What exactly is atheism?

[lixluke]

You are quite mistaken about that.



Those are questions, but not epistemological questions. You should read the wiki on this, its pretty good.

epistemology
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

"Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology



Ok, in general I couldn't care less about spelling errors, but if you are going to try and use fancy words as insults, spell them correctly you simp.

Here is the actual run down...

1. I accept empty claims as proof of goD.
2. I deny empty claims as proof of goD.
3. I don't know whether or not goD exists.
4. I cannot know whether or not goD exists.

and for completeness...
5. I do know whether or not goD exists.

Instead of responding to the epistemological questions, you cavile about the definition of epistemology.

Your #5 is a repeat of #3.

A claim is either true or false.
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. I don't know.
4. Man cannot know.

CLAIM: God does exist = X.
1. X is true. God exists.
2. X is false. God does not exist.
3. I do not know whether or not God exists.
4. I do not know whether God exists or does not exist, and man cannot know whether or not God exists.

It is irrelevant whether you accept or deny an empty claim as proof. You either accept/deny the claim that there is no God or accept/deny the claim that there is a God.

Do #3 or #4 claim that God exists? Do #3 or #4 claim that God does not exist?


FACT:
1. You do not control what you believe.
2. Whatever somebody claims to believe may not be what they actually believe.
3. You can try as hard as you can to believe that you have 10 billion dollars under your bed, it doesn't mean that you will actually believe it.
4. Any claim of knowledge or belief about anything is a belief.
5. If a belief is anything a person believes/knows, it is impossible for one who believes X is true or X is false to not know whether or not X is true or false. Does God exist? <- This is a yes/no question. Somebody who doesn't know cannot believe that God exists or does not exist.

[shaman_]

Do #3 or #4 claim that God exists? Do #3 or #4 claim that God does not exist?

They don't have the the belief that god exists therefore they are atheists.

They may be agnostic as well as agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

[lixluke]

They don't have the the belief that god exists therefore they are atheists.

They may be agnostic as well as agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

That is a misconception of atheism. Agnostics are not atheists. Agnostics do not have the belief that God does not exist.

The matter is whether or not there is a God. Is there a God? Those who do not say no to the question cannot be grouped with those who say no. Atheists are only those who say there is no God.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Ad nauseum.
1111

[swarm]

Instead of responding to the epistemological questions, you cavile about the definition of epistemology.

You have yet to pose any epistemological questions and obvious haven't a clue what the word means. Also you still need to look up the word "cavil" and learn to spell it correctly.

Your #5 is a repeat of #3.

Only if you think the words "don't" and "do" have the same meaning.

It is irrelevant whether you accept or deny an empty claim as proof.

Actually it is extremely relevant because 99.99% of the theist game is trying to "beg the question" of god into existence. The is no "god" to be against. There are only weak minded fools like yourself whining about how they have to prove a claim they want to make is actually true before proceeding further.

You want to claim there is a god, put one on the table or shut up.

FACT:
1. You can control what you believe to a greater or lesser extent.

2. It is always best to presume whatever somebody claims to believe is what they believe until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

3. You can, and some people do, convince themselves to believe in falsehoods like god in spite of the lack of evidence. Try as hard as you can though, believing that god exists doesn't mean that god actually exists.

4. A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim. A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

5. If a belief is an opinion which may or may not have any basis in fact, it is impossible for one who believes X is true or X is false to claim this belief as knowledge until its factual basis is established and made certain.

Questions of knowledge concerning a matter of existence have their certain basis in the actual presence of the object in question. It is especially critical when an extraordinary claim is made, like "god exists," that the actual god be made manifest for verification. In such an extraordinary case, no other circumstantial proof can be considered sufficient to resolve the question satisfactorily.

Now stop being a dumbass and go read up on epistemology or stop using the word.

[shaman_]

That is a misconception of atheism. Agnostics are not atheists. Agnostics do not have the belief that God does not exist.

Agnostics have the belief that the existence of god is unknowable. They may still be without belief in god/s while holding this position. Agnosticism is not the middle ground.

The matter is whether or not there is a God. Is there a God? Those who do not say no to the question cannot be grouped with those who say no.

