society and yours is but one of these (since there is no evidence that it can be factually elevated above yours).

The difference between you and I is that I take my atheism one god further and see no good reason to believe in yours either.

But, unlike you, I at least recognize that I can no more disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor than I can Yahweh and I can only tell you that there almost certainly are no gods based on the available evidence. And that, my friend, is the definition of atheism.

I believe that there almost certainly are no gods. My knowledge of your god, the Gods of Polynesia, the Andean gods, the Mesoamerican gods of 600 years ago, the Greek gods of over 2000 years ago, the Egyptian gods of over 4000 years ago or the Near Eastern gods of 10,000 years ago, is all circumspect in that I realize I cannot fully test the universe for their existence. This is an agnostic position in that I realize the limits of knowledge.

There are a number of dillemas that occur when using the incorrect definition of atheism. When defining atheism as those who believe there is no God, these dillemas are not present. When defining atheism as everbody that is not theism, you get multiple dillemas. Including the one that everybody is not theism, and therefore, everybody is atheism.
DILLEMA 2: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068486&postcount=1

The grammatical construction of this point is somewhat questionable and leaves much to be desired and citing yourself only compounds the problem.

If you have no gods to which you believe require appeasement, your an atheist. If you believe that there exist one or more gods that require appeasement, you're a theist. Its just that simple.

You might be an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist, that is to say, one who believes there are no gods but realizes the issue cannot be tested; or one that believes there is one or more gods but realizes the issue cannot be tested.

Any more questions?

Citing yourself to demonstrate your point is a circular argument.

lixluke

11-02-08, 03:17 PM

It is not a circular argument because you are confusing arguments with your own circular reasoning. Blind faith this and blind faith that and bla bla bla.

Before we can move further in a debate, we must establish certain criteria:
These are 2 different ideas of X.
1. X = Only those who believe there is no such thing as God.
2. X = Everbody that does not believe there is a God.

If X = 1: It cannot be said that everybody is X.
If X = 2: It can be said that everybody is X. Those who beleive in God A, and do not belive in God B can be in a sense be categorized under "Those who do not believe there is a God".

Is this correct or incorrect?

SkinWalker

11-02-08, 04:01 PM

You're compositional and grammatical skills, lacking as they are, aren't helping you. I've really no idea what you're on about in the above post and I'm only addressing your OP in which you so poorly construct an argument that it is nearly impossible to discern what it is you are truly concluding.

To that, one can only make an assumption that you are concluding that it is a "hoax" to self-identify as an atheist unless you are willing to state, categorically, that you are certain that there are not gods and, since one cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to make such a categorical distinction, there are, thus, no such things as atheists. I'm left to wonder if it is the term "atheist" which you consider the hoax, or the movement to self-identify as "atheist."

You're ignorance and bigotry notwithstanding, the term atheism, as has been explained to you time and again simply refers to those who are without god(s). Period. An atheist has no compulsion or belief that he or she must appease any supernatural deities.

You seem to be confused by my casual analogy of atheism as it exists among theists, and I apologize since I took some liberty on my expectations of your ability to process the information. This was an unfair judgment on my part and I should be ashamed.

I am not suggesting that there are no such things as theists, rather, I was only attempting to demonstrate that the reason for atheism isn't something that is foreign to theists and was attempting to offer an analogy that a theist might understand (the notion that a monotheist rejects any god that isn't theirs since there's no good reason to believe in them).

For the record, I retract that analogy in the interest of clarity and stick with only my offered definition of atheist, "one who believes that there no god," and offer an additional clarification that a rational atheist would add "almost certainly" just before "no" since there isn't a method in existence at this time to empirically test the "no god" claim.

But this applies every bit as much (if not more) to the theist, particularly when it comes to determining which god.

The additional claim of your OP, laced with subtle vernacular inclusions of "cult," "fanatic," "acolyte" etc. within the text is that "atheism" is a religion. Are you making this claim or are you using these words as tropes?

lixluke

11-02-08, 06:26 PM

it is nearly impossible to discern what it is you are truly concluding.
The additional claim of your OP, laced with subtle vernacular inclusions of "cult," "fanatic," "acolyte" etc. within the text is that "atheism" is a religion. Are you making this claim or are you using these words as tropes?
Those terms are used to show how much in common SW has with religions they hate. Their intentions are to change the meaning of atheist from A to B usng propaganda of history alteration. They are throwing out what really happened, and putting their own concoted version has history and etymology. All in the name of elimination of ideas to impose their own.

So before I move on, the reason I consider all of your arguments totally circular is because you do not seem to be arguing against the points that I am making. It is in my conclusion that you have no idea what I am saying. It isn't complicated, so I will explain my position as I have done many times as clear as I can.

My main solid point is:
1. The term "atheism" 'was' orignilally intended and 'is' commonly accepted as a term to describe the position that there is no such thing as God. It is the antithesis to theism which is the position that there is such thing as God.

2. SW wants to change it so that the term "atheism" includes everybody who is not theism. Moreover, they want to use the term "strong atheism" to replace the term "atheism" to those who fall under the idea of atheism as described in #1.

3. It is my position that the term "atheism" is best used in its original context. To describe those who believe there is no God. Not to describe everybody that does not abide by theism.

1 and 2 are pretty much the same argument how the term atheism is used. #3 is more of an argument about the best use of the term atheism.

As it stands in #3, my position on the use of the term also implies that the term atheism/agnosticism impossible in definition #1 of atheism, but possible in definition #2 of atheism.
-If atheism is defined as those who state there is definitely no God, it is impossible for agnosticism to fall under that.
-If atheism is defined as those all who do not fall under theism, then agnosticism simply falls under one type of atheism.

If you wish to discuss your agreement/disagreement with my position, it is important that you are clear on what exactly my position is. Aside from any problems you might have with my conclusions, are you at all unclear of what my conclusions are? If and only if you are clear about what my conclusions are, I welcome you to comment on them.

But this applies every bit as much (if not more) to the theist, particularly when it comes to determining which god.No shit, and there is your dillema. You completely miscontrue the meaning of certainty.

swarm

11-03-08, 02:47 AM

Wrong:

Look, you are mistaken. Get over it all ready. Referencing your posts where you detail how you are wrong doesn't change that you are wrong.

swarm

11-03-08, 03:21 AM

I know this is difficult to understand, but try.

There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confution of the issue.

One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)

A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.

A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.

These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).

Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).

This is like saying some theists commit murder therefor all theists are murderers.

If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.

Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.

swarm

11-03-08, 03:22 AM

DiamondHearts

11-03-08, 03:27 AM

swarm, brilliant post.
This makes it a lot easier to understand.

Sarkus

11-03-08, 03:39 AM

This definitions are incorrect.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Theism is the belief that God does exist.
Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists.

In this case, it is impossible for either theist or atheist to also be agnostic. If one believes that man can or cannot know that God exists, one cannot be theist or atheist. Agnostics are not Godless or Godful so to speak. The simply do not know, and believe such knowledge is not possible.So you are saying that if it is impossible to know if God exists or not, you are not able to also believe he exists? :o

Your thought process appears irrational.
Your initial assumptions appear flawed.

I seriously suggest you broaden your readings to include the etymology of the word "atheist", and also to include the many and broad ideas of what atheism is (or isn't). And I hope you also realise that the meaning of words often change over 2,000 years or so, especially when they seep into one language from another.

But, if you wish to continue to claim that atheism can only mean "belief in the non-existence of God", please provide proof, or at least evidence to support your claim.

phlogistician

11-03-08, 03:50 AM

It is by standard, intended to signify athe-ism which is the antithesis of theism.

It only seems that way if your mental prowess limits you to binary thinking.

Clearly, you are limited. See Swarm's post that illustrates the many options nicely.

Simon Anders

11-03-08, 07:49 AM

It only seems that way if your mental prowess limits you to binary thinking.

Clearly, you are limited. See Swarm's post that illustrates the many options nicely.
Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

greenberg

11-03-08, 08:15 AM

Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

I wonder when it is that they are soft, and when it is that they are hard. Before or after cooking? :eek:

Simon Anders

11-03-08, 08:40 AM

I wonder when it is that they are soft, and when it is that they are hard. Before or after cooking? :eek:
It depends on how much they train.

lixluke

11-03-08, 08:50 AM

lixluke, I know this is difficult to understand, but try.

There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confusion of the issue.

One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)

A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.

A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.

These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).

Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).

This is like saying some theists commit murder therefore all theists are murderers.

If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.

Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.
I'm not attacking or discussing anybody's position. I am clarifying the definitions, terms, and standard use of positions.
EVERYTHING in your explanation is not only an illogical format for term definitions, it is not standard use of term definitions.

As stated:
So before I move on, the reason I consider all of your arguments totally circular is because you do not seem to be arguing against the points that I am making. It is in my conclusion that you have no idea what I am saying. It isn't complicated, so I will explain my position as I have done many times as clear as I can.

My main solid point is:
1. The term "atheism" 'was' orignilally intended and 'is' commonly accepted as a term to describe the position that there is no such thing as God. It is the antithesis to theism which is the position that there is such thing as God.

2. SW wants to change it so that the term "atheism" includes everybody who is not theism. Moreover, they want to use the term "strong atheism" to replace the term "atheism" to those who fall under the idea of atheism as described in #1.

3. It is my position that the term "atheism" is best used in its original context. To describe those who believe there is no God. Not to describe everybody that does not abide by theism.

1 and 2 are pretty much the same argument how the term atheism is used. #3 is more of an argument about the best use of the term atheism.

As it stands in #3, my position on the use of the term also implies that the term atheism/agnosticism impossible in definition #1 of atheism, but possible in definition #2 of atheism.
-If atheism is defined as those who state there is definitely no God, it is impossible for agnosticism to fall under that.
-If atheism is defined as those all who do not fall under theism, then agnosticism simply falls under one type of atheism.

If you wish to discuss your agreement/disagreement with my position, it is important that you are clear on what exactly my position is. Aside from any problems you might have with my conclusions, are you at all unclear of what my conclusions are? If and only if you are clear about what my conclusions are, I welcome you to comment on them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2074884&postcount=278

greenberg

11-03-08, 08:57 AM

It depends on how much they train.

Well, cooking many sweet desserts would make a person ... soft, I guess ...

Please, this thread is silly! Atheists either don't care about God, don't like God, don't know God, don't care about theists or scriptures, think they know better than anyone else, are unhappy, deluded, spell-bound, or any combination of these, and this is all there really is to atheism thank you very much.

Simon Anders

11-03-08, 09:02 AM

Well, cooking many sweet desserts would make a person ... soft, I guess ...
Unless they are marathoners.

Please, this thread is silly! Atheists either don't care about God, don't like God, don't know God, don't care about theists or scriptures, think they know better than anyone else, are unhappy, deluded, spell-bound, or any combination of these, and this is all there really is to atheism thank you very much.I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.

lixluke

11-03-08, 09:24 AM

Unless they are marathoners.

I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.
There is no such thing as hard or soft atheists. Everybody you categorize as a soft atheist is not an atheist or a theist. The only atheists that can legititmately be called atheist are those who you categorize as hard atheists.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068486&postcount=1

phlogistician

11-03-08, 10:45 AM

Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

While I might not agree with the labels he uses, ie, splitting the term 'atheist' into hard and soft, he describes the varying viewpoints accurately. It was more important to illustrate that the issue is not a binary one to lixluke, than to nitpick over labels with swarm.

phlogistician

11-03-08, 10:46 AM

Oh, and lixluke, you're wrong. Here's the proof;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2075806&postcount=293

lixluke

11-03-08, 11:29 AM

If a person believes that God definitely does not exist, it is impossible for that person to be an agnostic.

lixluke

11-03-08, 11:50 AM

When a person claims to know for sure that X is true, that does not mean X is true in actuality. In logic, there is a simple way of describing this. I shall start by providing definitions. Then I will proceed with logical analysis based on the definitions provided.

DEFINITIONS
BELIEF = Something an individual claims to be 100% certainly true.
KNOWLEDGE = When something an individual claims to be true with 100% certainty is actually true.

ANALYSIS
(Note: Whether or not you agree with the definitions above, the tems in the following analysis abide by the definitions above.)

1. If an individual is 100% certain X is true, does that mean X is actually true? => No.
2. Is everything an individual is 100% certain of a belief? => Yes.
3. Is everything an individual is 100% certain of knowledge? => No. It is only knoweldge when what an individal believes to be true is actually true.
4. Can anything that an individual is not certain of be a belief? => No. BY DEFINITION a belief is only everything one is 100% certain of.
5. Are there those who claim that God certainly does not exist? => Yes.
6. Is it possible for those who claim that ‘God certainly does not exist’ to claim, in logic, that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’? => No. If I claim to be certain of something, I cannot, in logic, claim that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’.
7. Is it possible for those who claim that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’ to believe that God does not exist? => No. A belief is an individual’s 100% certainty of something. Thus, an individual who is 100% certain God does not exist cannot claim, in logic, that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’.

FACTS ON BEING OPEN TO BEING WRONG
-No matter how certain one is about something, it is impossible to not be open to being wrong.
-100% certainty of something DOES NOT imply one is not open to being wrong.
-Being open to being wrong DOES NOT imply uncertainty.

MISDEFINING BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE
It is illogical to define belief in terms of an individual being uncertain. It is illogical to define knowledge as an individual’s certainty.[/SIZE]

lixluke

11-03-08, 12:54 PM

[SWARM’S DILLEMAS
A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
A theist simply believes that God exists. Anybody who believes anything naturally believes that knowledge is possible.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
This is impossible. What is the purpose of considering a belief to be something that a person is not certain of? Why do you want to complicate definitions beyond their actual meaning?
A Theist is simply an individual who is certain God exists.

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.
This is incorrect again. An agnostic is an individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible. An individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible CANNOT claim knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence. There is no such thing that somebody who can believe in something, yet claim that one cannot know something for certain. All a belief is, is an individual’s proclamation of certain knowledge.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
There is no such thing as hard or soft agnostic. There never has been. These are concocted terms. An agnostic period does not claim that God does or does not exist, but claims that it is most definitely impossible for man to know whether or not God exists. Why bother grouping them into different categories?

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.
This implies that there are theists or atheists that are not open being proven wrong. Just because you are 100% certain of X, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are no open to being proven wrong. This is a fact for all beliefs and anything any rational individual is 100% certain of. I am certain of X. If you can prove to me that X is false, please enlighten me.[/SIZE]

lixluke

11-03-08, 01:10 PM

1. An individual who claims God certainly does exist cannot claim => It is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence.
2. An individual who claims God certainly does not exist cannot claim => It is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence.
3. An individual who claims it is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence cannot claim => God certainly exists. God certainly does not exist.
4. It is erroneous to claim that those who abide by any of the above 3 or any form of certainty in any case is not open to being wrong. Furthermore, it is erroneous to claim that being open to being wrong impies uncertainty.

greenberg

11-04-08, 03:16 AM

Unless they are marathoners.

Okay.

I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.

True. Atheism seems to be a very relative phenomenon in that it is contingent on a large number of factors - as it is said somewhere: the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.

