Thread: What exactly is atheism?

  1. #181
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Do you disagree ?
    Of course I disagree. It is absurd. It's a classic epistemological topic that has been debated over years. You can't impose your ideals onto a discussion, and discredit everybody that does not abide by those ideals.

    1. The belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Thus man will never know anything with 100% certainty.

    2. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. However, man will never know the truth with absolute certainty.

    3. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. However, there are only some truths man will know with absolute certainty and some man will never know with absolute certainty.

    4. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. The belief that man can be 100% certain of truth.


    FACTS:
    -#4 is the foundation of objective logic.
    -Not eerybody believes in objective logic.
    -Discussions require the prerequisite of objective logic to form objective conclusions.
    -Knowledge implies belief.
    I know X = I believe X. I know X, and I do not believe X is a contradictory statement in logic. I believe X, but I don't know X for sure is a contradictory statement in logic.
    All knowledge is what you believe.




    You cannot have a productive discussion when you start mixing up truth and belief. Truth is absolute, but perception is relative to the individual. An individual may be 100% certain X is true. This does not mean X is objectively true. It only means the individual believes that X is objectively true = It only means the individual is 100% certain that X is objectively true. Do not try to make it seem like an individual being 100% certain of X = X is true. Individuals can be correct or incorrect.

    I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

    This is all basic epistemology.
    Belief that X is true = 100% certainty that X is true. 100% certanty that X is true is either correct or incorrect objectively. Anything other than 100% certainty that X is true is not the belief X is true.

    1. Theism = 100% certainty God exists.
    2. Atheism = 100% certainty God does not exist.
    3. Anything otherwise is neither Theism or Atheism.

  2. #182
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.
    So 'asexual' is a life form with 100% certainty that sex doesn't exist?
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.
    Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting all these definitions wihtout regard to connotation.

  3. #183
    I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

    But you are neither correct nor incorrect until you make a measurement.

    Belief that X is true = 100% certainty that X is true. 100% certanty that X is true is either correct or incorrect objectively. Anything other than 100% certainty that X is true is not the belief X is true.

    be·lief (b-lf)
    n.
    1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
    2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
    3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe)of Old English gelafa; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]
    Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith
    These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See Also Synonyms at opinion.
    Antonym: disbelief

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    belief
    Noun
    1. trust or confidence: belief in the free market
    2. opinion; conviction: it's my firm belief
    3. a principle, etc., accepted as true, often without proof
    4. religious faith
    Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

  4. #184
    So. There's the definition of belief. Where does it say ,"to the exclusion of all other possibilities?"

  5. #185
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by s0meguy View Post
    how is it not a belief, if i think that there are no monkeys in your kitchen cooking you pancakes?
    I am saying that is as much a belief as atheism. If you want to call atheism a belief then you not thinking that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking pancakes for me is also a belief. To me it sounds more accurate to say that you don't have the belief that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking pancakes, as opposed to saying that you have a belief that there aren't monkeys ect ect.

    Otherwise it would mean you have beliefs regarding everything you can possibly imagine.
    Last edited by shaman_; 08-19-08 at 01:21 AM.

  6. #186
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hamtastic View Post
    I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

    But you are neither correct nor incorrect until you make a measurement.
    Wrong. Make all the measurements you want or make no measurements. There remain only 2 possibilities about your position. Either you are correct or incorrect. Open the box, use all your senses etc. There will always be 2 and only 2 posibilities regarding the validity of your belief.

  7. #187
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hamtastic View Post
    So. There's the definition of belief. Where does it say ,"to the exclusion of all other possibilities?"
    Nobody needs to add that phrase to the definition of belief.
    It is not a relevant phrase anyway.
    As stated, X can only be either true or false.
    Your belief is whatever position you take.
    Exclusion or inclusion of other possibilities do not come into play because there are only 2 possibilities, and 3 possible positions.
    1. X is true.
    2. X is false.
    3. Uncertain of wheter X is true or false.

    X can only be True or False. - 2 Possibilities.
    An individual can only choose one of the 3 possible positions about X.