While that may seem messy and wrong to you, if you look at the meaning of the word without the theist connotations, you will see that it can include both of those groups.

Atheists are only those who say there is no God.

No atheists are those who don’t say that there is a god. We are born atheist – without a belief in any gods. A = without. Some of us choose to stay that way. People who have never heard of gods are still atheists as they lack a belief that the theists have.

[lixluke]

You have yet to pose any epistemological questions and obvious haven't a clue what the word means. Also you still need to look up the word "cavil" and learn to spell it correctly.

Caviling. You have yet to answer the epistemological questions. All you know how to do is cavile.


Your claim about knowledge and belief are incorrect. Evidence or proof have nothing to do with knowledge or belief. An individual can believe something or not something regardless of any other factor. Knowledge is nothing more than a belief that corresponds to actuality.


ACTUALITY
X is true.


VARIOUS BELIEFS
1. X is true. <- Knowledge.
2. X is false. <- Not knowledge.
3. I don't know. <- Not knowledge.


Anytime a person makes the claim: "I know":
1. It is a claim about something being true or false in actuality.
2. This claim is always a belief. It is only knowledge if it corresponds to actuality.
3. Any claim a person makes must be assumed to correspond to a person's actual belief.
4. Any claim a person makes whether it is stated as a belief or knowledge is a belief based on the extent of an individual's understanding.


I claim X is true.
This is a claim that X is true in actuality.
This claim is a belief.
An individual does not have to actually acknowledge a claim in order to have a belif.
The existence of this claim/state of belief is independent of any form of evidence/proof. A conclusions may be based on some sort of physical evidence. It may be based on a dream. People have many reasons for coming to conclusions about many things. Regardless of the basis, the conlcusion is a belief.

Agnostics have the belief that the existence of god is unknowable. They may still be without belief in god/s while holding this position. Agnosticism is not the middle ground.

While that may seem messy and wrong to you, if you look at the meaning of the word without the theist connotations, you will see that it can include both of those groups.

No atheists are those who don’t say that there is a god. We are born atheist – without a belief in any gods. A = without. Some of us choose to stay that way. People who have never heard of gods are still atheists as they lack a belief that the theists have.

A belief implies knowledge. It is imposible for an individual to believe something they do not know. If you believe X to be true, that is a belief. You cannot believe X to be true, and not know if X is true at the same time.

[lixluke]

You want to claim there is a god, put one on the table or shut up.

This is an example of atheists who believe there is no God.

1. You can control what you believe to a greater or lesser extent.

2. It is always best to presume whatever somebody claims to believe is what they believe until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

Wrong. Most people do not know what belief or knowledge means. Most people say something, and believe otherwise.

You can, and some people do, convince themselves to believe in falsehoods like god in spite of the lack of evidence

Evidence or lack of evidence is irrelevant to belief/knowledge.

A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim.
A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

This is completely illogical.
You are claiming:
A statement can only be knowledge if it is based on some form substantial factual evidence.
A statement can only be a belief may or may not be based on substantial evidence.

This is illogical and incorrect.
One makes a claim that X is true. The person bases this claim on whatever form of substantial evidence the person feels necessary. Either way, X is always a belief, and X is only knowledge if X is true in actuality. All regardless of how much and what form of evidence the individual bases his claim on.

If a belief is an opinion which may or may not have any basis in fact, it is impossible for one who believes X is true or X is false to claim this belief as knowledge until its factual basis is established and made certain.

Established by who? A belief based on what fact? Basing s belief on some form of factually substantial evidence suddenly makes it knowledge? This is completely illogical.

A belief is a position on something based on the extent of an individual’s understanding. A belief that X is true or X is false is and can only be based on the extent of the individual’s understanding. A claim to know X is true is a belief that x is true. Either way, all the substantial evidence one wants to use is irrelevant.

[lixluke]

All you are doing is claiming that truth is based on evidence, and evidence is not based on truth. Knowledge is not based on some form of evidence, substancial evidence, or whatever. Knowledge is ONLY based on whether or not something is true/false.

[swarm]

[FONT="Arial"]Caviling. You have yet to answer the epistemological questions. All you know how to do is cavile.

You have yet to ask any epistemological questions. Which is not surprising since you don't know what such questions are. Oh and sorry dude it isn't spelled with an "e." But do keep trying. I'm sure some day you will get it right.

Your claim about knowledge and belief are incorrect.

Actually they are spot on.

Evidence or proof have nothing to do with knowledge or belief.

I can see why you are a theist and I bet you have a lot of trouble which you can't understand in your day to day life.

You want to claim there is a god, put one on the table or shut up.

FACT:
1. You can control what you believe to a greater or lesser extent.

2. It is always best to presume whatever somebody claims to believe is what they believe until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

3. You can, and some people do, convince themselves to believe in falsehoods like god in spite of the lack of evidence. Try as hard as you can though, believing that god exists doesn't mean that god actually exists.

4. A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim. A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

5. If a belief is an opinion which may or may not have any basis in fact, it is impossible for one who believes X is true or X is false to claim this belief as knowledge until its factual basis is established and made certain.

Questions of knowledge concerning a matter of existence have their certain basis in the actual presence of the object in question. It is especially critical when an extraordinary claim is made, like "god exists," that the actual god be made manifest for verification. In such an extraordinary case, no other circumstantial proof can be considered sufficient to resolve the question satisfactorily.

Now stop being a dumbass and go read up on epistemology or stop using the word.

[Spectrum]

If you believe in something you do not question it...

[lixluke]

You have yet to ask any epistemological questions. Which is not surprising since you don't know what such questions are. Oh and sorry dude it isn't spelled with an "e." But do keep trying. I'm sure some day you will get it right.



Actually they are spot on.



I can see why you are a theist and I bet you have a lot of trouble which you can't understand in your day to day life.

You want to claim there is a god, put one on the table or shut up.

FACT:
1. You can control what you believe to a greater or lesser extent.

2. It is always best to presume whatever somebody claims to believe is what they believe until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

3. You can, and some people do, convince themselves to believe in falsehoods like god in spite of the lack of evidence. Try as hard as you can though, believing that god exists doesn't mean that god actually exists.

4. A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim. A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

5. If a belief is an opinion which may or may not have any basis in fact, it is impossible for one who believes X is true or X is false to claim this belief as knowledge until its factual basis is established and made certain.

Questions of knowledge concerning a matter of existence have their certain basis in the actual presence of the object in question. It is especially critical when an extraordinary claim is made, like "god exists," that the actual god be made manifest for verification. In such an extraordinary case, no other circumstantial proof can be considered sufficient to resolve the question satisfactorily.

Now stop being a dumbass and go read up on epistemology or stop using the word.

Circular. I've already provided proof against all this. You have yet to answer the epistemelogical uestions provided. You do not know how to communicate other than use circular reasoning.

[lixluke]

FACTS:
1. Truth does not depend on evidence.
2. Evidence depends on truth.
3. Anybody can claim anything to be evidence of truth.
4. Knowledge is not dependent on any form of evidence.
5. Evidence or no evidence, a belief that corresponds to actuality of truth is knowledge.
6. Evidence or no evidence, a belief that does not correspond to actuality of truth is not knowledge.
7. Evidence or no evidence, any claim of actual knowledge an indiviual makes may or may not be true.
8. Evidence is only a practical device for determining/supporting a claim of truth.
9. Any amount or form of evidence an individual uses to support a claim of truth does not make a claim true.
10. Any lack of evidence does not make a claim false.


FALLACY
1. If there is no "evidence/proof" to support the claim "X is true", then X is false.
2. If one cannot provide "evidence/proof" to support the claim "X is true", then one does not have knowledge that X is true.
3. If one can provide "evidence/proof" that X is true, then X is true, and the individual has knowledge that X is true.
4. X can only be true if sufficient evidence is provided for X being true.
5. There is a difference between somebody claiming to believe X is true, and somebody claiming to know X is true.
6. A claim to have actual knowledge that X is true based on lots of great forms of evidence is not a belief.
7. A claim to have actual knowledge that X is true based on lots of great forms of evidence is actual knowledge.
8. If somebody claims to have actual knowledge that X is true based on lots of great forms of evidence, then X is true in actuality.
9. If somebody claims to have actual knowledge that X is true, but cannot provide evidence that is acceptable to some dictator, that person does not have actual knowledge that X is true.
10. If somebody claims to believe X is true, then that person does not have actual knowledge that X is true.

[swarm]

This is an example of atheists who believe there is no God.

If I had made up my mind I wouldn't bother asking.

Have you so little that you can't fulfill this one simple request?

Your "god" seems pretty useless.

Wrong. Most people do not know what belief or knowledge means. Most people say something, and believe otherwise.

If that is true, there will be evidence like the evidence you don't know what epistemology is.

FYI, Closed-ended, dichotomous questions are not epistemological questions (questions about the nature of knowledge). Also, reframing an open ended descriptive question, i.e. one which explores the existence of something, as a closed-ended, dichotomous question is deceptive. The result is called a presuppositional question (aka the fallacy of many questions), the most famous of which is possibly: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This is related to the rhetorical ploy "begging the question."

Evidence or lack of evidence is irrelevant to belief/knowledge.

Only for the insane or those desperate to pretend their fantasies of god are the same as an actual god. For the rest of us. Evidence or lack of evidence is of paramount importance in the formation of beliefs and the acquisition of knowledge.

This is completely illogical.

Just because you can't be bothered to understand doesn't mean it is illogical.

A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim.
A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

So pony up a god or stop whining people don't believe you.

Of course no one believes your god talk if you have no god to show them.

I'm sure the elves and fairies will help you if you ask them.

[swarm]

If you believe in something you do not question it...

Only if you are a lump.

Some of us enjoy questioning our beliefs, even our knowledge.

[swarm]

Circular. I've already provided proof against all this.

Not even.

You have yet to answer the epistemelogical uestions provided.

You are using big words you don't understand again.

[swarm]

...

FACTS:
1. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
2. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

FALLACY
1. your silly claims.

[lixluke]

A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim.
A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

This is incorrect. Not having evidence does not mean not having knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. Knowledge is based on truth/fallacy.
If X is true, and one believes X is true, one has knowledge that X is true whether one has evidence or not.

The claim that "one has knowledge because one has 'good and sufficient' evidence" is illogical. There is no such thing as "good sufficient" evidence. If there was such an animal, perhaps you could present it.

A belief may or not be substantiated in any form of fact. That is irrelevant to whether or not somebody's belief that X is true correspobds with X being true in actuality.

All your caviling about definitions of epistemology has nothing to do with the epistemological questions presented. Is there there a God?
Yes or no?

[BlueMoose]

"Is there a God ?"

-Dont know, still trying to figure out what God is. To rule out God is to me little too harsh in this point, the word God came out from somewhere, so there must be possibility, I mean the one who can rule out God without ever even consider the possibility that there can be God, must be at least Godlike himself for knowing it for sure, and if you have considered about the possibility and you werent sure about it instantly, then there was possibility and that wont go away just because you have made guess about it, very thoughtful and educated guess maybe, but nevertheless, it was a guess. One can reject every possible God offered to him but that doesnt answer the question is there God or Not. We as humans in bigger picture do know near nothing about anything, just guessing and going on, infants in space-time.

Just for food for thought, if one looks the theory that God were aliens messing with our DNA the whole question changes, thats something we can relate, because that is something that we could accomplish our selfs too in distant future. So someone comes with such evidence, would you reject the idea without looking the evidence. If so, it would be act of faith, the faith that the one with the evidence is wrong, but there is the possibility that the theory could be right, because its something we could accomplish our selfs. So on basis on that analogy I´m probably agnostic and to me atheist is believer of NoGod. Its a matter of faith either way, in my case its maybe lack of it ?
Flawless logic eh ?

[swarm]

This is incorrect.

You mistyped "I'm."

Just in case you missed it:
A claim of knowledge means that one has good and sufficient factual basis for said claim.
A belief means that one has formed an opinion which may or may not be substantiated in fact.

epistemological questions presented.

When are you going to present some epistemological questions?

Is there there a God? Yes or no?

Ah the fallacy of many questions.

What's "a god?" Show me one so I know what you are babbling about.