The differences between atheists and the way they either fight about them or don't fight about them - this does strike me as silly, though, but "silly" is a mild word. There is something extremely shameful and embarrassing to, on the one hand, profess such certainty as atheists usually do, and, on the other hand, to have such unresolved issues in one's outlook.

Sarkus

11-04-08, 04:17 AM

Lixluke - your definitions are inaccurate, and thus your conclusions are flawed.

An agnostic is, as you say, someone who holds that certain knowledge is impossible - but you miss the other meaning... which is that someone merely has no knowledge of the subject.

e.g. I am agnostic regarding the quality of whiskey's... not because I think that it is impossible to tell a good from bad whiskey, but because I personally have no knowledge of it.

Also, Pascal's Wager might tempt you into making a choice without having knowledge, if the pay-off for for being right is good enough... and he felt that eternal paradise was sufficient for one to choose to be an agnostic theist.

Also - in your analysis you are confusing "belief" with "certainty".
Belief is merely the holding of a proposition to be true but when the assumptions can not be taken as knowledge. i.e. belief is the acceptance of the proposition when there is no logical reason to do so based on the knowledge available.

Certainty is different... it is an emotion attached to the belief, and is a measure with the strength with which the belief is held. But not all beliefs need to be held with certainty.

And a theist is not someone who is "certain" god exists - but who "believes" god exists.

Agnostic theists exist - e.g. those who believe the Universe was created but whose creator sits outside the creation and can not interact with it. The can be no evidence of the existence of this god (beyond our own existence as "evidence") but these people choose to believe he does.

Your analysis is flawed because you can not account for these people within your definitions, and thus your definitions must be incorrect.

lixluke

11-04-08, 07:51 AM

Lixluke - your definitions are inaccurate, and thus your conclusions are flawed.

An agnostic is, as you say, someone who holds that certain knowledge is impossible.
What? Where the hell did I say that?
Agnosticism: Knowledge of God is not possible.
Skepticism: Knowledge of anything is not possible.

-All skeptics are by default agnostics. Skepticism - Man cannot know anything for certain. Therefore, man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists.
-All agnostics are not necessarily skeptics. Agnosticism - Man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. I may or may not also believe that man cannot know anything for certain.

e.g. I am agnostic regarding the quality of whiskey's... not because I think that it is impossible to tell a good from bad whiskey, but because I personally have no knowledge of it.
WTF??!!
You people cannot be serious. You have no clue what agnosticism or gnosticism means.

belief is the acceptance of the proposition when there is no logical reason to do so based on the knowledge available.
Wrong. It is a misconception that belief implies uncertainty. Belief is acceptance of a proposition period. A belief is anything an individual is certain of whether a person is certain of something due to logical proof. 1+ 1 =2. Or a person is certain of something for any other reason. The reason for an individual's certainty is irrelevant. Furthermore, belief does not and cannot imply uncertainty.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2075844&postcount=1

phlogistician

11-04-08, 10:51 AM

Oh Lixluke you are so wrong, please check out this link to see why;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2077115&postcount=301

Sarkus

11-04-08, 11:38 AM

What? Where the hell did I say that?
Agnosticism: Knowledge of God is not possible.
Skepticism: Knowledge of anything is not possible.
-All skeptics are by default agnostics. Skepticism - Man cannot know anything for certain. Therefore, man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists.
-All agnostics are not necessarily skeptics. Agnosticism - Man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. I may or may not also believe that man cannot know anything for certain.

WTF??!!
You people cannot be serious. You have no clue what agnosticism or gnosticism means.Well, it seems here's the rub.
You seem have your personal dictionary and understanding of certain words, we all have ours.

You stick to your version / understanding of atheism / agnosticism / belief / whatever, we'll continue to use ours.

We'll discuss freely, using these terms as we do - you'll forever get frustrated as and when we don't use them the way you would like.

phlogistician

11-04-08, 01:23 PM

Well, it seems here's the rub.
You seem have your personal dictionary and understanding of certain words, we all have ours.
.

Lixluke has a very personal view of everything, self deluding himself how qualified he is for jobs, but not being able to hold one down, seeing better ways for the world to work, that reward him for doing nothing,...

This redefinition of accepted terms is just him trying to make the world work the way he thinks it should. It's possibly a symptom of schizophrenia.

lixluke

11-05-08, 09:44 AM

We'll discuss freely, using these terms as we do
This was already established in the beginning, and not in question. Anybody is free to discuss their idea and beliefs. What is in question is if your ideologies are such a great way of approaching these terms and definitions. Or if they are overcomplicated and pointless.

The dictionary states that Atheism is only those who believe God does not exist. SW, your leaders, want Atheism to be everybody that is a non-theist.

It is simply not logical. There are a plethora of isms out there. There is no term for anybody that does not take sides on any particular ism. If you do not take a side on something, you are simply not labeled. To say that there should be a term for those who alone do not take sides on whether or not God exists is irrational. Then to group them under the term that is specifically defined as those who take the side that God does not exist is even worse.

The simplicity is flawless:
-God exists - Theism.
-God does not exist - Atheism.
-It is possible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Gnosticism.
-It is impossible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Agnosticim.

-I do not know/Uncertain about any of the above - No term. There is no "ism" or label for somebody that does not have a stand.

Why change this? Why complicate it? Why would you want the term "atheism" to include all non-theists? Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".

Simon Anders

11-05-08, 10:03 AM

Lixluke has a very personal view of everything, self deluding himself how qualified he is for jobs, but not being able to hold one down, seeing better ways for the world to work, that reward him for doing nothing,...

This redefinition of accepted terms is just him trying to make the world work the way he thinks it should. It's possibly a symptom of schizophrenia.
Wait. You are agreeing with Sarkus who is referring to dictionaries which you have disparaged ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE as incorrect.

Sarkus is being critical of lixluxe for using a definition of terms that is different from those in dictionaries and you then agree with this criticism AND extend it via ad hom to include personal problems he may or may not have.

Wow.

swarm

11-05-08, 11:29 PM

I'm not attacking or discussing anybody's position. I am clarifying the definitions, terms, and standard use of positions.
EVERYTHING in your explanation is not only an illogical format for term definitions, it is not standard use of term definitions.

Just because it doesn't fit your strawman, that doesn't mean it is incorrect or illogical.

swarm

11-05-08, 11:33 PM

I shall start by providing definitions. Then I will proceed with logical analysis based on the definitions provided.

GIGO

Garbage definitions lead to garbage conclutions.

swarm

11-06-08, 01:56 AM

SWARM’S DILLEMAS[/B]

You need to look up the word "dillema."

A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
A theist simply believes that God exists. - good, we agree
Anybody who believes anything naturally believes that knowledge is possible. - Knowing something implies that one is certain and justified in one's belief. Just believing is a weaker stance because the belief has not been fully substanciated. Most theists I've encountered claim to know god exists.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
This is impossible. - well duh, we are talking about god.

What is the purpose of considering a belief to be something that a person is not certain of? - Because it is a test of faith.

Why do you want to complicate definitions beyond their actual meaning? - a definition which fails to account for all the members of the group it is defining is useless.

A Theist is simply an individual who is certain God exists. - Not all theists are certain. Some believe inspite of their uncertainty as a matter of faith.

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.

This is incorrect again. An agnostic is an individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible. - No, the term agnostic just means you don't know that god exists. This includes those who just have not answered the question to their satisfaction yet and those who think the question cannot be answered at all.

An individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible CANNOT claim knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence. - agnostics by definition don't claim to have knowledge of god's existence. Belief, lack of belief and disbelief however don't require knowledge. In fact if you have knowledge then it is not necessary to believe, lack belief or disbelief.

There is no such thing that somebody who can believe in something, yet claim that one cannot know something for certain. - People do it all the time.

All a belief is, is an individual’s proclamation of certain knowledge. - you are mistaken. Knowledge is a certain and justified belief. A belief can have certainty, but that certainty is unsupportable or it would be knowledge, not belief.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
There is no such thing as hard or soft agnostic. Its nice to see you so mistaken.

Why bother grouping them into different categories? To clarify the nuances of the different possitions.

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.

This implies that there are theists or atheists that are not open being proven wrong. - There are theists who will not accept any counter point to their position - period. Hard atheists aren't quite as rabid. If you brought an actual deity over for dinner they would probably reconsider, but nothing short of that is going to do the trick.

Just because you are 100% certain of X, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are no open to being proven wrong. - You seem to not understand what the word "certain" means.

A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.

phlogistician

11-06-08, 07:21 AM

Sarkus

11-06-08, 11:23 AM

The dictionary states that Atheism is only those who believe God does not exist.Source, please? And when you do provide your source, please be sure to provide ALL meanings that "the dictionary" give.

The simplicity is flawless:
-God exists - Theism.
-God does not exist - Atheism.
-It is possible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Gnosticism.
-It is impossible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Agnosticim."God exists" is not theism. Theism is "the belief that God exists".
Theists are ones who hold that, or believe that, or claim that... God exists.

"God exists" is nothing more than a statement. One can do absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that statement.
It is the relationship to that statement that determines whether you are theist or not.

Further, A-theism is to theism what a-moral is to moral.
Note the difference beween "amoral" and "immoral" - the former is merely "without morals", the latter is "anti-morals".

-I do not know/Uncertain about any of the above - No term. There is no "ism" or label for somebody that does not have a stand.Agnosticism, but you choose to ignore this meaning.
Or merely apathetic.

Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".Source, please? Or is this merely a confidence statement?

phlogistician

11-07-08, 05:28 AM

Wait. You are agreeing with Sarkus who is referring to dictionaries which you have disparaged ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE as incorrect.

Sarkus is being critical of lixluxe for using a definition of terms that is different from those in dictionaries and you then agree with this criticism AND extend it via ad hom to include personal problems he may or may not have.

Wow.

Also, to clear things up, the usage of atheist to mean 'someone who denies the existence of God' while technically correct in one specific circumstance, is misleading.

Atheist means someone who does not believe in God. A subset of those might go as far as denying god (so meet the general criteria), but the superset is not defined by the constraints of the subset. Get it? Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists, the relationship is not a bijection.

phlogistician

11-07-08, 05:42 AM

Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".

Again, that is just not true.

If I ask the question;

"Do you Believe in God?"

1, Yes
2, No
3, Don't Know

You count the number of theists by the number of people that answer '1'
You count the number of agnostics by the number of people that answer '3'
You count the number of atheists by the number of people that no not pick '1'

Not knowing is not a pro position. It cannot be included in '1'. Atheists are \overline {theists}, so all other options but '1'. Please note, the question deals with the responses to the belief in god. To prove some counter point, please create a poll based around the question 'do you deny the existence of God', and see where you get.

lixluke

11-09-08, 06:22 PM

Source, please? And when you do provide your source.
This is rediculous. It is a dictionary. Simple as that. Not some idiotic website full of stupidity.

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

This is the original intended and commonly accepted definition of atheism. Other definitions circulating the internet are simply what a handful of people "want" atheism to be defined as.

Twisting definitions of certainty and belief is not relevant.

Either you claim that God exists or you claim God does not exist. There is no reason to group those who do not take a position on the issue as atheism. Agnosticism does not take either position, so no reason to claim them as atheism either. Agnosticism is simply a position that man can never know either way. No reason to try to make it complicated.

Here are the different positons:
1. Those who claim God exists.
2. Those who claim God does not exist.
3. Those who do not make either claim.
4. Those who do not make either claim, and make the claim that man cannot know whether or not God exist.

That is all there is. There is no such thing as the claim that God does not exist, and being uncertain about it.

A belief that is not a claim of certain knowledge is impossible, illogical, and not even relevant. Unless you make a claim on God being real or not real, there is no reason to categorize you as theism or atheism.

lixluke

11-09-08, 07:06 PM

It is impossible to beleive something without certanty. What makes you think a belief implies uncertainty?

1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Don't know/uncertain.

In the case of the claim that God does exist:
1. True
2. False
3. Don't know/uncertain.

#1 is theism. #2 is atheism. #3 is not an ism because they don't take a position. What reason is there to define theism and atheism as anything else?

Sarkus

11-10-08, 02:51 AM

This is rediculous. It is a dictionary. Simple as that. Not some idiotic website full of stupidity.But I am hopeful that you are aware that there is more than one dictionary? And thus if you say "THE dictionary..." I would expect some source cited.

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheismThis is the original intended and commonly accepted definition of atheism. Other definitions circulating the internet are simply what a handful of people "want" atheism to be defined as.

Twisting definitions of certainty and belief is not relevant.And yet you don't define what "disbelief" is.

If you want to claim "disbelief in X = belief in not-X" then you'll struggle.
Disbelief is the refusal to accept something as true.
Disbelief is not the acceptance of that thing as false!

So while your dictionary certainly supports your understanding of "atheism", you unfortunately, or deliberately, ride rough-shod over the first definition of "atheism" in that very same dictionary... i.e. "disbelief in the existence of a deity".

So please, for the sake of us all - either abide by ALL the definitions your source-dictionary gives you... or STFU!!

The rest of your arguments are irrelevant because of your failure to understand the first definition from your own source dictionary.

Hey ho.

phlogistician

11-10-08, 03:41 AM

Lixluke, you are wrong, end of story. It's about faith, which you clearly do not understand.

If you had any intellectual honesty you would respond to my post, using the contrary position, 'do you deny the existence of God. But for some reason you daren't do that.

lixluke

11-10-08, 08:32 AM

I WILLNOT answer questions that are ad hom instead of focus on topic. Ad hom focus is illogical, and has no relevance to facts. Discussions never have anything to do with the individual. Here is what is being discussed:
The term atheism. Either it shouldo only be used for only those who believe there is no God or it should be used for everybody that is not theism.

Disbelief is the rejection of a matter as being true. Disbelief in X = Belief in not X = Belief X is false.

Legitimate dictionaries define atheism as those who claim there is no God. Dictionaries aside, whether you like this definition for atheism or not. This is the historical interpretation of atheism, and the standard use of the term.

It is a position, and therefore an ism. Not a term for all those who do not abide by the ism. It is illogical to categorize anybody that does not claim "the existence of God is false" under atheism. It is simply not an ism. Why place somebody that does not claim "there is no God" under atheism?

phlogistician

11-10-08, 08:41 AM

Disbelief is the rejection of a matter as being true. Disbelief in X = Belief in not X = Belief X is false.

Not true.

Not believing I will win the lottery != disbelieving there is a lottery I could win.

Your 'logic' fails.

lixluke

11-10-08, 10:14 AM

Sarkus

11-10-08, 03:52 PM

Disbelieving is simply defined as a rejection of a matter as true. If you claim that you will not win the lottery, it means you reject the claim that you will win the lottery. Whatever word you want to use or interpretation of it, the whole point is a claim that something is false. If you don't like that definition for disbelief, find another word for it, and use it. All you are doing is arguing definitions. Definitions arguments are based on intent and standard use.Your arguments tend to run along the lines of...

My source defines X as (a), (b) and (c).
I choose (a) and reject all other definitions.
Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with the dictionary.
Therefore anyone who also uses (b) or (c) are wrong.
QED.