    Why try to include/excluse any irrelevant phrases to the concept of belief?

  8. #188
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,194
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke
    4. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. The belief that man can be 100% certain of truth.


    FACTS:
    -#4 is the foundation of objective logic.
    -Not eerybody believes in objective logic.
    Axiomatic systems of 'objective" logic are nto what we are talking about. We are talking about an existential claim - the actual existence of a Deity, not a deduction from premises.

    Of course people can be 100% certain of deduced and logically valid conclusions given accepted premises. But they cannot be 100% certain about claims regarding the world as it exists - about which premises, for example, are in fact consistent with reality.

  9. #189
    One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.

  10. #190
    until the end of the world greenberg's Avatar
    Posts
    3,811
    Quote Originally Posted by sniffy View Post
    One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.
    Yeah, but some people apparently don't care about that.

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by greenberg View Post
    Yeah, but some people apparently don't care about that.
    That, then, is their problem not anyone else's.

  12. #192
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    There are 2 basic forms of Skepticism.
    1. The belief that nothing can be known for certain.
    2. The belief that some things can be known for certain, but not everything.

    How each form of Skepticism relates to the 3 T/F-Statement positions:
    A. True
    B. False
    C. I don’t know.

    Skepticism #1 can only make the claim C. Furthermore, Skepticism #1 believes that C can be the only claim that anybody can make. Thus, nobody can make the claim A or B about any statement.

    For Skepticism #2, it depends on the statement. If the statement does not fall under #2's idea of the things that can be known for certain, Skepticism #2 abides by the same rules as Skepticism #1. C is the only claim they or anybody can make.


    Objectivism:
    1. Certain knowledge is possible in all statements.
    2. Certain knowledge of any statement can be either correct or incorrect.

    How Objectivism relates to the 3 T/F-Statement positions:
    A. True
    B. False
    C. I don’t know.

    Anybody can make any of these claims.


    Definitions of words regarding the existence of God.
    A. Theism: Certain knowledge is possible. God certainly does exist.
    B. Atheism. Certain knowledge is possible. God certainly does not exist.
    C. I don’t know.

    For, C there are a number of possibilities:
    i. Certain knowledge is possible. I don’t know if God exists or does not exist.
    ii. Certain knowledge is not possible. Thus, nobody can know if God exists or does not exist. Skepticism #1 - Agnosticism.
    iii. Certain knowledge is sometimes possible, but not in this case. Thus, nobody can know if God exists or does not exist. Skepticism #2 - Agnosticism.





    Quote Originally Posted by sniffy View Post
    One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.
    Correct in objectivism.
    Last edited by lixluke; 08-19-08 at 09:39 AM.

  13. #193
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting all these definitions wihtout regard to connotation.
    No, regarding the prefix you are adding rules that don't exist. As with asexual and your own example, amoral, the prefix clearly means 'without'. You are changing it to mean something closer to 'anti'.

    Perhaps antitheist should become a commonly used term.

  14. #194
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    No, regarding the prefix you are adding rules that don't exist.
    Get real. You do not know what the "A" in "Atheism" means. You are making false claims out of air. No "ism" on the face of the earth has ever implied neutrality. The without in atheism has never and never will imply neutrality towards theism. Any "ism" implies belief. Thus people who take the "I don't know" position do not fall under any "ism". Thus, it is often misinterpreted that they fall under Agnosticism which they in fact do not.

    You sound like an acolyte. Acolytes are religious fanatics that defend their skewered beliefs to the death. Infedel Acolytes have been discussed all over this forum also to the death. Go away.

  15. #195
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072

    I might as well post this again. This information should really be attatched to the Religion section. (It probably would be if it wasn't being run by acolytes.)

    NOTE REGARDING INFIDELS.COM
    There are legitimate theists and legitimate atheists. No matter what you believe, it is your duty to impose it to an extent. If what you believe is the truth, by all means, let others know about it. However, regardless of what it is, when somebody gets caught up in self-righteousness (disrespect of the beliefs of others) fanaticism about it to the point he/she starts taking things personal, they lose all objectivity, and are no more than a lunatic zealot. It is perfectly OK to believe there is a God. It is perfectly OK to believe there is no God. It is perfectly OK to spread what you believe whether it is religious or not. All topics around here are typically discussing our beliefs with others.

