Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
- Status
Fallacy: Arguing the person, not the argument, (amongst other fallacies). [In fact, you weren't even arguing anything, you just kinda made some base assertion that didn't argue against, let alone address, the actual argument in question].
Let's skip the weather and concentrate on the actual subject, (gods). You are seemingly claiming that everyone that is a theist, (believes god exists), has knowledge of that gods existence. If not, you're suggesting that people both believe in the existence of this entity, (ont), while saying "I don't know", (epi).
Nobody is asserting that anybody "knows", (epi) but that cannot be confused with (existence belief) (ont). If you contend - as you seemingly do - that (ont) and (epi) are in fact mutually exclusive, then I require something in the way of evidence.
Who has the onus? It is you my friend for a very basic and standard reason: We know that people can have a belief in something without knowing it to exist, (you'll concede this, stating that there are atheists that believe in things like multiverses without knowing whether multiverses exist or not). We also know that people can believe something doesn't exist without knowing whether it does or not. These are typical, observed facts of existence. You are suggesting something that is completely unobserved, (epi and ont being mutually exclusive positions), and hence you must establish that as being so.
Good luck btw.
Let's skip the weather and concentrate on the actual subject, (gods). You are seemingly claiming that everyone that is a theist, (believes god exists), has knowledge of that gods existence. If not, you're suggesting that people both believe in the existence of this entity, (ont), while saying "I don't know", (epi).
Nobody is asserting that anybody "knows", (epi) but that cannot be confused with (existence belief) (ont). If you contend - as you seemingly do - that (ont) and (epi) are in fact mutually exclusive, then I require something in the way of evidence.
Who has the onus? It is you my friend for a very basic and standard reason: We know that people can have a belief in something without knowing it to exist, (you'll concede this, stating that there are atheists that believe in things like multiverses without knowing whether multiverses exist or not). We also know that people can believe something doesn't exist without knowing whether it does or not. These are typical, observed facts of existence. You are suggesting something that is completely unobserved, (epi and ont being mutually exclusive positions), and hence you must establish that as being so.
Good luck btw.
Last edited:
Whenever you're ready to address the actual issue - feel free to wake me up. You know Sam, I've heard the rumours. I "don't know" if they're true or not but I don't believe they are.
Kindly show me to be right.
So - (epi) and (ont) are mutually exclusive positions... because?
Kindly show me to be right.
So - (epi) and (ont) are mutually exclusive positions... because?
Well, I "don't know" that I am right, but I believe I am, (perhaps 1, [i'm unsure] & 3)
Of course you can show me to be (2) by explaining to me how believing/not believing and not knowing are mutually exclusive positions.
If you don't mind, I hate to ask four times.
Note: I'm not making a statement here, I'm asking a question.
Of course you can show me to be (2) by explaining to me how believing/not believing and not knowing are mutually exclusive positions.
If you don't mind, I hate to ask four times.
Note: I'm not making a statement here, I'm asking a question.
Well, I "don't know" that I am right, but I believe I am, (perhaps 1, [i'm unsure] & 3)
Of course you can show me to be (2) by explaining to me how believing/not believing and not knowing are mutually exclusive positions.
If you don't mind, I hate to ask five times.
Note: I'm not making a statement here, I'm asking a question.
It seems you're missing the point. The fact that one has the (epi) is not an indication that one does not also have the (ont). If you suggest that one has the (epi) without the (ont), then you have some explaining to do.
"I don't know" is insufficient. Nobody ever claimed that they did. It's entirely inconsequential.
Of course you can show me to be (2) by explaining to me how believing/not believing and not knowing are mutually exclusive positions.
If you don't mind, I hate to ask five times.
Note: I'm not making a statement here, I'm asking a question.
It seems you're missing the point. The fact that one has the (epi) is not an indication that one does not also have the (ont). If you suggest that one has the (epi) without the (ont), then you have some explaining to do.
"I don't know" is insufficient. Nobody ever claimed that they did. It's entirely inconsequential.
In the same way that all that is not black is not white. Or in the same way that saying a dog has fur does not mean that if it has fur, it is a dog.
If I say no, the meaning categorically is rejection. So if I say, No I do NOT believe you, I am not inviting further assurances. However, if I say, I don't know, it means I have not made up my mind.
E.g. if a woman says No to sexual intercourse, she's not saying she's unsure. It would be a mistake to assume she doesn't know what she wants/
Last edited:
SAM you are confusing casual parlance with philosophical positioning... which is disingenuous at best.
Imagine this question: Are you going for a mile-long run?
If you say "No" - to what are you actually rejecting... the act of running, or the distance being run?
A person saying "No" could mean that they have no intention of stepping outside (or they might be walking a mile rather than running), or that they are not running a mile but five-miles. etc.
What connects all answers of "No" is that they are not running one mile.
Ask someone if they believe in the existence of god... and if they say "no" then you have the same issue of determining what they are actually saying "no" to: is it the act of believing or is it what they have belief in?
Most atheists are saying "no" to the act of believing.
But what connects all atheists is that they "do not believe in the existence of god".
Imagine this question: Are you going for a mile-long run?
If you say "No" - to what are you actually rejecting... the act of running, or the distance being run?
A person saying "No" could mean that they have no intention of stepping outside (or they might be walking a mile rather than running), or that they are not running a mile but five-miles. etc.
What connects all answers of "No" is that they are not running one mile.
Ask someone if they believe in the existence of god... and if they say "no" then you have the same issue of determining what they are actually saying "no" to: is it the act of believing or is it what they have belief in?
Most atheists are saying "no" to the act of believing.
But what connects all atheists is that they "do not believe in the existence of god".
There are 3 possible positions a person can take on any matter. No more. No less.
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Inconclusive.
In the case of the existence of God.
1. Theism.
2. Atheism.
3. Inconclusive. No position.
Those who consider the matter inconclusive, and call themselves atheists are not real atheists. They're studio atheists.
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Inconclusive.
In the case of the existence of God.
1. Theism.
2. Atheism.
3. Inconclusive. No position.
Those who consider the matter inconclusive, and call themselves atheists are not real atheists. They're studio atheists.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Move on, you're wrong.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[34], Michael Martin[25], and William L. Rowe[35] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[36] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[34] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[37] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Posting nonsense doesn't make it correct. All your repsonses are either 'no' or 'wrong'. I've already given lots of information on how these definitions of atheism are incorrect, and how the incorporation of such terminology has no underlying purpose. There is simply theism, atheism, agnostic, inconclusive. There is no common use of anything more, and no need for anything more.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol
Ok, continue posting nonsense then.
Buddhists, apathists, agnostics, animists...
I'm right there, man. It gets soooo tiresome and the ploy em-ploy-ers are like automata, like lixluke they just go on ad nausium unable even to give it a new spin.
Why always with the lame Jewish myths any way? Now the Greeks can spin a tale and the Egyptians are much more sophisticated.
And the really sick part is YHVH is the god of the Jews. They are the chosen. And god can barely stomach them! I'm so sure the jealous god of the jews id going to just accept a bunch of gentiles he already chose not to choose who have spent 2000 years ruining the lives of his actual chosen.
Sorry folks. Saul lied to you. Jesus if he came, came for the Jews, not you.
Shit! You aren't supposed to tell about the secret atheist base on Jupiter. Faking the lunar landing was supposed to throw people off the scent!
I don't know. I'd take the frogs if I had to choose on likelihood.
"Created" the universe, man those people will buy any old crap if you just say "god did it."
- Status