Thus endeth the discussion, methinks.

Simon Anders

11-10-08, 06:11 PM

Also, to clear things up, the usage of atheist to mean 'someone who denies the existence of God' while technically correct in one specific circumstance, is misleading.

Atheist means someone who does not believe in God. A subset of those might go as far as denying god (so meet the general criteria), but the superset is not defined by the constraints of the subset. Get it? Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists, the relationship is not a bijection.You could have saved a lot of back and forth with me if you had said this long ago. Your position is now a lot closer to most dictionaries, including the OED, and philosophical usage. It also saves you the trouble of trying to convert anti-theists/atheists here like Q, Stranger, Medicine Woman and JDawg who include what you call anti-theists in their definition of atheist.

(Q)

11-10-08, 06:18 PM

It also saves you the trouble of trying to convert anti-theists/atheists here like Q, who include what you call anti-theists in their definition of theist.

:shrug:

Simon Anders

11-10-08, 06:23 PM

:shrug:I could be mistaken but it seems to me you have identified with atheists. You have directly denied the existence of God:

It is just another silly contrivance on the part of theists to prop up their cults. Their gods doesn't exist in, out, above, below or anywhere else other than their imaginations.So, we could probably safely conclude it is their imaginations that are, "Out of this Universe!"

If you do identify yourself not as an atheist, but rather as an anti-theist then you are in agreement with Phlogistan's labeling system and I will edit your name off the list. If, however, you consider yourself an atheist, then I will leave the list as is. I am afraid the quote above eliminates agnostic as an option. I am open to hearing about other labeling possibilities.

(Q)

11-10-08, 07:10 PM

If, however, you consider yourself an atheist, then I will leave the list as is. I am afraid the quote above eliminates agnostic as an option. I am open to hearing about other labeling possibilities.

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:

Simon Anders

11-10-08, 07:30 PM

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:
I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

anti-theists/atheists here like Q [etc.] clearly putting you NOT in the theist camp.

If you do not consider yourself an atheist then you do not belong on that list. If you consider yourself an anti-theist then you are using terms according to Phlog's terminology. If you consider yourself an atheist, then you disagree with his terminology, given that you denied, in the earlier cited example, the existence of God or gods.

edit: I can see how my ironic use of 'convert' might have been misleading.

lixluke

11-11-08, 01:07 AM

Your arguments tend to run along the lines of...

My source defines X as (a), (b) and (c).
I choose (a) and reject all other definitions.
Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with the dictionary.
Therefore anyone who also uses (b) or (c) are wrong.
QED.

Thus endeth the discussion, methinks.
I never said this anywhere. I didn't even post the link to the dictionary until somebody aksed for it.

I never claimed to be discussing accpetance or rejection of alternate uses of a term. I am simply providing the originally intended commonly accpeted use of the terms.

The point in any alternate use of the term is a different discussion. It is not about accpeting or rejecting. There is simply very specific definition for these terms that have been in common use. The question is about whether or not it is reasonable to use alternate definitions.

There is no reason to use "atheism" to describe anybody that does not claim that there is no God. There is not reason to use agnosticism to describe anybody that does not take the position that man can never know whether or not God exists.

It is as simple as that. There has yet to be shown any legitimate reason to categorize somebody under atheism who has no position on the matter.

Anybody who wants to claim "atheism" is all who do not take the position that there is a God might as well claim that "theism" is all who do not take the position that there is not God.

lixluke

11-11-08, 01:16 AM

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:
They are trying to create some new absurd labeling system.
If you do identify yourself not as an atheist, but rather as an anti-theist then you are in agreement with Phlogistan's labeling system

lixluke

11-11-08, 01:21 AM

You have directly denied the existence of God
Nuts everywhere are claiming that everybody who directly denies the existence of God is "anti-theism". The proper interpretation of anti-theism is anybody who hates theists. Not anybody who directly denies the existence of God. Anybody who does not directly deny the existence of God cannot fall under atheism.

phlogistician

11-11-08, 03:48 AM

Disbelieving is simply defined as a rejection of a matter as true. If you claim that you will not win the lottery, it means you reject the claim that you will win the lottery. Whatever word you want to use or interpretation of it, the whole point is a claim that something is false. If you don't like that definition for disbelief, find another word for it, and use it. All you are doing is arguing definitions. Definitions arguments are based on intent and standard use.

No, all you are doing, is twisting definitions, without a purpose or goal. Your lies lead nowhere.

It's not about a claim, it's about belief. Your clearly cannot make the distinction. We do not know what is true, this is the crux. We can believe, based on evidence, or reject, based on the paucity of evidence, but 'truth'? Please, that's as much an abstract concept as 'faith'.

You are wrapped up in absolutes that you can have no knowledge of. Your head is in the sky, as always.

phlogistician

11-11-08, 04:06 AM

I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

That's not quite true. Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists. Anti-theists are a subset of atheists, so the second usage recorded in the dictionary is redundant. "a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity."

Atheism simply means a lack of faith. In that subset are people who go further, better described as anti-theists. You do not define the superset by the parameters of the subset. We are claiming back the word, and clearing up the mud that has been slung.

For example, when we describe people as 'theists' we do not expect them to believe in every god. To qualify as a theist, you just need to believe in one, and that puts theists in a subset of a very large set. We make no assumption about which god theists believe in. Believing in the Christian God does not define the whole set.

Do you see my distinction yet?

(Q)

11-11-08, 08:54 AM

I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

clearly putting you NOT in the theist camp.

If you do not consider yourself an atheist then you do not belong on that list. If you consider yourself an anti-theist then you are using terms according to Phlog's terminology. If you consider yourself an atheist, then you disagree with his terminology, given that you denied, in the earlier cited example, the existence of God or gods.

edit: I can see how my ironic use of 'convert' might have been misleading.

Sorry, perhaps it's a typo in post number 321 that says theist. :shrug:

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:04 AM

Sorry, perhaps it's a typo in post number 321 that says theist. :shrug:

yeah, the last word should read atheist.

Now that we have done this back and forth so many times, it would be fair if you would actually mention your self-label.

(Q)

11-11-08, 09:15 AM

yeah, the last word should read atheist.

Now that we have done this back and forth so many times, it would be fair if you would actually mention your self-label.

I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

What would be the label for that?

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:23 AM

I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

What would be the label for that?
Both Phlog and I would call that an atheist. To be fussy I might add that it is a weak atheist (or soft atheist) -which might set Phlog's teeth gnashing.

But if that is your stance then

It is just another silly contrivance on the part of theists to prop up their cults. Their gods doesn't exist in, out, above, below or anywhere else other than their imaginations.So, we could probably safely conclude it is their imaginations that are, "Out of this Universe!"
is problematic. Because you are making an ontological claim that God(s) does/do not exist, period.

That is what I would call a hard atheist stance and Phlog would call an anti-theist and he would not want you to categorize yourself as an atheist. He has become slightly more flexible on this issue, but my sense is he still would prefer 'anti-theist' for those who claim there is no God.

Enmos

11-11-08, 09:27 AM

The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".

Enmos

11-11-08, 09:40 AM

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/144/atheismus8.jpg

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:41 AM

Atheism simply means a lack of faith. In that subset are people who go further, better described as anti-theists. You do not define the superset by the parameters of the subset. We are claiming back the word, and clearing up the mud that has been slung. So you would consider it slung mud to be considered an 'anti-theist'.

Do you see my distinction yet?I've seen your distinction for ages. If you want you can go back to where we first started banging heads and I think you will find yourself saying that anti-theists were not atheists.

I think part of the problem is you were fighting with people who only wanted atheist to be what you call anti-theist. I was not taking that position but saying that the word is and has been used to cover both what you call theists and anti-theists. You kept telling me this was incorrect AND a recent invention. The latter is clearly incorrect. It is not a recent usage of the word. I missed at the time that you did say in one post that anti-theists were a subset of atheists, but in other posts you told me that if someone used atheist to include both anti-theists and theists, they were incorrect.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:44 AM

The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".I agree and so does the OED and so the word has been used for hundreds of years.

Here's what interests me, right now.

I'll use Phlog's terminology.

Anti-theists believe there is no God.
Atheists lack a belief in God.

The former are making a claim.
Why do the latter, here, never challenge the former on that claim?

It even sounds like Phlog considers it an insult to be confused with an anti-theist. That this way of defining atheism is slinging mud at atheists.

(Q)

11-11-08, 09:48 AM

Both Phlog and I would call that an atheist. To be fussy I might add that it is a weak atheist (or soft atheist) -which might set Phlog's teeth gnashing.

But if that is your stance then

is problematic. Because you are making an ontological claim that God(s) does/do not exist, period.

It's not problematic at all, I am referring to theists whose claims are little more than what they can muster from the imaginative, which I was stating where their gods must exist, if they exist at all.

That is what I would call a hard atheist stance and Phlog would call an anti-theist and he would not want you to categorize yourself as an atheist. He has become slightly more flexible on this issue, but my sense is he still would prefer 'anti-theist' for those who claim there is no God.

I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.

Enmos

11-11-08, 09:48 AM

Enmos

11-11-08, 09:50 AM

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:54 AM

Simon,
Anti-theistm (and I'm going by the definition you gave) is just a form of atheism.
Atheism is the entire group of people that do not believe in any God (see image above). Strong, weak, anti-, etc atheism all fall within this group, but are just different levels of extremity or different ways of looking at it.
That's how I see it anyway.. and I think it's the most logical way to view it as well.
I agree.

But that doesn't address the main issue there.

I will now use my (and your terminology)

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something. (iow they claim to know something)

where is the discussion of this difference.

It makes atheists who simply lack a belief in God incredibly angry if it is assumed they are like this other subset of atheists. They are willing to participate in incredibly long threads to make sure that it is not assumed they are like these other guys.

So it must be an important distinction.

I find it odd that a discussion does not take place between these two types of atheists.

If you go into the religion forum you can find threads where theists argue with each other about differences in belief that are of significance to us.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:54 AM

I agree, anti-theism is a really bad way of terming it. It seems to imply actively being against theism.You should take this up with Phlog.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 09:56 AM

It's not problematic at all, I am referring to theists whose claims are little more than what they can muster from the imaginative, which I was stating where their gods must exist, if they exist at all. So you are not ruling out that some god might exist. I think your wording was poor there then, but I, of course, accept that this is what you meant.

I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.
You should take this up with Phlog if the issue is important to you. I agree with your problem with the term. Some dictionaries do support this usage, but I think it is misleading. I have friends who are anti-theists, but they never work in any way against theism or theists. They do not try to ameliorate theism or reduce it. Or theists. I think there should be a positive term for it since it is a belief, unlike other atheists who simply lack a belief.

phlogistician

11-11-08, 10:02 AM

So you would consider it slung mud to be considered an 'anti-theist'.

Yes, because it's a faith based proposition. While I feel the chances of there being a God is approaching zero, to claim there is no God, and make a definitive statement is not scientific.

I've seen your distinction for ages. If you want you can go back to where we first started banging heads and I think you will find yourself saying that anti-theists were not atheists.

Atheists are not necessarily anti-theists, is what I mean to get across. Even though anti-theists are atheists (just like agnostics are atheists) that does not mean we have to include the definition of the subset. For some reason, the definition of agnostic doesn't get added to atheist, but they are not theists, ....

I think part of the problem is you were fighting with people who only wanted atheist to be what you call anti-theist. I was not taking that position but saying that the word is and has been used to cover both what you call theists and anti-theists. You kept telling me this was incorrect AND a recent invention. The latter is clearly incorrect. It is not a recent usage of the word.

It is being used more and more recently. When I started debating on the WWW all those years ago (and I worked in Academia, I've had access since the late 80's) this 'anti-theist' angle never came up. In fact, I'm seeing it more and more in the last couple of years than ever before, so yes, as a widespread view, it is more prevalent now.

I missed at the time that you did say in one post that anti-theists were a subset of atheists, but in other posts you told me that if someone used atheist to include both anti-theists and theists, they were incorrect.

Like I said agnostics are not lumped into the definition of atheist, but they are most definitely not theists. Therefore to lump anti-theists in is incongruous.

Also, like I said in my other post, being a theist does not guarantee which god, so being an atheist should confer nothing exceptional either.

(Q)

11-11-08, 10:03 AM

phlogistician

11-11-08, 10:06 AM

I agree, anti-theism is a really bad way of terming it. It seems to imply actively being against theism.

Are the Antipodes actively against the Podes? Is Anti-Clockwise a political stance against Clockwise? Is an anti-hero a villain? No.

Contra-theist would imply being actively against theists, wouldn't it?

There is nothing wrong with the term 'anti-theist'.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:08 AM

I agree.

But that doesn't address the main issue there.

I will now use my (and your terminology)

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something. (iow they claim to know something)

where is the discussion of this difference.

It makes atheists who simply lack a belief in God incredibly angry if it is assumed they are like this other subset of atheists. They are willing to participate in incredibly long threads to make sure that it is not assumed they are like these other guys.

So it must be an important distinction.

I find it odd that a discussion does not take place between these two types of atheists.

If you go into the religion forum you can find threads where theists argue with each other about differences in belief that are of significance to us.

Simon, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I think most atheists (at least the ones with a brain) do not believe in any god because there simply is no evidence for it and no implication whatsoever for any gods existence. The whole idea of a god goes against nature itself, it is not only not necessary but it even contradicts nature.
These atheist are of the opinion (because of the reasons above) that the existence of a god is so unbelievably improbable that you can just as well say he doesn't exist. But at the same time they have to admit that they can't know that with a 100% certainty (albeit by a negligible margin). A lot of theists don't seem to get this and that is why atheists are wary about saying things like "god doesn't exist". Because then the theists come up with crap arguments like "atheism is just another religion".

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:09 AM

You should take this up with Phlog.

I don't really care much how one likes to label himself though. As long as people don't try to label me wrongly.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:10 AM

Perhaps, what they "know" is the track record of religions, in regards to the supernatural, their history, their atrocities in the name of their god, and all the other wonderful things religions purport that has or has not had an effect on reality. Perhaps, they also "know" the earth wasn't created in 6000 years, that virgin births and resurrections have never been shown to occur, that the magic in the bible is pure bunkum.

Perhaps there is a great deal one can "know" about religions.

That is all fine and dandy. I share a lot of what they 'know' in that case. But they are making a claim to knowledge in relation to God in the specific case I mentioned. And what you described above sounds like it would be perfectly well described by anti-theism.

It is simply not good science or philosophy to decide something must be false because of the past behavior of those who believed it was true - even setting aside the behavior of some theists even anti-theists must admire.

So to make a claim of knowledge about the existence of something is still a difference with atheists who simply lack a belief in God and who can also have all the kinds of knowing you listed above about religions.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:11 AM

Are the Antipodes actively against the Podes? Is Anti-Clockwise a political stance against Clockwise? Is an anti-hero a villain? No.

Contra-theist would imply being actively against theists, wouldn't it?

There is nothing wrong with the term 'anti-theist'.

"It seems to imply.."

I know what you mean by it, but lots of people will misinterpret the term. That's why I don't think it's a good term.

(Q)

11-11-08, 10:11 AM

So you are not ruling out that some god might exist. I think your wording was poor there then, but I, of course, accept that this is what you meant.

I see it this way, there is always the possibility of gods existing, just as there is the possibility of fairies and gnomes existing, or whatever one wishes to claim. However, the probability of gods existing, based on evidence, is so highly improbable, it barely registers as an infinitesimally small probability.

You should take this up with Phlog if the issue is important to you.

I was taking it up with you as you were the one questioning me.

I agree with your problem with the term. Some dictionaries do support this usage, but I think it is misleading. I have friends who are anti-theists, but they never work in any way against theism or theists. They do not try to ameliorate theism or reduce it. Or theists. I think there should be a positive term for it since it is a belief, unlike other atheists who simply lack a belief.

There is an added definition to "anti" - not in favor of, which might give some credibility to those who don't actively oppose religion, they are simply not in favor of religion.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:12 AM

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.

I really do understand what you said about those who lack the belief. I notice that you call the atheists who believe there is no God indoctrinated. Again, this speaks of a significant philosophical difference. And so the lack of discussion between these two types of atheist confuses me.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:12 AM

Anyway.. wasn't the original question "What exactly is atheism ?" ?
I think that has been answered.

Does anyone have a comment to make about this picture ?

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/144/atheismus8.jpg

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:13 AM

I really do understand what you said about those who lack the belief. I notice that you call the atheists who believe there is no God indoctrinated. Again, this speaks of a significant philosophical difference. And so the lack of discussion between these two types of atheist confuses me.

Atheists are not a coherent group. All they have in common is not believing in some fairy tale (pardon).

phlogistician

11-11-08, 10:14 AM

I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.

I suggest 'contra-theism' for actively trying to disprove theism. Although I am for religions paying tax, that's about the establishment of religion, not the belief in God, so 'contra-theism' doesn't fit the bill for being against religion. We need yet another word for that.

People who believe in God don't get to dodge tax. Only organised religions do, so I think the word for people who don't think the church should be able to dodge tax is 'fair minded'.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:16 AM

possibility[/i] of gods existing, just as there is the possibility of fairies and gnomes existing, or whatever one wishes to claim. However, the probability of gods existing, based on evidence, is so highly improbable, it barely registers as an infinitesimally small probability.Fine.

I was taking it up with you as you were the one questioning me. Just making it clear that it is not my terminology.

There is an added definition to "anti" - not in favor of, which might give some credibility to those who don't actively oppose religion, they are simply not in favor of religion.That's getting close, but I have to say it would still rule out those who are indifferent. Those I know would not say they 'are not in favor of religion', just as they would not say they 'are not in favor of homosexuality'. They believe there is no god, do not think about it much and could care less what other people do as long as it does not affect them directly.

phlogistician

11-11-08, 10:16 AM

"It seems to imply.."

I know what you mean by it, but lots of people will misinterpret the term. That's why I don't think it's a good term.

Problem is, unless we start defining terms clearly, there will be ambiguity. We need words for things; let's not be shy about offering them.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:16 AM

I really don't understand the need for all these artificial 'sub-divisions' within the concept "atheism".

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:18 AM

People who believe in God don't get to dodge tax. Only organised religions do, so I think the word for people who don't think the church should be able to dodge tax is 'fair minded'.
I agree with you on this issue. Belief systems and taxs have nothing to do with each other.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:19 AM

Problem is, unless we start defining terms clearly, there will be ambiguity. We need words for things; let's not be shy about offering them.
And I also agree with this.
Despite our tiffs around the word, I do think the distinction between those who believe there is no God and those who simply lack a belief in God is significant enough to warrent two terms.

I do not like anti-theism for reasons already said, though I do acknowledge dictionary and some usage support for it.

phlogistician

11-11-08, 10:22 AM

I really don't understand the need for all these artificial 'sub-divisions' within the concept "atheism".

Me either, which is why I dislike the 'strong' and 'weak' labels. Atheism is atheism, and there are other viewpoints which have things in common with atheism (are subsets, or intersecting sets) but they do not alter the definition of the superset.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:22 AM

Problem is, unless we start defining terms clearly, there will be ambiguity. We need words for things; let's not be shy about offering them.

If done properly, i.e. a definition to fit everyone, we would end up with hundreds of different shades of atheism. How is that making things better ?
I don't fit any of the 'sub'-definitions perfectly, I doubt anyone does. Unless you keep them generalized enough..

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:23 AM

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:24 AM

Yes, because it's a faith based proposition. While I feel the chances of there being a God is approaching zero, to claim there is no God, and make a definitive statement is not scientific.Agreed. Or, rather, I think this makes sense for the definition of atheism you have.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:25 AM

Me either, which is why I dislike the 'strong' and 'weak' labels. Atheism is atheism, and there are other viewpoints which have things in common with atheism (are subsets, or intersecting sets) but they do not alter the definition of the superset.
Any superset has subdivisions.

See, the way I see it part of the problem is the fact that what you call anti-theists are calling themselves atheists. I think part of any taking back this word 'atheist' will have to involve internecine struggle. There is often reluctance to do this, but false unities blur everything and feed misconceptions.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:29 AM

Any superset has subdivisions.

See, the way I see it part of the problem is the fact that what you call anti-theists are calling themselves atheists. I think part of any taking back this word 'atheist' will have to involve internecine struggle. There is often reluctance to do this, but false unities blur everything and feed misconceptions.

Yes, but we are forced to call it a superset now that all these subsets have been made up.. lol

(Q)

11-11-08, 10:29 AM

That is all fine and dandy. I share a lot of what they 'know' in that case. But they are making a claim to knowledge in relation to God in the specific case I mentioned.

Perhaps then, an arbiter must step forward to announce just how many centuries must expire before gods existence is known. How much more must we endure of the claims of theists who have been unable to demonstrate anything for hundreds of years? Have we not gathered enough information together these past millennium demonstrating the utter impotence of theists claims of the supernatural?

It is simply not good science or philosophy to decide something must be false because of the past behavior of those who believed it was true - even setting aside the behavior of some theists even anti-theists must admire.

Then, let's just concentrate on the claims, and ignore their behavior, or are they one and the same?

So to make a claim of knowledge about the existence of something is still a difference with atheists who simply lack a belief in God and who can also have all the kinds of knowing you listed above about religions.

Simon, step back a moment and think about the claims of theists and the knowledge of god they purport. Has a theist ever been able to demonstrate one single claim of the supernatural? How long are we to give theists the opportunity to vindicate themselves and demonstrate their claims?

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:33 AM

Perhaps then, an arbiter must step forward to announce just how many centuries must expire before gods existence is known. How much more must we endure of the claims of theists who have been unable to demonstrate anything for hundreds of years? Have we not gathered enough information together these past millennium demonstrating the utter impotence of theists claims of the supernatural? I'm not sure who your 'we' is.

I'm a theist.

Simon, step back a moment and think about the claims of theists and the knowledge of god they purport. Has a theist ever been able to demonstrate one single claim of the supernatural? How long are we to give theists the opportunity to vindicate themselves and demonstrate their claims?You and I are in very different positions in relation to this. I do not expect you to give anyone opportunities of this sort. You can believe what you like.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:33 AM

Yes, but we are forced to call it a superset now that all these subsets have been made up.. lolWell, no. The problem was there before. Unless you have a good name for those who believe there is no God, for example.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:34 AM

Well, no. The problem was there before. Unless you have a good name for those who believe there is no God, for example.

Sure, atheists.. :shrug:

lixluke

11-11-08, 10:35 AM

I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

What would be the label for that?
Are you also skeptical of the claims of atheists? The claim that there is no God? Most people around here who claim to be atheists are really undercover skeptics.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:35 AM

Simon, could you please give your opinion about that image I posted ?

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:36 AM

Are you also skeptical of the claims of atheists? The claim that there is no God? Most people around here who claim to be atheists are really undercover skeptics.

Atheists make no such claim, not all at least.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:37 AM

Simon, could you please give your opinion about that image I posted ?hey, it's OK. But then you have what Phlog calls anti-theists in that last category. Possibly also agnostics. If atheists are going to be upset about being confused with certain beliefs then the categories that atheists have need to be clear for others.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:38 AM

Sure, atheists.. :shrug:And so the confusion will go on. I can live with it, but it sure spins the tail of some atheists.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:39 AM

hey, it's OK. But then you have what Phlog calls anti-theists in that last category. Possibly also agnostics.
Exactly.

If atheists are going to be upset about being confused with certain beliefs then the categories that atheists have need to be clear for others.
What's not clear ? Not believing in any god is all that's required. All atheists fit that description.

(Q)

11-11-08, 10:42 AM

I'm not sure who your 'we' is.

I'm a theist.

And, you've been given every opportunity to demonstrate claims of the supernatural. You haven't, neither has anyone else. How much more time would you like before we can shelf your beliefs alongside the other myths and superstitions mankind has created, and start tearing down religious influence in society? Mankind would surely like to move on beyond the Bronze Age, if you please.

You and I are in very different positions in relation to this. I do not expect you to give anyone opportunities of this sort. You can believe what you like.

What, that's it? :shrug:

Of course, we're in very different positions. I can demonstrate nature, you cannot demonstrate gods. BIG difference. Yours is a position of faith in the invisible and undetectable, hence you can make up anything you want, and believe in it as a reality. Reality would abhor your position.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:44 AM

Exactly.

What's not clear ? Not believing in any god is all that's required. All atheists fit that description.
Phlog sees a trend where theists are assuming that atheists are all antitheists. Having an inclusive category will add to the confusion there.

Having medicine woman, for example, calling herself an atheist and saying there are no gods will add to theists beliefs that atheists believe there are no gods.

I also think the lack of confrontation between these two types of believers adds to the confusion.

Further I think some people believe there are no gods and talk in this way to theists, but when it comes down to being careful about self-description they define themselves as simply lacking a belief.

I think this also adds to tensions.

I think there are language and behavioral patterns that add to the conflict. there is already a conflict and cleaning up the language and behavior will not end it. But still....

(Q)

11-11-08, 10:44 AM

Are you also skeptical of the claims of atheists? The claim that there is no God?

Yes, I am skeptical of atheists claims, but so far, they are the ones who are right demonstrating the non-existence of gods as opposed to theists unable to demonstrate anything.

lixluke

11-11-08, 10:48 AM

The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".
It's nice that you feel that way. However, "Atheism", is commonly accepted for what its original intended use which is to describe only those who believe there is no God. This implies the belief in true and false. Those who believe there is no such thing as true and false cannot take up a true/false position. As such, they are not atheists.

To label anybody that does not believe in God as "atheism" is just as silly as labeling anybody that does not believe there is no God as "theism".

True/False is the basis for logical thought. Logical reasoning is used to come to conclusions of truth or fallacy.

Subjectivism is the belief that there is no such thing as objective true/false.
Skepticism is the belief that there is such thing as objective true/false, but man can never obtain knowledge of true/false.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:48 AM

And, you've been given every opportunity to demonstrate claims of the supernatural. You haven't, neither has anyone else. How much more time would you like before we can shelf your beliefs alongside the other myths and superstitions mankind has created, and start tearing down religious influence in society? Mankind would surely like to move on beyond the Bronze Age, if you please. You are still using a strange 'we' and have added a strange 'mankind'. Obviously mankind is more diverse than you are making it out to be.

But I made it clear, believe what you want Q.

What, that's it? What? What do you want? I have no proselytizing interest at all.

Of course, we're in very different positions. I can demonstrate nature, you cannot demonstrate gods. BIG difference. Yours is a position of faith in the invisible and undetectable, hence you can make up anything you want, and believe in it as a reality. Reality would abhor your position.
I cannot demonstrate certain things to you. I can demonstrate it to others.

I can also, like you, demonstrate what you are calling nature.

'Reality would abhor my position'

You sound like a monotheist, again. Seriously, you speak like a monothests sometimes.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:48 AM

Phlog sees a trend where theists are assuming that atheists are all antitheists. Having an inclusive category will add to the confusion there.

Having medicine woman, for example, calling herself an atheist and saying there are no gods will add to theists beliefs that atheists believe there are no gods.

I also think the lack of confrontation between these two types of believers adds to the confusion.

Further I think some people believe there are no gods and talk in this way to theists, but when it comes down to being careful about self-description they define themselves as simply lacking a belief.

I think this also adds to tensions.

I think there are language and behavioral patterns that add to the conflict. there is already a conflict and cleaning up the language and behavior will not end it. But still....

Well, all the confusion is brought on by the theists themselves. It's pretty much their problem, why should atheists be bothering themselves with it ?
Also, see post 348:

Simon, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I think most atheists (at least the ones with a brain) do not believe in any god because there simply is no evidence for it and no implication whatsoever for any gods existence. The whole idea of a god goes against nature itself, it is not only not necessary but it even contradicts nature.
These atheist are of the opinion (because of the reasons above) that the existence of a god is so unbelievably improbable that you can just as well say he doesn't exist. But at the same time they have to admit that they can't know that with a 100% certainty (albeit by a negligible margin). A lot of theists don't seem to get this and that is why atheists are wary about saying things like "god doesn't exist". Because then the theists come up with crap arguments like "atheism is just another religion".

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:50 AM

Yes, I am skeptical of atheists claims, but so far, they are the ones who are right demonstrating the non-existence of gods as opposed to theists unable to demonstrate anything.

If you could send me a link to the next demonstration, I'd be grateful.

Q, why can't you admit that you believe there are no gods and there is no God?

lixluke

11-11-08, 10:50 AM

I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.
Activist opposition is exactly what anti-theism is. Anti-theism does not describe those who have the antithetic position to theism. It describes those who disfavor theism anywhere in society. Nobody should be allowed to worship or believe in any God is an example of anti-theism.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 10:51 AM

Well, all the confusion is brought on by the theists themselves. It's pretty much their problem, why should atheists be bothering themselves with it ?
Also, see post 348:

You think so?
Read my post above.

Enmos

11-11-08, 10:56 AM

It's nice that you feel that way. However, "Atheism", is commonly accepted for what its original intended use which is to describe only those who believe there is no God. This implies the belief in true and false. Those who believe there is no such thing as true and false cannot take up a true/false position. As such, they are not atheists.

To label anybody that does not believe in God as "atheism" is just as silly as labeling anybody that does not believe there is no God as "theism".

True/False is the basis for logical thought. Logical reasoning is used to come to conclusions of truth or fallacy.

Subjectivism is the belief that there is no such thing as objective true/false.
Skepticism is the belief that there is such thing as objective true/false, but man can never obtain knowledge of true/false.

Lixluke, that's a bit 'out there' don't you think ?

Atheism comes from the early Ancient Greek atheos (privative a- + theos "god"), meaning "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".

(Q)

11-11-08, 11:00 AM

You are still using a strange 'we' and have added a strange 'mankind'. Obviously mankind is more diverse than you are making it out to be.

Goodness, gracious, me! I had no idea that the bigotry, hatred, racism, oppression and ignorance of religion added to the "diversity" of mankind? How quaint.

I cannot demonstrate certain things to you. I can demonstrate it to others.

Exactly. Rather pointless then, your religious beliefs, that is. Of course, I'm not opposed to you sitting behind closed doors, bathing in your beliefs, but I do have a problem with you making the claim that your religious beliefs have anything to do with reality.

'Reality would abhor my position'

You sound like a monotheist, again. Seriously, you speak like a monothests sometimes.

Uh, yeah right. Is that the best you could do? :rolleyes:

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:00 AM

You think so?
Read my post above.

Why does it matter so much to theists ? They tie themselves up in knots over defining atheists. Atheists are not an organized group, all that they have in common is that they do not believe in any god.

(Q)

11-11-08, 11:03 AM

Activist opposition is exactly what anti-theism is. Anti-theism does not describe those who have the antithetic position to theism. It describes those who disfavor theism anywhere in society. Nobody should be allowed to worship or believe in any God is an example of anti-theism.

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." ~ Christopher Hitchens.

(Q)

11-11-08, 11:06 AM

Q, why can't you admit that you believe there are no gods and there is no God?

The problem is in theists definition of gods, which again boils down to their claims. You start from a position of gods existence and go on from there, hence it isn't possible for me to comment from that position.

First, you make your claims as to what god is and how he exists, then we can determine your claims from that position.

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:07 AM

Atheists make no such claim, not all at least.
Lixluke, that's a bit 'out there' don't you think ?

Atheism comes from the early Ancient Greek atheos (privative a- + theos "god"), meaning "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".
We've already proven that etymology for atheism not only incorrect on so many levels, but complete propaganda.

Athe-ism is the belief that there is no God.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87276

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:09 AM

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:11 AM

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." ~ Christopher Hitchens.
That is a good demonstration of anti-theism. He does not as much abide by atheism as he does his disfavor of religion/teism. Anti-theism is with anti-religion.

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:11 AM

And what are you Lix ?

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:12 AM

I really doubt that. But fine, just to amuse you.. what am I then ?
Athe-ism is simply the position that there is no God. If you do not know or uncertain, you are definitely do not fall under atheism.

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:15 AM

Athe-ism is simply the position that there is no God. If you do not know or uncertain, you are definitely do not fall under atheism.

See post 348

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:17 AM

Subjectivism - There is no such thing as true/false.
Skepticism - There is such thing as true/false. Man cannot obtain actual knowledge of true/false.
Gnosticism - There is such thing as true/false. Man can obtain actual knowledge of God.
Agnosticism - There is such as true/false. Man can obtain actual knowledge of true/false. Man cannot obtain actual knowledge of God.
Theism - There is such thing as true/false. God does exist.
Atheism - There is such thing as true/false. God does not exist.

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:20 AM

Subjectivism - There is no such thing as true/false.
Skepticism - There is such thing as true/false. Man cannot obtain knowledge of true/false.
Gnosticism - There is such thing as true/false. Man can obtain actual knowledge of God.
Agnosticism - There is such as true/false. Man can obtain actual knowledge of true/false. Man cannot obtain actual knowledge of God.
Theism - There is such thing as true/false. God does exist.
Atheism - There is such thing as true/false. God does not exist.

:confused:

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:21 AM

Lix:

..what am I then ?

And what are you Lix ?

See post 348

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:25 AM

Simon, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I think most atheists (at least the ones with a brain) do not believe in any god because there simply is no evidence for it and no implication whatsoever for any gods existence. The whole idea of a god goes against nature itself, it is not only not necessary but it even contradicts nature.
These atheist are of the opinion (because of the reasons above) that the existence of a god is so unbelievably improbable that you can just as well say he doesn't exist. But at the same time they have to admit that they can't know that with a 100% certainty (albeit by a negligible margin). A lot of theists don't seem to get this and that is why atheists are wary about saying things like "god doesn't exist". Because then the theists come up with crap arguments like "atheism is just another religion".

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.
You migh not bet your life savings on the claim that there is no God with 100% certainty. Nonetheless, you can still claim that to your knowledge, there is no God. Simply not claiming there is a God does not make one atheist. In the same way, simply not claiming there is no God does not make one a theist. I would in all respects label you an atheist. That does not mean to say you will bet your life on whatever position you stand by. As far as you are concerned or as far as you know, there isn't any God out there.

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:32 AM

You migh not bet your life savings on the claim that there is no God with 100% certainty. Nonetheless, you can still claim that to your knowledge, there is no God. Simply not claiming there is a God does not make one atheist. In the same way, simply not claiming there is no God does not make one a theist. I would in all respects label you an atheist. That does not mean to say you will bet your life on whatever position you stand by. As far as you are concerned or as far as you know, there isn't any God out there.

It seems you think you know me better than I know myself, how come ?

And what about the other two questions ?

(Q)

11-11-08, 11:37 AM

That is a good demonstration of anti-theism. He does not as much abide by atheism as he does his disfavor of religion/teism. Anti-theism is with anti-religion.

You're missing the point. Hitchens does not comment on the existence of a particular god, but instead refers to the influence of churches and religious beliefs in general being harmful. It's not just simply a matter of believing in a god.

Religious indoctrination, for example, has been equated to child abuse. Those effects of religion are indeed harmful as they force children to accept, uncritically the religious beliefs past down to them. Their abilities to reason and rationalize are decimated.

lixluke

11-11-08, 11:57 AM

It seems you think you know me better than I know myself, how come ?

And what about the other two questions ?
Well I'm not psychic if that's what you think. You're not the only one around here who has told me that btw. It's just observation and deduction.

Not that my positions have any effect on the definitions of the positions, but I consider myself anti-anti-theist. Or radical theist terrorist.

You're missing the point. Hitchens does not comment on the existence of a particular god, but instead refers to the influence of churches and religious beliefs in general being harmful. It's not just simply a matter of believing in a god.

Religious indoctrination, for example, has been equated to child abuse. Those effects of religion are indeed harmful as they force children to accept, uncritically the religious beliefs past down to them. Their abilities to reason and rationalize are decimated.
I did not miss the point. Are you sure you read my statement correctly?

Enmos

11-11-08, 11:59 AM

Well I'm not psychic if that's what you think. You're not the only one around here who has told me that btw. It's just observation and deduction.

Not that my positions have any effect on the definitions of the positions, but I consider myself anti-anti-theist. Or radical theist terrorist.

No, you misunderstood. You didn't get it right at all. It's just that you seem convinced that you know me better than I know myself.

lixluke

11-11-08, 12:12 PM

No, you misunderstood. You didn't get it right at all. It's just that you seem convinced that you know me better than I know myself.
I don't know you better than you know yourself. My thoughts are simply that you value spirituality more than most others. Am I mistaken?

(Q)

11-11-08, 12:15 PM

I did not miss the point. Are you sure you read my statement correctly?

Yes, this one:

"Nobody should be allowed to worship or believe in any God is an example of anti-theism. "

Enmos

11-11-08, 12:24 PM

I don't know you better than you know yourself. My thoughts are simply that you value spirituality more than most others. Am I mistaken?

I don't think so, but what do you mean exactly ?

lixluke

11-11-08, 12:51 PM

Yes, this one:

"Nobody should be allowed to worship or believe in any God is an example of anti-theism. "
Yes that is an example of anti-theism. So is the claim that teaching religion to children is child abuse.

ScyentsIzLief

11-11-08, 01:00 PM

Atheism is a fixed belief system (a religion) that doesn't believe in gods.

Sarkus

11-11-08, 01:05 PM

We've already proven that etymology for atheism not only incorrect on so many levels, but complete propaganda.

Athe-ism is the belief that there is no God.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87276:shrug:
As has been explained to you before, providing links merely to arguments you have constructed yourself is NOT evidence of their correctness.

Please provide evidence that supposedly debunks the given etymology of "atheism", from "atheos" meaning "godless".
You have said "already proven... not only incorrect... but complete propaganda" yet you have not provided an alternative etymology with any supporting evidence.
You have nothing but your own confidence to support your claims.

Atheist = not theist.

Either live with it or please give the rest of us a break from your repetitive irrelevancy.

As to the question raised by another of why "weak" atheists do not argue against the position held by "strong" atheists (i.e. those who believe God does not exist) it is because the strong atheist only really goes one step further - and it is a step that most "weak" atheists understand but do not adhere to.

It is the step from "no evidence" to "therefore God does not exist" that the strong-atheists generally take.
It is a step that it is understood, if not agreed with.

There is therefore little to discuss.
Yes, the weak atheist can call the strong atheist irrational for making that jump to the "God does not exist conclusion" - but the strong atheist would generally hold their hand up and say it is a matter of probability... and a jump of 0.01% is hardly a jump. So again... not much argument to be had, really.

If a strong atheist wishes to provide evidence that proves God's non-existence... then we might have more discussions.
But I am not aware of many such arguments... only usually the "lack of evidence by now leads one to conclude..." sort of argument.

lixluke

11-11-08, 01:07 PM

I don't think so, but what do you mean exactly ?
I guess it is just a feeling I pick up. Sort of an impression that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything you or anybody speficically said. These impressions are different for evebody. For you, it's an impression that you growth in a metaphysical sense in one form or another. While all humans are part of the planet earth, you probably have more of a natural connection to it. Which is why I am not surprised when you mention something about the environment. You were born to defend the environment. You should become an ecoterrorist. See it's not like I think I know people. I honestly know nothing about people in here. I don't know what people for a living or what their family or daily life is like. But there are impressions of personalities that I get.

Sarkus

11-11-08, 01:09 PM

Atheism is a fixed belief system (a religion) that doesn't believe in gods.Interesting that you say it is a "belief system" and then define it as a lack of belief rather than an actual belief.

ScyentsIzLief

11-11-08, 01:19 PM

Interesting that you say it is a "belief system" and then define it as a lack of belief rather than an actual belief.

Would you like me to rephrase it to please your highness?

Atheism is a fixed belief system (a religion) that believes in the nonexistence of god(s).

lixluke

11-11-08, 01:22 PM

:shrug:
As has been explained to you before, providing links merely to arguments you have constructed yourself is NOT evidence of their correctness.

Please provide evidence that supposedly debunks the given etymology of "atheism", from "atheos" meaning "godless".
You have said "already proven... not only incorrect... but complete propaganda" yet you have not provided an alternative etymology with any supporting evidence.
You have nothing but your own confidence to support your claims.

Atheist = not theist.

Either live with it or please give the rest of us a break from your repetitive irrelevancy.

As to the question raised by another of why "weak" atheists do not argue against the position held by "strong" atheists (i.e. those who believe God does not exist) it is because the strong atheist only really goes one step further - and it is a step that most "weak" atheists understand but do not adhere to.

It is the step from "no evidence" to "therefore God does not exist" that the strong-atheists generally take.
It is a step that it is understood, if not agreed with.

There is therefore little to discuss.
Yes, the weak atheist can call the strong atheist irrational for making that jump to the "God does not exist conclusion" - but the strong atheist would generally hold their hand up and say it is a matter of probability... and a jump of 0.01% is hardly a jump. So again... not much argument to be had, really.

If a strong atheist wishes to provide evidence that proves God's non-existence... then we might have more discussions.
But I am not aware of many such arguments... only usually the "lack of evidence by now leads one to conclude..." sort of argument.
What are you talking about? I've already shown the correct etymology.

Athe-ism is an ism just as much as the-ism is an ism.
Thus, the claim that a-theism to be without theism is a misinterpretation. It is incorrect etymology. I thought we were past this.

Again, for the record, there are 2 positions on the matter.
1. The position that the original proper etymology for atheism is athe-ism meaning all who hold the antithetical position to theism. Thus, atheism is the term only for those who hold that there is no God.

2. The position that the original proper etymology for atheism is a-theism meaning all who are without theism. Thus, atheism is the term for all those who do not fall under theism.

Of the 2, I consider #1 to be the original etymology for atheism. I also consider #2 to be unecessary and pointless. They might as well say all those who do not hold there is no God fall under thesim. #2 is incorrect etymology. #2 is not the original intended use for the term, and it is not the common standard use for the term.

ScyentsIzLief

11-11-08, 01:26 PM

Atheism has a religious connotation to it so it should be treated like a religion.

Sarkus

11-11-08, 01:38 PM

Of the 2, I consider #1 to be the original etymology for atheism. I also consider #2 to be unecessary and pointless. They might as well say all those who do not hold there is no God fall under thesim. #2 is incorrect etymology. #2 is not the original intended use for the term, and it is not the common standard use for the term.You consider 1 to be the correct etymology - but provide little/no evidence to support your case.
You say that 2 is not the original intended use... yet you provide no evidence to support your case.

You see the issue with your claims?
Maybe if you provide some source that clearly shows the first usage of the original word and the "original intended use" then maybe you'll be on to something.

And as for atheism being an "-ism" - all this means is that atheists follow their lives as though there is no god. It does not mean that they actually believe god to not exist - just that they do not follow their lives as if god does exist. - i.e. someone who does not follow theism.

And this ties in with the etymology of atheism from "atheos" meaning godless - i.e. those that lived their lives without gods - i.e. anyone who did not follow their lives as though the Gods existed - or indeed anyone who just refused to acknowledge them.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 02:12 PM

Goodness, gracious, me! I had no idea that the bigotry, hatred, racism, oppression and ignorance of religion added to the "diversity" of mankind? How quaint.Come on Q, don't play manipulative word games. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze AGe. You were using Bronze Age to mean religion. But obviously mankind is not in agreement with you about religion. It is false we.

Exactly. Rather pointless then, your religious beliefs, that is. Of course, I'm not opposed to you sitting behind closed doors, bathing in your beliefs, but I do have a problem with you making the claim that your religious beliefs have anything to do with reality.My beliefs are pointless because I cannot convince you?

Uh, yeah right. Is that the best you could do? Good argument.

Q, you got sarcastic, pissed off and manipulative, when I said I was a theist.

All that shit you have in you in reaction to theists has nothing to do with me.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 02:18 PM

The problem is in theists definition of gods, which again boils down to their claims. You start from a position of gods existence and go on from there, hence it isn't possible for me to comment from that position.

First, you make your claims as to what god is and how he exists, then we can determine your claims from that position.

Evasive as usual when it comes down to things you say and believe.

You wrote about 'demonstrating of the non-existence of gods'.

1) this has not happened
2) it can only be said by someone who believes there are not gods.

You refuse to admit that you have this position. Perhaps because it separates you from other atheists, perhaps because you know that it is a problem to defend.

You want your cake and eat it too. Make remarks that are from that philosophy, then deny it when it is pointed out.

I'm not going to pretend you are making sense.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 02:20 PM

Why does it matter so much to theists ? They tie themselves up in knots over defining atheists. Atheists are not an organized group, all that they have in common is that they do not believe in any god.

Q said referred to non-theists 'demonstrating the non-existence of god' and not a single atheist in this discussion, not you, not Sarkus, not Phlogistan, not one of you is going to comment on that.

But you will make damn sure that anything you think the lixluxe says that you consider illogical is thoroughly commented on.

Why is that?