    The Infidels website is a nonsense bloated site full of doctrine by fanatical self-righteous atheists for fanatical self-righteous atheists who give real atheists a bad name. With these idiots running around with their "weak/strong passive/active" stupidity in the name of atheism, they give real atheists a bad name. They are a mockery to real atheism which simply does not abide by theism, does not abide by doctrine such as exemplified in the garbage infidels website, does not attempt to impose atheism on others, and does not self-righteously consider themselves more righteous and better than anybody else with any other belief.

    I do not consider them atheists, but religious fanatical loons. They have converted countless legitimate atheists into fanatical acolytes. These acolytes who buy into it, and go forth to impose their doctrine to those whom they believe don't know any better. Many people in sciforums and all over the internet are fanatical acolytes spreading the word of this BS doctrine claiming to be atheism. What a joke. Atheism is and always has been the belief that God does not exist.

    If you are fanatical and self-righteous about atheism, I would consider you to be a religious fanatic. Which is what I consider the jack asses proliferating and imposing the BS doctrine of the Infidels website - a bunch of self-righteous religious fanatics claiming to be legitimate atheists. Don't buy into that bullcrap. There is no such thing as weak/strong atheism. I would suggest any legitimate atheist be weary of these loons.

    There are many dilemma’s of their misrepresentation of legitimate atheism. The dilemma is when you become one of their followers defining atheism as they do, you end up with everybody being atheists. They even use the term "atheist-agnostic". This is so pathetically ridiculous. It's as if that website what created by kindergarteners. They go around spreading their word throughout the internet, and morons buy into this infantile inanity to the point even Wikipedia references them as a serious source regarding their article on atheism.

    The idiotic Wikipedia article for Atheism is completely incorrect. This includes their false claims about the "A" in atheism. Wikipedia can be edited by any moronic bloke. It has lots of great facts that you can rely on, but there are times when some of the articles are garbage. Atheism is one of them. I am simply disputing the bullcrap definitions for atheism being proliferated around the internet, and being accessed by idiots who know nothing to the point that they reference false definitions as serious articles. I would say this is an insult to any real atheist. The attempt has been made by many people to correct the nonsense in the Atheism article. The atheism article in Wikipedia invalid because of idiots who buy into the kindergarten nonsense doctrine from the Infidels website.

    The infedels website has no academic validity and no historical validity. It is for all purposes, a hoax. A very successful one.
    Last edited by lixluke; 08-19-08 at 10:17 AM.

  16. #196
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Get real. You do not know what the "A" in "Atheism" means. You are making false claims out of air.
    Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes Look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    No "ism" on the face of the earth has ever implied neutrality. The without in atheism has never and never will imply neutrality towards theism. Any "ism" implies belief.
    ... and with the 'a' there it means without that belief. Interestingly you are keen to tell me the definition of the suffix 'ism', but instantly discard the definition of the prefix 'a' when it suits you.

    Once again, I think you are confusing 'a' with 'anti'.

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Thus people who take the "I don't know" position do not fall under any "ism". Thus, it is often misinterpreted that they fall under Agnosticism which they in fact do not. You sound like an acolyte. Acolytes are religious fanatics that defend their skewered beliefs to the death.
    You are the one clinging to a false definition of amoral.

  17. #197
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes Look it up.

    ... and with the 'a' there it means without that belief. Interestingly you are keen to tell me the definition of the suffix 'ism', but instantly discard the definition of the prefix 'a' when it suits you.

    Once again, I think you are confusing 'a' with 'anti'.

    You are the one clinging to a false definition of amoral.
    The "ism" in Atheism implies belief just like the "ism" in all other isms.
    The "A" in atheism implies the lack of the subject at hand.
    Belief in without God.
    Atheism is belief that God does not exist.
    Same type of thing for moralism. Even Gnosis.

    Gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is attainable.
    A-gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is unattainable.
    Agnosticism - The belief that spiritual knowledge is unattainable.

    There is no such thing as an "A" in front of any "Ism" that signifies the lack of the "Ism" itself.
    The "A" in any "Ism" signifies the opposition of the subject. The "Ism" of the opposition of the subject is a belief in the opposition of the subject.

  18. #198
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    The "ism" in Atheism implies belief just like the "ism" in all other isms.
    The suffix ‘ism’ doesn't always refer to belief.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    The "A" in atheism implies the lack of the subject at hand.
    .. and the subject at hand is ‘theism’ - A belief in god/gods. Atheism is therefore a lack of belief in gods. Why won’t you accept this?

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Belief in without God.
    You need to move the words around first to interpret that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Atheism is belief that God does not exist. Same type of thing for moralism. Even Gnosis.
    You example of moralism undermined your argument and supported what I am saying. You think that because there is ‘ism’ at the end that it must be about belief. You are incorrect. The suffix ‘ism’ can be used to represent a state. Amoralism would be a state without morals.


    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is attainable.
    A-gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is unattainable.
    Agnosticism - The belief that spiritual knowledge is unattainable. .
    Again you are changing the definitions to suit your needs. Gnosis is “A knowledge of spiritual mysteries”. It doesn’t refer to whether it is attainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    There is no such thing as an "A" in front of any "Ism" that signifies the lack of the "Ism" itself.
    Amoralism, achromatism?

    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    The "A" in any "Ism" signifies the opposition of the subject. The "Ism" of the opposition of the subject is a belief in the opposition of the subject.
    Even if we do take ‘a’ to mean ‘not’, then the word still breaks down to not a belief in gods. While similar, this is not the same as a belief that all the gods don’t exist.

  19. #199
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    The suffix ‘ism’ doesn't always refer to belief.
    It does in the case of isms such as Atheism. My example of moralism affirmed my argument. Your assertion that the "A" in Atheism refers to without belief is completely concocted absurdity. You do not know the context of the term, Atheism. The "ism" in Atheism always has been and always will be meant to describe those who take the opposing view of theism. While those who abide by theism affirm that God clearly exists, those who abide by atheism affirm that God clearly does not exist. The "ism" in Atheism never has and never will describe those who do not take up either side. It certainly does not as you proclaim describe both those who affirm that God does not exist as well as those do not take up either side. Your claim is a misinterpretation of the proper connotation for the term "atheism".

    You are proclaiming that Atheism is used to describe both:
    A. The position that God does not exist.
    and
    B. Those who don't take up either position.

    Unfortunately, B does not and will never fall under the proper connotation for atheism. Those in the B category are not atheists. Anybody that does not take up the category-A are not Atheists.
    Last edited by lixluke; 08-19-08 at 11:13 PM.

  20. #200
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    It does in the case of isms such as Atheism. My example of moralism affirmed my argument.
    amoralism - the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards.

    Amoralism is a state without morals. This contradicts your definition and certainly does not help your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Your assertion that the "A" in Atheism refers to without belief is completely concocted absurdity. You do not know the context of the term, Atheism. The "ism" in Atheism always has been and always will be meant to describe those who take the opposing view of theism.
    The closest definition of the word is ‘without a belief in gods’. I have demonstrated this and shown you to be wrong on several points. Your circular argument is that atheism can’t possibly mean that because that is not what atheism means. ?


    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    You are proclaiming that Atheism is used to describe both:
    A. The position that God does not exist.
    and
    B. Those who don't take up either position.
    I am proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist.

Similar Threads

  1. By Tht1Gy! in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 05-01-09, 06:26 AM
    Replies: 1323
  2. By Hani in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-19-07, 09:34 AM
    Replies: 78
  3. By flameofanor5 in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-17-07, 08:47 AM
    Replies: 92
  4. By sandy in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 04:13 PM
    Replies: 21
  5. By Tiassa in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 09-20-07, 07:05 AM
    Replies: 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •