Will Religion or god(s) be the down fall of Humanity ?

[Yazata]

On the contrary, if we had no terms for things that don't exist, we'd have no way of discussing whether or not they do exist.

Right. It would be impossible for anyone to think 'X doesn't exist' is they didn't have the concept 'X'.

So there is a sense in which atheism is kind of logically dependent on theism, since theism is the source of the concept of "God" whose existence atheists don't believe in. In other words, if the theists had never produced the "God" idea, then I'd never have reached my own conclusion that the existence of this "God" is highly unlikely. I wouldn't have any ideas about "God" at all.

All that I could do in that case would be to say that the category of 'the unknown' contains a large but undetermined number of possible concepts that nobody has thought of yet, and that some of those concepts will turn out to have real existing referrants and some won't.

 

[(Q)]

Of course we do.

But, we actually don't find those terms, that is, unless you have some dictionary the rest of us don't?

Often we use "lack of" or something like that instead of a prefix like "a" or "non" but the terminology is still there. For every concept that might possibly exist there's an automatic negative concept that it doesn't exist.

No, we don't use the phrase, "lack of unicorns" because unicorns don't exist. We say a lack of "belief" in something, but we don't create a new term for that something.

Duh.

We are not talking about the entities unicorns, leprechauns and gods. We are talking about the belief in any of those entities. The term "aunicornism" is the equivalent of "atheism", whether it is used or not.

So, first you say "Duh" but then don't understand what is being explained to you.

No, the term "aunicornism" is not the equivalent to atheism, because theism actually exists.

 

[(Q)]

The deteriorization of Humanity will probably arise from man's inhumanity to man.

Yet, we are not "inhumane", we are compassionate beings, it is religions that teach and cause compassionate people to do bad things.

 

[sideshowbob]

But, we actually don't find those terms, that is, unless you have some dictionary the rest of us don't?

Dictionaries contain words, not terms. We wouldn't expect to find terms like "lack of belief in gods/unicorns" in the dictionary unless there were words for them.

No, we don't use the phrase, "lack of unicorns" because unicorns don't exist. We say a lack of "belief" in something, but we don't create a new term for that something.

But we do have a term for unicorns, whether they exist or not. There is no difference between the concept of gods and the concept of unicorns. We just happen to have a specific word for the lack of belief in gods but not for the lack of belief in unicorns.

No, the term "aunicornism" is not the equivalent to atheism, because theism actually exists.

Whether or not the belief exists is irrelevant. The term exists, whether we call it "aunicornism" or "lack of belief in unicorns" because the concept of unicorns exists.

 

[sideshowbob]

So there is a sense in which atheism is kind of logically dependent on theism, since theism is the source of the concept of "God" whose existence atheists don't believe in.

Yes, as I've been saying, any possible belief automatically includes the logical negative - the lack of that belief.

I originally responded to a statement something like, "There wouldn't be any atheists if there were no religions." That's trivially true but my point was that lack of belief is the default position, not a reaction to a position. Apparently my point was not clear.

 

[(Q)]

Dictionaries contain words, not terms.

Exactly, and they don't contain the words you describe because that would make no sense.

We wouldn't expect to find terms like "lack of belief in gods/unicorns" in the dictionary unless there were words for them.

And, we don't find words like 'aunicornism' because such a term is meaningless.

But we do have a term for unicorns, whether they exist or not.

Exactly, but there is no word, "aunicorn" in the dictionary, is there?

There is no difference between the concept of gods and the concept of unicorns. We just happen to have a specific word for the lack of belief in gods but not for the lack of belief in unicorns.

Sorry, but your argument fails, especially since you can't find those words to back up your claim.

Whether or not the belief exists is irrelevant. The term exists, whether we call it "aunicornism" or "lack of belief in unicorns" because the concept of unicorns exists.

Again, show me that word in a dictionary. You can't, because it is a meaningless word and your claim for it's use is wrong.

 

[sideshowbob]

And, we don't find words like 'aunicornism' because such a term is meaningless.

It makes exactly the same sense as "atheism".

Sorry, but your argument fails, especially since you can't find those words to back up your claim.

As I said, you need to distinguish between words and terms. The term "lack of belief in unicorns" certainly does exist.

 

[(Q)]

It makes exactly the same sense as "atheism".


As I said, you need to distinguish between words and terms. The term "lack of belief in unicorns" certainly does exist.

Sorry dude, but you're not able to back up your argument. It's a simple as that. Until you can produce some evidence for your claims, there's no point in posting the same thing over and over.

 

[sideshowbob]

It's a simple as that. Until you can produce some evidence for your claims, there's no point in posting the same thing over and over.

Right back at you.

Try Googling "aunicornism".

 

[(Q)]

Right back at you.

Try Googling "aunicornism".

I never found it in a dictionary, but only in articles linking the term directly to atheism. Done.

 

[sideshowbob]

I never found it in a dictionary, but only in articles linking the term directly to atheism.

That's what I've been saying: the term exists because it needs to exist because the concept exists.

 

[(Q)]

That's what I've been saying: the term exists because it needs to exist because the concept exists.

You are free to believe such things, despite the fact they are meaningless. Making up meaningless words does not mean the word exists in regards to being a meaningful word.

 

[sideshowbob]

Making up meaningless words does not mean the word exists in regards to being a meaningful word.

I have repeatedly made a distinction between "words' and "terms". If you want to hide behind the dictionary that's fine but the TERMS exist whether the dictionary has words for them or not. As long as the concept exists, the TERM has meaning.

 

[(Q)]

I have repeatedly made a distinction between "words' and "terms". If you want to hide behind the dictionary that's fine but the TERMS exist whether the dictionary has words for them or not. As long as the concept exists, the TERM has meaning.

Sorry, but that is flat out wrong. Anyone can make up words, but that doesn't mean those words are meaningful in any way. No one is hiding behind dictionary, but someone here certainly is ignoring it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Sorry, but that is flat out wrong. Anyone can make up words, but that doesn't mean those words are meaningful in any way. No one is hiding behind dictionary, but someone here certainly is ignoring it.

What part of TERM do you not understand? "Lack of unicorns" is a TERM for the concept even if there is no word for the concept.

Go ahead, reply without using the word "word".

 

[(Q)]

What part of TERM do you not understand? "Lack of unicorns" is a TERM for the concept even if there is no word for the concept.

Go ahead, reply without using the word "word".

Ah, so now your argument turns to semantics. Well done. LOL.

 

[sideshowbob]

Ah, so now your argument turns to semantics.

The one who is abusing semantics is the one who insists that single-word terminology is fundamentally different from multi-word terminology - i.e. you.

The argument, once again from the beginning, is this: Lack of belief is the default condition. Nobody can believe in anything until the concept is "dreamed up". Once the concept does exist, it is possible to believe it or to not believe it. Both options automatically exist. In order to discuss the concept and/or the belief/disbelief in it, we need terminology. We need words - not necessarily one word that you can simplistically look up in the dictionary but words that describe the concept. In English, at least, the opposite of any concept can be easily expressed, whether by using the prefix "a" or by using additional words such as "lack of". Opposite terms exist for any concept whether they are in common usage or not and whether the concept is "true" or not.

As for the topic, religion has already had its chance to destroy humanity and it has failed. New beliefs may arise but belief is always a second-rate way of "thinking".