Enmos

11-11-08, 02:29 PM

I guess it is just a feeling I pick up. Sort of an impression that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything you or anybody speficically said. These impressions are different for evebody. For you, it's an impression that you growth in a metaphysical sense in one form or another. While all humans are part of the planet earth, you probably have more of a natural connection to it. Which is why I am not surprised when you mention something about the environment. You were born to defend the environment. You should become an ecoterrorist. See it's not like I think I know people. I honestly know nothing about people in here. I don't know what people for a living or what their family or daily life is like. But there are impressions of personalities that I get.

Well, most of that is apparent from my posts on this forum.. but eco-terrorist ? hehe No thanks :p

Spiritualism is a rather broad term though. I would say I am not spiritual in the sense of believing in woowoo stuff.
In fact, I wouldn't know in what sense I would call my myself spiritual, most of the time I take offense if people call me spiritual :D Perhaps I'm one of the least spiritual people here (according to mainstream definitions).

Enmos

11-11-08, 02:40 PM

Q said referred to non-theists 'demonstrating the non-existence of god' and not a single atheist in this discussion, not you, not Sarkus, not Phlogistan, not one of you is going to comment on that.

But you will make damn sure that anything you think the lixluxe says that you consider illogical is thoroughly commented on.

Why is that?

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.
And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant ;)

lixluke

11-11-08, 02:56 PM

You consider 1 to be the correct etymology - but provide little/no evidence to support your case.
You say that 2 is not the original intended use... yet you provide no evidence to support your case.
We went over this earlier.
Disbelief: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Atheism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

And as for atheism being an "-ism" - all this means is that atheists follow their lives as though there is no god.
Yes.

It does not mean that they actually believe god to not exist
This is incorrect, and a different argument. For the sake of this discussion, let us just say that atheism includes those who follow their lives as though there is no God.

- just that they do not follow their lives as if god does exist. - i.e. someone who does not follow theism.
An individual who claims not to know wheter or not God exists does not follow his life as if God does exist. Nor does he follow his life as if there is no God. An individual who neither follows his life as if there was a God or as if there was no God is neither theism or atheism.

And this ties in with the etymology of atheism from "atheos" meaning godless - i.e. those that lived their lives without gods - i.e. anyone who did not follow their lives as though the Gods existed - or indeed anyone who just refused to acknowledge them.
Yes. These people were not on the fence about anything. They simply rejected the acknowledgement of any existence of God. They did not say I don't know if there is a God because as far as they're concerned there was no God. That is what atheism is about. Godlessness.
Not "I'm not sure that God doesn't exist".<- This is not Godlessness, and not necessarily on the position of being with God.

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 02:57 PM

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.Fair enough, though somehow it seems a number of atheists appear and deal with lixluxe wherever he appears. But perhaps you mean addressing in that he is defining atheism. But I still think there is a kind of honor system. I mean, when there were threads saying atheists are ___________ (anti creative was one.) I joined in and said I thought it was crap - though more gussied up in my argument. It seems to me if crap is said by one's team - whatever the fuck that means, but it sure seems to be a factor - one should, especially if one is the representative of logic and reason - not function like one is merely on a team.

I mean one of the biggest claims, which Q implictly makes in relation to me in his recent posts here, is that religion is to blame for much human atrocity. A good way to role model a better world would be to break the my team is right model and be able to criticize one's own.

Me I think we will find excuses for violence with or without religion.

And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant ;) Yes, I understood your formulation. And I see that as putting us at an impasse. Which is good. I have nothing to discuss with that position. Which is fine. With Q, he says things that are worded poorly often enough for me to think he means what he says, despite later denials.

And with all the rage there......

I mean, he told me 'Reality would abhor your position." Apart from the fact that my position is a part of reality....

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.

lixluke

11-11-08, 02:58 PM

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.
And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant ;)
Would you go as far as to claim that somebody who does not know if there is a God or if there is no God as Godless?

(Q)

11-11-08, 05:55 PM

Come on Q, don't play manipulative word games. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze AGe. You were using Bronze Age to mean religion. But obviously mankind is not in agreement with you about religion.

Is that the fault of mankind or the fault of a cult ideology that perpetuates itself through the indoctrination of children and the recruitment of its members? Mankind is held in slavery by doctrines and tenets handed down from the Bronze Age.

(Q)

11-11-08, 06:11 PM

You wrote about 'demonstrating of the non-existence of gods'.

1) this has not happened

The non-existence of gods is demonstrated every moment of every day in as much as the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of a garden pond is demonstrated. Further demonstrations of the non-existence of gods can be seen anywhere, anytime. Feel free to observe god free zones everywhere on the planet.

2) it can only be said by someone who believes there are not gods.

It can be said by anyone.

You refuse to admit that you have this position. Perhaps because it separates you from other atheists, perhaps because you know that it is a problem to defend.

Your position is impossible to defend. Mine is simple. Mine however can change the instant you demonstrate yours.

You want your cake and eat it too. Make remarks that are from that philosophy, then deny it when it is pointed out.

I'm not going to pretend you are making sense.

If you insist. :)

Simon Anders

11-11-08, 06:28 PM

The non-existence of gods is demonstrated every moment of every day in as much as the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of a garden pond is demonstrated. Further demonstrations of the non-existence of gods can be seen anywhere, anytime. Feel free to observe god free zones everywhere on the planet.This is not true. If you spend a little time thinking of other examples, you will see that this is a poor method.

It can be said by anyone......who said it honestly AND believes there is no God. You would make a great lawyer or self-protective witness.

Your position is impossible to defend. Mine is simple. Mine however can change the instant you demonstrate yours. Are you attacking my position? Why would you do that? How odd, seriously. I have never attacked the position you are claiming to have. I have never tried to convince an atheist to believe in God or that they are wrong for not believing in God. The truth is I have no reason to defend my position. I can see where someone would need to defend a proselytizing one. If I thought you should believe in God because I do, then I would have a problem defending my position, but that's not my position.

Odd that your position is dependent on mine. Phlogistan, who does not make claims that god does not exist, can take such a stand. But you cannot. You have a belief. Until it is pointed out and then you run to the board with an eraser.

If you insist. It would be silly to do otherwise.

lixluke

11-11-08, 08:38 PM

If you believe there is no God, you are an atheist. Unfortunately, atheists seem to have some issue with simply stating that they believe there is no God. One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless. However one who is certain there is no God, is Godless which is atheism.

shaman_

11-12-08, 01:24 AM

One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless. If they don't believe in any gods then yes they are godless.

Sarkus

11-12-08, 03:42 AM

We went over this earlier.
Disbelief: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Atheism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheismThe first gives "disbelief" as the mental rejection of something as untrue. To reject something is not the same as accepting the opposite.
The second gives 2 definitions, the first of which is "disbelief in the existence of a deity".

So your own sources prove you incorrect... yet you continue to argue?

An individual who claims not to know wheter or not God exists does not follow his life as if God does exist. Nor does he follow his life as if there is no God. An individual who neither follows his life as if there was a God or as if there was no God is neither theism or atheism.So how does the person who claims not to know actually go about with his life? Surely he either lives it as though God exists, or he doesn't, regardless of his belief (or lack thereof). What is the alternative?

Is Big Brother watching me? I don't know. I have no evidence that he is. I therefore live my life as though he isn't. But he could be. Some have no evidence but choose to live their life as though they are always being watched (we call them paranoid). Furthermore, there are some who might very well have evidence of being watched, but go about their lives as if they aren't.

If you believe there is no God, you are an atheist.Correct, as these are a subset of atheists - i.e. anyone who is not a theist.
Unfortunately, atheists seem to have some issue with simply stating that they believe there is no God.As explained, because most atheists here don't go as far as to claim god does not exist. All that is required is to not hold the belief "God exists".

One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless.If I ask you to hold a ball, and you dither over whether to take it or not... are you with or without the ball?

However one who is certain there is no God, is Godless which is atheism.By dint of being a subset of all atheists, yes, as previously explained to you.

Enmos

11-12-08, 05:42 AM

Fair enough, though somehow it seems a number of atheists appear and deal with lixluxe wherever he appears.
Well, he is quite 'vocal' and so draws attention, plus he is making absolute statements about other peoples world views. I guess he can expect reactions.

But perhaps you mean addressing in that he is defining atheism.
Uh no, he replied to posts of mine that were not addressed to him. What should I do, ignore him ?
Here:
It's nice that you feel that way. However, "Atheism", is commonly accepted for what its original intended use which is to describe only those who believe there is no God. This implies the belief in true and false. Those who believe there is no such thing as true and false cannot take up a true/false position. As such, they are not atheists.

To label anybody that does not believe in God as "atheism" is just as silly as labeling anybody that does not believe there is no God as "theism".

True/False is the basis for logical thought. Logical reasoning is used to come to conclusions of truth or fallacy.

Subjectivism is the belief that there is no such thing as objective true/false.
Skepticism is the belief that there is such thing as objective true/false, but man can never obtain knowledge of true/false.

But I still think there is a kind of honor system. I mean, when there were threads saying atheists are ___________ (anti creative was one.) I joined in and said I thought it was crap - though more gussied up in my argument. It seems to me if crap is said by one's team - whatever the fuck that means, but it sure seems to be a factor - one should, especially if one is the representative of logic and reason - not function like one is merely on a team.
I'm not sure I follow.. those threads falsely accuse people of not very nice things solely because they don't hold the belief the thread-maker does.
Of course the addressed group is going to react in a certain way. I have no idea were you get the sense that they are teaming.. but perhaps it is because they all argue against the same accusation.

I mean one of the biggest claims, which Q implictly makes in relation to me in his recent posts here, is that religion is to blame for much human atrocity. A good way to role model a better world would be to break the my team is right model and be able to criticize one's own.
I somewhat agree with Q on this though.
Non-believers have been (more than) discriminated against throughout history by believers. Burning of heretics and stuff. Also believers haven't been particularly nice to each other. The same sentiments still exist today albeit diluted.
Believers have always been the ones to say "my team is right, and your team is wrong/evil", not non-believers.
Now the tables are slowly turning. See it as a revolution ;)

Me I think we will find excuses for violence with or without religion.
Perhaps, but the fact of the matter still is that people have found (and still find) the excuses in religion.

Yes, I understood your formulation. And I see that as putting us at an impasse. Which is good. I have nothing to discuss with that position. Which is fine. With Q, he says things that are worded poorly often enough for me to think he means what he says, despite later denials.

And with all the rage there......

I mean, he told me 'Reality would abhor your position." Apart from the fact that my position is a part of reality....

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.
"Reality would abhor your position".. that's pretty meaningless in itself.

Enmos

11-12-08, 05:43 AM

Would you go as far as to claim that somebody who does not know if there is a God or if there is no God as Godless?

I would even go as far as to say that everyone is godless :p

swarm

11-12-08, 05:54 AM

Anti-theists believe there is no God.
Atheists lack a belief in God.

The former are making a claim.
Why do the latter, here, never challenge the former on that claim?

Actually I do frequently bring that point up.

swarm

11-12-08, 06:34 AM

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something.

where is the discussion of this difference.

It makes atheists who simply lack a belief in God incredibly angry if it is assumed they are like this other subset of atheists. They are willing to participate in incredibly long threads to make sure that it is not assumed they are like these other guys.

So it must be an important distinction.

I find it odd that a discussion does not take place between these two types of atheists.

I'm surprised you have never encountered this discussion. It usually happens when the hard atheists try to convince soft atheists and agnostics that there "really" is only the hard atheist position, i.e. a reiteration of the theist claim that if you aren't for, you are against.

It is really hard for some people to realize that the soft atheist position, in addition to lacking belief, is also a matter of calling a procedural foul against the theists and declining them the ability to declare their god by fiat.

We really aren't to the point of actually making a case for or against anything yet. There is insufficient evidence from the theists (i.e. none) even to begin to form an opinion.

Until they produce some shred of reason beyond their personal hubris to even consider the question the default position for anything which cannot be shown to exist is to assume it does not.

Where the hard atheists run afoul of their enthusiasm is in going beyond the presumption of non existence to full on claiming a god could not possibly exist.

This is as absurd as the theist position since no information about god exists.

The best a hard atheist can do is show that the various descriptions offered by the theists of what they think a god would be like, are self contradictory or categorically impossible. But the imaginings of theists are endless.

It is much easier to knock those out all at the same time in the very beginning by saying "show me an actual god and stop making shit up."

Enmos

11-12-08, 06:39 AM

I'm surprised you have never encountered this discussion. It usually happens when the hard atheists try to convince soft atheists and agnostics that there "really" is only the hard atheist position, i.e. a reiteration of the theist claim that if you aren't for, you are against.

It is really hard for some people to realize that the soft atheist position, in addition to lacking belief, is also a matter of calling a procedural foul against the theists and declining them the ability to declare their god by fiat.

We really aren't to the point of actually making a case for or against anything yet. There is insufficient evidence from the theists (i.e. none) even to begin to form an opinion.

Until they produce some shred of reason beyond their personal hubris to even consider the question the default position for anything which cannot be shown to exist is to assume it does not.

Where the hard atheists run afoul of their enthusiasm is in going beyond the presumption of non existence to full on claiming a god could not possibly exist.

This is as absurd as the theist position since no information about god exists.

The best a hard atheist can do is show that the various descriptions offered by the theists of what they think a god would be like, are self contradictory or categorically impossible. But the imaginings of theists are endless.

It is much easier to knock those out all at the same time in the very beginning by saying "show me an actual god and stop making shit up."

Well said, although that last sentence could have been said by a 'hard atheist' ;)

(Q)

11-12-08, 09:13 AM

This is not true. If you spend a little time thinking of other examples, you will see that this is a poor method.

Examples like what? The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Alien visitations? There are plenty of examples of the non-existence of that which is purported to exist, each and every day. Now, if you could do the same and provide me with an example of gods existence?

...who said it honestly AND believes there is no God. You would make a great lawyer or self-protective witness.

That's another debate.

The truth is I have no reason to defend my position.

You have therefore realized the same thing as me, that your position, as a theist, is defenseless, and that the only defense you could possibly muster is one from blind faith.

Odd that your position is dependent on mine. Phlogistan, who does not make claims that god does not exist, can take such a stand. But you cannot. You have a belief.

My position has nothing at all to do with yours, no matter how much you'd like to believe in such nonsense. The universe appears to be devoid of gods, demonstrated each and every day. Not one has ever been observed, nor has anything else remotely concerned with theists claims ever been observed. Your position is one that defies this reality in favor of a reality you WANT to believe in. I'm certainly not dependent on your wanting to believe in a reality teeming with gods.

(Q)

11-12-08, 09:16 AM

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.

You appear to relish in talking about me with other members, is that your way to somehow gain credibility?

Hate built up? Get a life, Simon. :rolleyes:

JDawg

11-12-08, 09:32 AM

I have to agree with Swarm that so-called "hard atheists" step over the intellectual line when they assert that they know no gods exist. Also, I agree that belief is not the default position.

But that is not to say we are not allowed to scoff at the idea of the gods currently presented to us in the West. All of the myths and dogmas of the Abrahamic religions are ridiculous, and obviously untrue, therefore we can take those myths' status as circumstantial evidence for the non-existence of that particular god.

lixluke

11-12-08, 11:45 AM

The first gives "disbelief" as the mental rejection of something as untrue. To reject something is not the same as accepting the opposite.
The second gives 2 definitions, the first of which is "disbelief in the existence of a deity".

