God is defined, not described.

[Jan Ardena]

You have stated numerous times that you think "atheist" means "without God" and being "without" something is to imply that the something exists/Is.

I have stated that the word atheist, which literally translate to "without God", implies God, for the reason stated.

So if "atheist" has the implication, as you keep asserting, that God exists/Is, what word is there for people who do not hold the belief that God exists/Is yet where the word also does not make any implication whatsoever as to whether God actually Is or Isn't.

The implication is only an issue to you, as you don't want it to apply to you. It is the underlying issue which is of importance. As far as you are aware, God does Not exist.

It is you desire to defend that position that make these implications a problem to you.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And by using the word "without" (if we are to accept your intepretation) it introduces the a priori assumption that God exists/Is.

No. It means that you are without God. The meaning of being without, implies God Is.

I.e. By accepting the definition and all it means one must first accept that God exists/Is.

Acceptance, or not, is the first step in the chain. From that your world view is determined.

Such as?

See for yourself. I'm not going to do your research for you.

But the simple non-acceptance that God Is is not an a priori assumption.

Is the simple acceptance of God, an a priori assumption?

If one starts with no assumption as to the existence / non-existence of God (Is-ness / Isn't-ness) then one is starting with no such a priori assumption.

So you believe that accepting God, is an assumption that God Is. But not accepting God, is not an assumption that God Is not?

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

No. It means that you are without God. The meaning of being without, implies God Is.

Yes, because "without" includes the a priori assumption that what is "without" actually exists/Is.
You can not use the term "without" (at least in the manner you insist upon) and not be assuming that it actually exists.

Acceptance, or not, is the first step in the chain. From that your world view is determined.

And in accepting one holds an a priori assumption.
It's not rocket science.
But at least we finally get there.

See for yourself. I'm not going to do your research for you.

So after stating that there was "plenty of evidence for the existence of God" you are unwilling to provide even a single example?
And given that I am atheist, as you well know, you would also know that if I could search on the Internet for evidence of God then I wouldn't exactly be atheist, would I.
So, I ask again: such as?
Just one example, please, Jan?

Is the simple acceptance of God, an a priori assumption?

If it is, as you say, the first step in the chain then yes, it is.

So you believe that accepting God, is an assumption that God Is. But not accepting God, is not an assumption that God Is not?

Correct.

 

[Sarkus]

I have stated that the word atheist, which literally translate to "without God", implies God, for the reason stated.

Yes, that's what I explained your view to be.

The implication is only an issue to you, as you don't want it to apply to you. It is the underlying issue which is of importance. As far as you are aware, God does Not exist.

Fluff and bluster, Jan. I didn't ask about who you thought any implication was an issue to, or for you to repeat what you think the term "atheism" literally translates to. I simply asked you what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is.

Do you need me to ask you again?

If you can't think of any such word, that's fine, please just say so.

Would you say that "non-believer" would work as such a word?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, because "without" includes the a priori assumption that what is "without" actually exists/Is.

A term such as "without" cannot "assume" anything.

You can not use the term "without" (at least in the manner you insist upon) and not be assuming that it actually exists.

There is no assumption that anything exists. It is simply descriptive.
I take it you don't like the obvious implication?

And in accepting one holds an a priori assumption.

Only if I decide to accept. The remarkable thing about atheist, and theist, is that they don't decide.
It's obvious to the theist that God Is, and it is obvious to the atheist that God does not exit as far as they are aware.
They didn't decide it, hence they don't assume it. It is the situation we find ourselves in.

The fool doesn't decide for himself, there is no God. The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, that's what I explained your view to be.

It's not ''my view''.

I simply asked you what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is.

If a person does not believe in God, they are atheist.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

It's not ''my view''.

Yes, it is your view. Even if it is a view shared by noone, one other, or everyone, it is still your view. If you think you are stating something as fact then it is, by implication (unless you suffer from cognitive dissonance), your view. Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance, Jan? I am assuming not, thus it is fair for me to say that it is your view. So own it, ffs!

If a person does not believe in God, they are atheist.