So your own sources prove you incorrect... yet you continue to argue?

So how does the person who claims not to know actually go about with his life? Surely he either lives it as though God exists, or he doesn't, regardless of his belief (or lack thereof). What is the alternative?

Is Big Brother watching me? I don't know. I have no evidence that he is. I therefore live my life as though he isn't. But he could be. Some have no evidence but choose to live their life as though they are always being watched (we call them paranoid). Furthermore, there are some who might very well have evidence of being watched, but go about their lives as if they aren't.

Correct, as these are a subset of atheists - i.e. anyone who is not a theist.
As explained, because most atheists here don't go as far as to claim god does not exist. All that is required is to not hold the belief "God exists".

If I ask you to hold a ball, and you dither over whether to take it or not... are you with or without the ball?

By dint of being a subset of all atheists, yes, as previously explained to you.
Your interpretation of the dictionary is conveniently incorrect. The dictionary clearly states that disbelief is a rejection of the idea that God exists. Thus, pointing out that God does not exist. I don't know about other sources, but this is the intended interpretation for the source I posted.

It doesn't matter if you have evidence or not if Big Brother is watching you. You do not need evidence to take a position on the matter. Is Big Brother watching you? Yes or no? Or you are unsure/don't know. If you believe there is no Big Brother, does the fact that you can't show somebody some form of evidence mean you are unsure?

Having evidence or no evidence has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Either you make a claim one way or another. If you do not, you are neither. That is the original proper interpretation of atheism and theism.

It is impossible for somebody that does not believe "God does not exist" to live his life as though God does not exist. Most of these people are those who belive God does not exist, but refuse to acknowledge what they believe because they don't know how logic works.

Your ball example is not the same thing as being unsure. Either you take the red ball or the blue ball. If you are unsure which ball to take, you are neither red or blue.

Those who believe 'there is no God' are not a subset of atheism. They are the only ones who fall under atheism. One claiming atheism and not claiming that 'there is no God' is either lying about being an atheist or actually does believe 'there is no God', but fooling themself into claiming uncertainty about it.

lixluke

11-12-08, 11:48 AM

I have to agree with Swarm that so-called "hard atheists" step over the intellectual line when they assert that they know no gods exist. Also, I agree that belief is not the default position.
There is no such thing as hard or soft atheism. If you do not claim that there is no God, you do not fall under atheism. There is no logical reason to group those who do not make this claim under atheism.

lixluke

11-12-08, 02:18 PM

Somebody who doesn't know if there is a God is not necessarily without God or Godless.

Consider an example of a box. It is given that the box either has a ball in it or is empty. Say there is somebody that doesn't know if there is a ball in it or if it is empty. Because you do not hold the position that there is a ball in the box, does that mean that you automatically fall under a state of being that the box is empty. In the same way, one who does not know if there is a God out there does not automatically fall in the state of being Godless. They simply do not know.

lixluke

11-12-08, 04:37 PM

Someone who listens to a possibility, weighs the evidence and logic and then decides it is not enough.
No that is self-righteous religious fanatical atheism. The claim that atheists use evidence and log.

shaman_

11-12-08, 05:04 PM

Somebody who doesn't know if there is a God is not necessarily without God or Godless.Do they have a belief in god, yes or no?

If the answer is no then they are without a belief in god...... therefore godless.

If they later on acquire a belief in god then they are no longer godless.

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 05:10 PM

I'm surprised you have never encountered this discussion. I haven't encountered it here. I have encountered it elsewhere.

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 05:13 PM

Is that the fault of mankind or the fault of a cult ideology that perpetuates itself through the indoctrination of children and the recruitment of its members? Mankind is held in slavery by doctrines and tenets handed down from the Bronze Age. You are shifting what the context, again. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze Age. I pointed out that, given this meant to you 'moving beyond theism' it is rather clear that it is not ready to do this. The issue of 'fault' is another issue.

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 05:19 PM

Examples like what? The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Alien visitations? There are plenty of examples of the non-existence of that which is purported to exist, each and every day. Now, if you could do the same and provide me with an example of gods existence? Again, your method is faulty. You cannot demonstrate non-existence in the way you described or many things that you believe exist would have been demonstrated, incorrectly, to not exist, at various times in history. It's bad science. And I can't believe you put me in the position of having to point this out. Run your theory about demonstrating non-existence past some scientists.

You have therefore realized the same thing as me, that your position, as a theist, is defenseless, and that the only defense you could possibly muster is one from blind faith. You are making assumptions.

My position has nothing at all to do with yours, no matter how much you'd like to believe in such nonsense. I believed it because you said it to me and I responded by saying it was strange.

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 05:33 PM

I'm not sure I follow.. those threads falsely accuse people of not very nice things solely because they don't hold the belief the thread-maker does.I was pointing out that I, as a theist, entered that discussion and defended atheists.

I have no idea were you get the sense that they are teaming.. but perhaps it is because they all argue against the same accusation.
If I see a theist take a line with faulty logic, I've hopped in. Not all the time. I did argue against Lixluxe in linguistics on a very closely related issue to the line he is running here. I have confronted generalizations about atheists made by theists.

It seems to me however that the atheist regulars in the will generally look the other way when theists make absurd arguments or generalize wildly about theists or engage in ad homs, etc.

That is what I meant by team.

JDawg was a welcome exception to this.

I somewhat agree with Q on this though.
Non-believers have been (mor.e than) discriminated against throughout history by believers. Burning of heretics and stuff Also believers haven't been particularly nice to each other. The same sentiments still exist today albeit diluted.
Believers have always been the ones to say "my team is right, and your team is wrong/evil", not non-believers.
Now the tables are slowly turning. See it as a revolution ;) 1) there have always been believers who were not proselytizers or tormenters. It seems to me atheists view theists as if they are fundamentalist bible thumpers, potential members of the inquisition, etc. I think this is a shallow, and frankly inexperienced sense of theists and the variety of beliefs out there. 2) a small point - heretics were believers.

S.A.M.

11-12-08, 05:36 PM

There is a thread somewhere on who kills teh most atheists. Surprisingly, there was a paucity of killers presented.

(Q)

11-12-08, 05:36 PM

You are shifting what the context, again. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze Age. I pointed out that, given this meant to you 'moving beyond theism' it is rather clear that it is not ready to do this. The issue of 'fault' is another issue.

No, mankind has been ready to move on for centuries, it is the slavery and indoctrination of religion that is stunting the process considerably.

S.A.M.

11-12-08, 05:37 PM

So its not ready, then.

PsychoticEpisode

11-12-08, 05:39 PM

The difference between atheism and theism is that one is learned through experience and the other is innate, or produced from the mind rather than experience. Now this doesn't mean one mind is sharper than the other. What is does mean is that atheists take what they've learned from real life experience and then apply logic to it whereas theistic logic is applied to what their minds have constructed.

Now it must be decided as to which carries more weight. For people who believe the mind is the ultimate difference maker that sets us apart from other creatures then it is easy to see how one might consider the mind as a more powerful advent than any commonplace activity.

(Q)

11-12-08, 05:41 PM

Again, your method is faulty. You cannot demonstrate non-existence in the way you described or many things that you believe exist would have been demonstrated, incorrectly, to not exist, at various times in history.

Such as what?

It's bad science. And I can't believe you put me in the position of having to point this out. Run your theory about demonstrating non-existence past some scientists.

It's not bad science at all. Gods are tested for their existence with the results being null 100% if the time, observed unanimously. Case closed.

S.A.M.

11-12-08, 05:43 PM

You don't test to prove in science, its bad science to have a conclusion before a test. You test to disprove the null hypothesis.

(Q)

11-12-08, 05:45 PM

You don't test to prove in science, its bad science to have a conclusion before a test. You test to disprove the null hypothesis.

You really don't read posts, do you?

S.A.M.

11-12-08, 05:48 PM

It's not bad science at all. Gods are tested for their existence with the results being null 100% if the time, observed unanimously. Case closed.

What is your dependent and independent variable? Whats your positive and negative control?

Whats your empirical observation?

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 05:58 PM

Such as what? Come on Q...quarks, certain not yet seen species of animal, black holes....get it? Go back 50 years in time and imagine things that could, according to your method, have been demonstrated to not exist, which have, since then had their existence demonstrated. This also includes phenomena experienced by some and then later by many and then consensus.

Any thing or phenomenon not yet seen, or only seen by some, cannot be said to have its nonexistence demonstrated by its not being seen, yet, by the main community. You can speak about its existence not being supported, yet. But you cannot say it's nonexistence has been demonstrated. Well, of course you can, but it is poor science and poor philosophy.

It's not bad science at all. Gods are tested for their existence with the results being null 100% if the time, observed unanimously. Case closed.
Ibid.
Also I notice how you changed it to tested for its existence, rather than your previous demonstrations of nonexistence. Again you are being cagey.
But then, Q, if their non-existence has been demonstrated
why are you reluctant to admit you believe there are no gods. You are what Phlogistan would call an anti-theist and I would call a hard atheist.

You have stated God or gods nonexistence have been demonstrated. I assume you believe your own assertion. Therefore you believe God(s) do not exist.

But you will not admit this. At least you have not admitted it enough times to make you a worthless conversation partner on this issue.

You want your cake and eat it too. You want to say that God's non-existence has been demonstrated while at the same time pretending you are not a hard atheist.

Honestly, I appreciate the fact that you have on at least two occasions admitted you made a mistake - to me that is, here. That's rather rare amongst posters here, theist and atheist alike. And I appreciate that. But on this issue, man to man, there is something strange going on with you.

I will not discuss issues related to atheism or theism with you ever again. Perhaps we will have a chance to discuss something else, though it seems like the main issue you discuss.

Simon Anders

11-12-08, 06:03 PM

The difference between atheism and theism is that one is learned through experience and the other is innate, or produced from the mind rather than experience.
This is simply not correct. It shows a lack of experience of religious people and writers.

lixluke

11-12-08, 06:11 PM

Do they have a belief in god, yes or no?

If the answer is no then they are without a belief in god...... therefore godless.

If they later on acquire a belief in god then they are no longer godless.
If they are without the belief in no God, they are not Godless. To claim "somebody who does not know is Godless" is imposing a belief on them. Being Godless implies a state of being that there is no God.

PsychoticEpisode

11-12-08, 06:45 PM

This is simply not correct. It shows a lack of experience of religious people and writers.

And.......to make up for that lack of experience a writer will what? Ask somebody or invent it? My money is on inventiveness, in the mind of course.

shaman_

11-12-08, 07:31 PM

If they are without the belief in no God, they are not Godless. The suffix 'less' means without. Those who are godless are without god.

Look up words than end in 'less'. They all refer to being in a state without something.

To claim "somebody who does not know is Godless" is imposing a belief on them. No. They are godless because they are without a particular belief.

lixluke

11-12-08, 08:37 PM

The suffix 'less' means without. Those who are godless are without god.

Look up words than end in 'less'. They all refer to being in a state without something.

No. They are godless because they are without a particular belief.
They do not know whether or not there is a God. That does not mean they are claiming there is no God. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087469&postcount=442

StrangerInAStrangeLa

11-12-08, 09:37 PM

I would even go as far as to say that everyone is godless :p

Reading this thread I was thinking the same.
Ah. You beat me to it.
1111

shaman_

11-12-08, 10:31 PM

They do not know whether or not there is a God. That does not mean they are claiming there is no God. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087469&postcount=442I agree. I am saying that if they don’t believe in a god there they are without a belief in god, therefore they are godless. Godless is a state without a belief in god, not a stance that there is no god.

swarm

11-12-08, 11:29 PM

I do think the distinction between those who believe there is no God and those who simply lack a belief in God is significant enough to warrent two terms.

OK, we need to distinguish between lacking belief in any gods, no God, which is the default assumption for any claim about existence which has not yet been proven and claiming there couldn't be a god.

All atheists lack belief in god.

All rational discussions concerning existence presume a claim of existence false until it is shown to be true. I.e. there is no claim for god that can be accepted until such time that a god is presented.

Some atheists believe god is impossible. For example, god might be like a square circle.

If you lack belief in god it is because no god has be shown to your satisfaction. The theist can simple stop farting around just produce a god and poof, atheist becomes theist, but until then - no god.

If you think god is impossible you are making a claim and you need to support it.

swarm

11-12-08, 11:34 PM

The claim that there is no God?

There is no what? What is that word "goD" supposed to mean? Can you give me one single actual example so I know what you are talking about?

Until you do I have to assume you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

lixluke

11-12-08, 11:39 PM

Godless is without God. Simply the state of being without God which is the same thing as the belief that there is no God. Somebody who is unsure is not neither with God or Godless. Somebody who is unsure or doesn't know is just as much without God as he is with God. They don't live life as if there is a God and they don't live life as if there is no God either. A Godless individual is one who lives life without any God. Without any belief in God. They are the ones who say there is no God. Either definitely, to the best of their knowledge, or however they want to put it. They don't have to prove it. They don't have to claim that evidence has to be provided. They are simply Godless which is what real atheism is about. Mr. "I don't know" is neither Godless or atheist.

lixluke

11-12-08, 11:44 PM

There is no what? What is that word "goD" supposed to mean? Can you give me one single actual example so I know what you are talking about?

Until you do I have to assume you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
OK your post is an example of how people twist words for the sake of their meaning. You can take any word on the planet, and apply whatever you want to mean on it. You can even make up your own terminology. You can even misdirect a person's remark in order to change the person's intention. All debate tactics, and absolutely not productive discussion.

swarm

11-13-08, 12:03 AM

There is no such thing as hard or soft atheism.

You simply don't have the right to prevent atheists from discussing the nuances of the atheist position in these terms. Even if it wasn't commonly done, which it is commonly done, we could use those terms specifically for this discussion as long as we are clear about how we are using them.

Dictionary definitions are nice starting points, but that's all they are and often in philosophical discussions they fall short.

It is the consideration of nuanced meaning which can bring new light to ancient arguments.

swarm

11-13-08, 12:34 AM

I was pointing out that I, as a theist, entered that discussion and defended atheists.

I see it not so much as defending one side or the other as it is defending rationality over unreason.

If I see a theist take a line with faulty logic, I've hopped in.

Thanks.

there have always been believers who were not proselytizers or tormenters.

Unfortunately they don't seem to hold power and usually lack the will to reign in the others. Seriously for every person such as yourself that actually will speak out there are thousands of loud proselytizers and tormenters back by untold masses of quiet sheep who let them get away with murder.

2) a small point - heretics were believers.

Actually heretics still are believers, they just believe "wrong."

swarm

11-13-08, 12:42 AM

Godless is without God. Simply the state of being without God which is the same thing as the belief that there is no God.

We are all godless. Its just some realized it and some insist on clinging to their delusions.

If there actually was a god, we would not be having this discussion any more than there are "rock"ists and a"rock"ists. Rocks exist and their existence is so self evident and manifest that there is not a single doubt about it.

Your god is not even close to being as well represented as a simple rock.

swarm

11-13-08, 12:52 AM

OK your post is an example of how people twist words for the sake of their meaning.

I'm not twisting a single thing. I'm quite reasonably asking for an actual example of this thing you claim exists so I can know it exists and form an opinion about it.

Until you do that I must presume you are mistaken in your claim and you position is unfounded. It is no different than if you were claiming tooth fairies exist, Qerg exists, or rocks exist.

The object itself is final and full proof of its existence and without that I must presume your claim false.

So stop whining about my very reasonable request and pony up some god.

swarm

11-13-08, 01:02 AM

dup

lixluke

11-13-08, 01:46 AM

You simply don't have the right to prevent atheists from discussing the nuances of the atheist position in these terms. Even if it wasn't commonly done, which it is commonly done, we could use those terms specifically for this discussion as long as we are clear about how we are using them.

Dictionary definitions are nice starting points, but that's all they are and often in philosophical discussions they fall short.

It is the consideration of nuanced meaning which can bring new light to ancient arguments.
There is a difference between claiming that atheism should include those who do not necessarily believe there is no God, and using propagnda to change the historical intention to mean that.

Yes for discussions sake it is important that everybody be on the same page in order to understand what each other is communicating regardless of anything else.

We are all godless. Its just some realized it and some insist on clinging to their delusions.
Who cares? That is again using debate tactics to twist what is actually being said.

Theists claim that God exists. Atheists claim that there is no God which is Godless. Those who do not know, make neither claim, and do not fall under atheism in the original intention of the word. And it is furthermore, I see no practical reason to group them as such. All I see is atheists who believe there is no God not wanting to be considered as making a claim that there is no God. Therefore, they claim that everybody who doesn't know is of the position that there is no God wihtout claiming it instead of being of the position that there is a God without claiming it.

I'm not twisting a single thing. I'm quite reasonably asking for an actual example of this thing you claim exists so I can know it exists and form an opinion about it.

Until you do that I must presume you are mistaken in your claim and you position is unfounded. It is no different than if you were claiming tooth fairies exist, Qerg exists, or rocks exist.

The object itself is final and full proof of its existence and without that I must presume your claim false.

So stop whining about my very reasonable request and pony up some god.
You do not seem to be aware what this discussion is about despite the title, and the many times I have repeated the main point. All you seem to do is move it in circles, and twist definitions to avoid the main points.
1. The term "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God.
2. Those who do not know whether or not there is a God do not hold the claim that "all are Godless". They are not considered under atheism as originally defined. However, claims that they should be considered as atheists is a different story. I see no reason to start considering those who do not know under atheism.

That is really what is in question. Why claim that people who "do not know" to fall under atheism?

lixluke

11-13-08, 02:57 AM

Agnosticism as defined by the dictionary:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

To elaborate, agnosticism describes those who do not believe either way. They believe existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable. There is a misconception that agnosticism describes those that believe that existence of God cannot be proven. While it is quite similar, this is simply not the case. By this definition, agnosticism is the view that man cannot know whether or not God exists or does not exist. Therefore, they abide by neither beleif.

phlogistician

11-13-08, 03:59 AM

Lixluke, you totally contradicted yourself there.

Sarkus

11-13-08, 04:51 AM

You do not seem to be aware what this discussion is about despite the title, and the many times I have repeated the main point. All you seem to do is move it in circles, and twist definitions to avoid the main points.
1. The term "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God.
2. Those who do not know whether or not there is a God do not hold the claim that "all are Godless". They are not considered under atheism as originally defined. However, claims that they should be considered as atheists is a different story. I see no reason to start considering those who do not know under atheism.
1. You have NOT SHOWN that "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God. Nowhere have you provided a source that supports this claim. At best you have gone back to the root word ("atheos" - greek) meaning "godless" - and here you merely twist the definition of godless, or cherry-pick one to suit your purpose rather than accept the ACTUAL MEANING of the word.
You thus appear to be deliberately dishonest in your endeavours.

2. Those who claim to not know are "without" until they decide to be "with".
If you don't know whether you want to be indoors our outdoors... where are you? Are you trapped in some temporary limbo of no-space?
Likewise, if you do not know if God exists or not, you are without-God until you choose to be with God.

Having a belief is a binary proposition - either you have that belief or you do not have that belief... and note that not having that belief is NOT the same as believing the opposite.
If a ball is hidden from you, you either believe it is white, or you don't. If you don't believe it is white, do you therefore believe it to be black? No. You just don't have the belief that it is white.

You fail to grasp this simple point.

That is really what is in question. Why claim that people who "do not know" to fall under atheism?
Not all of them do fall under atheism.
Some agnostics are also theists - believing in God through Pascal's wager (the benefits of believing and being wrong outweigh the risk of not-believing etc).

Atheism is just a question of not being a theist.
If you are not a theist... you are an atheist.

StrangerInAStrangeLa

11-13-08, 04:54 AM

lixlukism : the belief that nothing actually exists except consciousness
1111

Enmos

11-13-08, 06:07 AM

Mr. "I don't know" is neither Godless or atheist.

So Mr. "I don't know" believes in god ?

lixluke

11-13-08, 11:40 AM

1. You have NOT SHOWN that "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God. Nowhere have you provided a source that supports this claim. At best you have gone back to the root word ("atheos" - greek) meaning "godless" - and here you merely twist the definition of godless, or cherry-pick one to suit your purpose rather than accept the ACTUAL MEANING of the word.
You thus appear to be deliberately dishonest in your endeavours.

2. Those who claim to not know are "without" until they decide to be "with".
If you don't know whether you want to be indoors our outdoors... where are you? Are you trapped in some temporary limbo of no-space?
Likewise, if you do not know if God exists or not, you are without-God until you choose to be with God.

Having a belief is a binary proposition - either you have that belief or you do not have that belief... and note that not having that belief is NOT the same as believing the opposite.
If a ball is hidden from you, you either believe it is white, or you don't. If you don't believe it is white, do you therefore believe it to be black? No. You just don't have the belief that it is white.

You fail to grasp this simple point.

Not all of them do fall under atheism.
Some agnostics are also theists - believing in God through Pascal's wager (the benefits of believing and being wrong outweigh the risk of not-believing etc).

Atheism is just a question of not being a theist.
If you are not a theist... you are an atheist.
1. I have not cherry picked anything to make "atheism" suit what I feel is best. Take it or leave it, the term was originally intended to describe those who reject "theism" in the sense of the claim "God exists" is false.

2. Those who claim to not know are not without until they decide to be with. This is absurd and completely illogical. That is like saying those who claim to not know are with god until they decide to be without.

Whether you are indoors or outdoors has no relevance to the state of where you want to be. You wither want to be in, want to be out, or don't know. You could be inside or outside. Somebody who does not know will not claim to want to be indoors as much as he will not claim to want to be outdoors.

Having the belief is a binary position. You either have it or do not have it. Those who do not have the belief there is no God are not atheism. Those who do not have either belief do not fall under either ism.

Yes you believe a ball is either white or not white. That is logical. You either believe "there is no God" or you do not believe "there is no God". Those who do not believe "there is no God" either fall under theism or fall under an ism.

Those who do not claim there is no God cannot be said to be Godless. One who does not know, neither abides by the claim that God exists or God does not exist.

Claiming that atheism is "all who do not abide by the belief that there is God" is no different from claiming theim is "all those who do not abide by the belief there is no God".

Theism and Atheism are positions in a matter. One who does not know whether or not there is a God is not claiming there is or isn't one. One who is not claiming there isn't a God is not "without God" as much as he is not "with God". In order to be considered "without God", one must take the position being "without God".

In actuality, Godlessness or without God is simply that the universe, not any particular person is without God. Thus, the position a person takes is irrelevant to the actuality of the person being Godless. If there is no God, then all theists are Godless/Without God. If there is a God, all are not Godless, but with God.

One position claims that the universe is with God. The other position claims that the universe is without God/Godless. Those who do not know certainly do not make the claim that the universe is with God. Those who do not know certainly do not make the claim that the universe is without God. In actuality, one can either be with God or without God regardless of what claim they make. You either claim that all are Godless or none are Godless.

lixluke

11-13-08, 11:44 AM

So Mr. "I don't know" believes in god ?
Mr. "I don't know" neither believes there is a God or there is no God. Therefore is neither theist or atheist. He is not necessarily Godless unless you consider Godless a belief. If Godless means there is actually no God, then any claim of Godlessness must be on all whether theist or not.

Enmos

11-13-08, 11:44 AM

Mr. "I don't know" neither believes there is a God or there is no God. Therefore is neither theist or atheist.
You either believe in God or you don't.

lixluke

11-13-08, 11:47 AM

Either believe in God or believe there is no God or simply don't know.

lixluke

11-13-08, 11:58 AM

It is an epistemological basic that everything you know/believe to be true in your subjective knowledge may or may not be true in objective actuality.

Let's say in actuality there is a God. The following positions:
1. God exists. (True in actuality).
2. God does not exist. (False in actuality)
3. I don't know whether or not God exists.

If in actuality, there is no God:
1. God exists. (False in actuality.)
2. God does not exist. (True in actuality.)
3. I don't know whether or not God exists.

In actuality, all are either with God or without God/Godless.
Thus, no matter what claim you make, actuality remains the same.
Correct that the claim that "I don't know" is one who does not believe there is a God. However, there is no reason to want to group the undecided into an ism. They do not fall under atheism as much as they do not fall under theism.

SnakeLord

11-13-08, 12:09 PM

Either believe in God or believe there is no God or simply don't know.

What a pain that must be for those that believe in a god but - as much as anyone else, also "don't know". Is he no longer a theist because he doesn't know? Anyone without a belief in god/s is an atheist. Knowing whether such entity exists or not doesn't change anything, unless you contend that every theist that doesn't know but believes isn't a theist.

lixluke

11-13-08, 12:33 PM

What a pain that must be for those that believe in a god but - as much as anyone else, also "don't know". Is he no longer a theist because he doesn't know? Anyone without a belief in god/s is an atheist. Knowing whether such entity exists or not doesn't change anything, unless you contend that every theist that doesn't know but believes isn't a theist.
There is no such thing.

Everything one believes, is based on the extent of one's knowledge. Whether they are claiming to believe it or know it with 100% certainty, it is still a belief. A claim to not know either way is having neither belief.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2088534&postcount=9

lixluke

11-13-08, 02:06 PM

Atheism is all who believe there is no God whether 100% certain of it or not. Those who are completely uncertain are do not fall under atheism.

Enmos

11-13-08, 02:22 PM

Either believe in God or believe there is no God or simply don't know.

If you don't know you don't believe in god.. :shrug:

Enmos

11-13-08, 02:23 PM

lixluke

11-13-08, 03:16 PM

Yes atheism is about without God. If one doesn't know, one is not of the "without God" position. If you don't know it does not mean you believe there is no God. Atheism is to be without God. Unknown, is simply complete uncertainty either way which is not atheism.

SnakeLord

11-13-08, 03:36 PM

A claim to not know either way is having neither belief

So who does know either way? It is not about knowing but about having a belief or not having a belief. A theist does not know whether a god does or does not exist. According to you these theists have no belief.

Such statement is worthless. They most certainly do have a belief, (a belief in a god that they don't know exists). If you don't have that belief you are an atheist - you are without that belief in gods.

Knowledge is a different issue, (agnostic) but is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, indeed both theists and atheists are quite often also agnostics.

Betrayer0fHope

11-13-08, 03:58 PM

Atheists say they are weak atheists to avoid being as ignorant and making the same mistakes theists do. Although, it makes perfect sense to be a strong atheist.

lixluke

11-13-08, 04:21 PM

A belief is taking a position. To say "I believe X is true", it is irrelevant of whether or not you are 100% certain of it. Certainty has no relevance in the case of these terms. It is simply a position based on the extent of one's understanding.

X is true = I believe X is true. There is nothing else to it. To claim I don't know has nothing to do with level of certainty. It simply means an individual doesn't know with any level of certainty. If a person claims they do not know something, they cannot make a statement of belief.
"I don't know" = I do not claim either belief = I do not take either position.
"I believe X is true" = I take position that X is true. Level of certainty is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the matter.

lixluke

11-13-08, 04:22 PM

Atheists say they are weak atheists to avoid being as ignorant and making the same mistakes theists do. Although, it makes perfect sense to be a strong atheist.
What mistake is that? Taking a particular position has nothing to do with certainty. Claiming God exists or does not exist has nothing to do with certainty.

lixluke

11-13-08, 04:38 PM

3 POSITIONS
God exists < This is a belief (regardless of level of certainty).
God does not exist < This is a belief (regardless of level of certainty).
I don't know if God exists < This implies having no form of belief. (on any level of certainty).

SnakeLord

11-13-08, 05:10 PM

"I don't know if god exists but I believe one does"

Given your '3 positions', the person making the statement above has both a belief and no form of belief.

glaucon

11-13-08, 05:15 PM

shaman_

11-13-08, 05:39 PM

Yes atheism is about without God. If one doesn't know, one is not of the "without God" position. It’s not a position it is a state where they don’t have a belief in god. People who have never heard of Yahweh are still godless.

Didn’t you say Having the belief is a binary position. You either have it or do not have it.?

Those that haven’t decided do not have the belief. So they without the belief.

A = without - atheist
Less = without - godless

lixluke

11-13-08, 06:24 PM

"I don't know if god exists but I believe one does"

Given your '3 positions', the person making the statement above has both a belief and no form of belief.
You don't seem to understand the difference between making a statement, and the meaning behind the statement. Anybody can say anything they want. A person can say "I believe there is not a God, but there is a God". If you take your statement literally, it doesn't work. You literally cannot believe something exists, and don't know if it exists at the same time. However, the idea behind the statement is clear.

The person is basically saying that to the extent of his knowledge, God does exist.

Curious... how does position 2 differ from position 3??
Position 3 is somebody who simply doesn't know. Position 2 is somebody who is basically saying that to the extent of his knowledge, there is no God.

It’s not a position it is a state where they don’t have a belief in god. People who have never heard of Yahweh are still godless.

Didn’t you say?

Those that haven’t decided do not have the belief. So they without the belief.

A = without - atheist
Less = without - godless
That was before people started applying different connotation to Godless. In any connotation, Godless means without God. If, in actuality, there is no God, and any individual that believes there is a God still remains Godless.

lixluke

11-13-08, 06:41 PM

Semantically, the term "uncertainty" is often misinterpreted:
1. The sense that the individual does not have 100% certainty of a position.
2. The sense that the individual has absolutely no level of certainty on the issue at hand.

The term certainty is also misinterpreted. It is pointless to use those terms.

A person's "claim" of certainty/uncertainty has nothing to do with a person's "actual" position on a matter. The only thing that is relevant is the limit of one's understanding. Any claim of knowledge, belief, certainty about something is a position based on the limit of one's understanding. No matter how you say it, this is a belief.

Any claim of "I don't know or "I am unsure/uncertain" is not a claim of "I am not 100% certain". It is a claim based on the limit of the individual's understanding that the person does not know on any level. Thus is not a belief either way.