That's not what I asked.
Let me repeat: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

Given that you believe the word "atheist" comes complete with the implication that God exists/Is, it clearly is not a word you think fulfils the criteria I have asked you for.

As I said, if you don't know of a word, just say that you don't know. But to simply give an answer to my question which you know is not correct is... guess what... that's right, Jan, it's dishonest!

So, let me repeat again: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

 

[Baldeee]

A term such as "without" cannot "assume" anything.

???
If you are "without X" then there is the implicit assumption that X exists.
If I say that I am without hair, it implies that hair exists, you agree?
If I say that I am without money, it implies that money exists, I'm sure you'd also agree?
If I say that I am without Zarg, it thus implies that Zarg exists, right?

There is thus the implicit assumption by the person using the term "without" that what one is without actually exists.
But merely saying, or defining, something as being "without" does not mean that the thing does actually exist, only that it is assumed by the person using the term that is defined with the term "without" that it does exist.
You use the term "atheism" as meaning "without God" because you have the assumption that God exists.
We who label ourselves atheist do not have that assumption, thus we reject your definition of the term.

There is no assumption that anything exists. It is simply descriptive.

And by calling it descriptive you are once again trying to define something into existence.
The only thing it is descriptive of is your own interpretation of what you observe, an interpretation that is built on the a priori assumption that God exists, such that you embed the assumption of God's existence into the definition you want to insist upon for "atheism", using an ancient meaning for it when everyone held the belief that gods existed.
Alas, all you are doing is reconfirming what your worldview is, what your belief is, not what reality actually is.
And we already know what your belief is.

I take it you don't like the obvious implication?

You are trying to force an implication upon atheists that simply isn't there.
You are doing so because you want atheism to be defined from the theist viewpoint, and you are not willing to accept the definition from the viewpoint of those who actually self-identify with the term, where there is no such implication.

Only if I decide to accept. The remarkable thing about atheist, and theist, is that they don't decide.
It's obvious to the theist that God Is, and it is obvious to the atheist that God does not exit as far as they are aware.
They didn't decide it, hence they don't assume it. It is the situation we find ourselves in.

One doesn't have to decide to hold an a priori assumption, and most I would wager are not decided, as most probably don't even realise they hold them.
An a priori assumption is simply an assumption, a premise, that one holds as true without further question.
You have admitted that this is what you do.
Hence you are, whether you admit it or not, agreeing that you hold an a priori assumption that God exists.

The fool doesn't decide for himself, there is no God. The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

And I'm sure you'd very much like to redefine atheism as "fools that are without God".
But hey ho, your insult is noted.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, it is your view. Even if it is a view shared by noone, one other, or everyone, it is still your view. If you think you are stating something as fact then it is, by implication (unless you suffer from cognitive dissonance), your view. Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance, Jan? I am assuming not, thus it is fair for me to say that it is your view. So own it, ffs!

It is what it is.

what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists

An atheist.

but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

baggage - past experiences or long-held attitudes perceived as burdensome encumbrances:

Atheist.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

An atheist.
baggage - past experiences or long-held attitudes perceived as burdensome encumbrances:

Atheist.
jan.

What past experiences or long -held attitudes perceived as burdensome encumbrances, by who?
Does the Inquisition ring a bell?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you are "without X" then there is the implicit assumption that X exists.

It depends what ''X'' is.
If ''X'' turned out to be the ability to say you are without "X", or the ability to perceive anything at all, then no.

If I say that I am without Zarg, it thus implies that Zarg exists, right?

Yes.

There is thus the implicit assumption by the person using the term "without" that what one is without actually exists.

Why an assumption?

But merely saying,or defining, something as being "without" does not mean that the thing does actuallyexist, only that it is assumed by the personusing the term that is defined with theterm "without" that it does exist.

Why introduce "actually"?
If one is without sight, then why do we need to actualize sight?

It's not my problem that God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. I don't have to actualize anything.

You use the term "atheism" as meaning "without God" because you have the assumption that God exists.
We who label ourselves atheist do not have that assumption, thus we reject your definition of the term.

I define the term "atheist" as "without God". Because that is the literal meaning, and because it fits.

Obviously you don't assume God exists. You assume God doesn't exist.

And by calling it descriptive you are once again trying to define something into existence.

Complete nonsense.

The only thing it is descriptive of is your own interpretation of what you observe, an interpretation that is built on the a priori assumption that God exists, such that you embed the assumption of God's existence into the definition you want to insist upon for "atheism", using an ancient meaning for it when everyone held the belief that gods existed.

Do you really want me to regurgitate the exhaustive list of definitions of the word "without", to show that it has nothing to do with any assumption on my part.
You're wrong, so stop attempting to redefine a word that is already defined.

The fact that atheism is an ancient position, means the ancient definition is more suitable than these modern, trendy, personalised ones. Which tend to have nothing to do with the fact that God does not exist, as far as you're aware.

You are trying to force an implication upon atheists that simply isn't there.

So God DOES exist, as far as you're aware? Hence you are not without God then. Why didn't you say so?

One doesn't have to decide to hold an a priori assumption, and most I would wager are not decided, as most probably don't even realise they hold them

Because they are usually, obviously true.
But my observation is not based on assumption.

You have admitted that this is what you do.

Where?

Hence you are, whether you admit it or not, agreeing that you hold an a

Where have stated that God exists?
If you believe it is implied in fact of being a theist, then the same applies to you. You imply that God does not exist, simply by being atheist. But I bet you won't agree to that?

And I'm sure you'd very much like to redefine atheism as "fools that are without God".
But hey ho, your insult is noted.

You think calling someone a fool, because they fool themself, is an insult?
Wouldn't it be better to be alerted of one's foolishness, than to allow it to continue?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What past experiences or long -held attitudes perceived as burdensome encumbrances, by who?
Does the Inquisition ring a bell?

What are you talking about?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

It is what it is.

And it is your view.

An atheist.

So in response for a request of a word that has zero implication that God exists, you offer a word that you feel certainly has the implication that God exists. Dishonest Jan strikes again, it seems.

Right, for the purposes of this snippet of discussion, Jan, let us assume that we both agree that "atheist" does indeed have the implication that God exists... so we both agree that it does not fit the criteria of what I am asking you for, okay? As such it would be dishonest of you to offer it up as a meaningful suggestion, okay?

Let me ask once more: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

baggage - past experiences or long-held attitudes perceived as burdensome encumbrances:

Atheist

I know what baggage means in this context, Jan. I used it because of the long-held persistence by you that the term "atheist" has implications that those who use the term to describe themselves do not necessarily have. Your insistence upon it is the baggage that I am referring to... it is burdensome to this thread and seemingly to any sensible discussion.

So, for the final time: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

And remember, I have specifically said that if you don't know of a word you should just say that you don't know.

Are you able to do that, please, Jan?

 

[Write4U]

And I would like to repeat the question of who carries the most baggage?

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me ask once more: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

Rational.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And it is your view.

Then it is your view, as well.

So in response for a request of a word that has zero implication that God exists, you offer a word that you feel certainly has the implication that God exists. Dishonest Jan strikes again, it seems.

My response was to this question: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists...

Are you disagreeing with me?

Right, for the purposes of this snippet of discussion, Jan, let us assume that we both agree that "atheist" does indeed have the implication that God exists...

We do both agree.

Let me ask once more: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't hold the belief that God exists/Is, but a word which doesn't also come saddled with the baggage of any implication, for anyone at all, that God exists/Is?

I don't know what you mean by ''saddled with the baggage of any implication''.
It sounds as if the word ''atheist'' is loaded.
I'm afraid you're going to have to unpack this before I respond, as I don't understand fully, what you're getting at.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rational.

Why would the word be ''rational''?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And I would like to repeat the question of who carries the most baggage?

I didn't get your point the first time round.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would the word be ''rational''?

jan.

Because it matches the criteria Sarkus laid out.

 

[Write4U]

I don't know what you mean by ''saddled with the baggage of any implication''.
It sounds as if the word ''atheist'' is loaded.

No, the word atheist is not loaded or saddled with baggage, the word theist is loaded and saddled with baggage and most of it is garbage.

Now do you understand my question?