Dismantling a Hoax
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
This thread has no bearing the definition. Most of the people posting in that thread have ZERO concept of what belief, certainty, and knowledge. While logic is obvious, many people easily misinterpret common linguistic elements.
It's not that it "should" imply certainty, it does. And yes, the intended meaning is what counts. Most people have limited understanding of their belief. That is why when you try to clarify, they get upset thath you are attacking their belief. They take it personally.
It is important for the sender to ensure the message is clear.
It is important for the listener to make sure he interpreted the message correctly before responding.
"Thats IT". LMAO. Sorry, but wrong.
Exactly. The whole A = "without" the belief is a COMPLETE sham and shameful representation of facts. Proliferated by who? None other than SW.
A in "a"-theism implies an antithesis to the the thesis of Theism. Without God. A = antitheses. Antithesis to the thesis that God exists which is God does not exist. SW's circulating the claim that the "A" is meant to imply without belief is not legitimately taken seriously.
Not exactly. Ridiculous. The A isn't added to THE before the IST is but after. IST isn't added to Athe. There's no IST to atheist. That's the whole purpose of adding the A. Same with atheism. Without theism. It isn't without THE but with ISM. Rather it's without any of it.
There are no apples in 0 apples. 1 box has apples, the other doesn't. There are apples & there are not apples. Not apples is the absence of apples.
I'm not theist. There's an absence of theism in me. It's just not there.
1111
There are no apples in 0 apples. 1 box has apples, the other doesn't. There are apples & there are not apples. Not apples is the absence of apples.
I'm not theist. There's an absence of theism in me. It's just not there.
1111
Incorrect use of "A".
Atheism = Without Theism => Wrong
Atheism = Antithesis of Theism = Counterposition of Theism. Atheism = Position that there are not Gods. The "A" signifies the antithesis of the thesis position (counterposition/opposing view.)
No. You are using it incorrectly. The A in atheism simply means no theism.
1111
1111
You can go on about what "atheism" means to you, but what's important and relevant is what individuals self-identify as the meaning from their perspective as atheists.
As an atheist I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist since I recognize that while I dont have a belief in gods I also recognize that I cannot empirically inspect the entire universe to test my hypothesis
being agnostic is an epistemological claim while being atheist is a philosophical position
As an atheist I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist since I recognize that while I dont have a belief in gods I also recognize that I cannot empirically inspect the entire universe to test my hypothesis
being agnostic is an epistemological claim while being atheist is a philosophical position
Nothing is more important than anything. It is not about what is important. It is simply how things are without regard to what is importance. At the end of the day, you have your view, and you are going to use what terms you feel are best to describe yourself. This is not a question of wrong/right or practical/impractical.
This is simply about of how a specific ideology uses propaganda tactics to proliferate. Whether you agree with these terms and ideologies or not. They are no different from any religious propaganda using diversion of commonality. What they do is use smoke and mirrors to make their views seem like the common historical normality.
If you think these terms and ideologies fit you, great. Run with it. But I would be a fool to buy into their baseless claims about history and etymology.
Right on Brother.
I believe we are all brothers and sisters of the human race via evolution.
I believe that we can live in an ecobalance with nature and knowledge of nature shows us the way.
I believe we are capable of steering technology for the betterment of all life.
I believe we can agree on moral issues and agree not to agree and stike a balance democraticly.
I believe "flaw potential" is the driving force to perfection, the paradox is perfection can not be perfect.
I believe the "god theory" is created by human imagination to help understand the workings of nature.
I believe is it immoral to ask some one to put there life on the line in the name of faith.
I believe the interwebs is a great creation of man for the flow of information and ideas.
I believe we can solve polution and cleen energy problem.
I believe Athiest can be a believer in "the mindful spirit" and its not the sole domain of jews, christians and muslims (monothiesm)
I believe we will emerge and evolve out of all the bullshit and flower as a supreme thoughtfull organism that plants the seeds of life in all the cosmos. (ok made this up but it's nice to think about which always leads us to rethink "what is god" and thats the point, "the idea of god" needs a mechanism to be as organic as nature, which is the crux of Athiesm vs Theism)
Geeser, it seems had the right definition. "In early Ancient Greek, the adjective theos (θεος) God, atheos (ἄθεος, from ἀ- + θεός ) meant "godless".
Encarta
god·less [ góddləss ]
1. without God or god: not believing in or worshiping God or any god
2. Not showing belief in a diety, impious
If you want to change the meaning that is your perogative, but dont expect anybody else to accept your claim.
Antithesis means the complete opposite, of a thing.
Which is only an emphasizes for the "A" prefix, giving it, its significant meaning.
Hence theos=God/with God, and Atheos=without God/not God/Godless.
Encarta
god·less [ góddləss ]
1. without God or god: not believing in or worshiping God or any god
2. Not showing belief in a diety, impious
If you want to change the meaning that is your perogative, but dont expect anybody else to accept your claim.
Antithesis means the complete opposite, of a thing.
Which is only an emphasizes for the "A" prefix, giving it, its significant meaning.
Hence theos=God/with God, and Atheos=without God/not God/Godless.
mis-t-highs... LOL That's AWESOME! heeheehee
What is makes it easy to distort is when definition says "those who don't believe in God". The question arises if "those who don't believe in God" includes those who are uncertain of whether or not God exists. I agree with you that "atheism" is about Godlessness, but the assumption is that those who are not sure or who are undecided would automtically fall under Godlessness. However, this is certainly not the case.
SW likes to group those people under atheism when many of them claim to not be theists or atheists simply because they have not taken any sides in the matter. In common understanding beyond the scope of SW, they indeed are not weak atheists as much as they are not weak theists. Tagging them as such is a matter of how much your ideals align with the ideals of SW.
Atheists, in common understanding, are those who do choose a side, and they will remain on that side until some form of evidence/proof is significant enough to compell them otherwise. As for agnostics, while they naturally do not take either side (theism or atheism), this is not what makes them agnostic. They are agnostic because they take the antithesis position on the view that knowledge of God/supernatural is possible.
How can you write so much without realizing how wrong you are?
Evidently, it doesn't require religion to do that.
1111
1111
coolskill, I think you're getting confused in the use of "not". That concept can be used to toggle between presence / absence as well as quality inversion.
For example.
"Not" photon can mean absence of a photon (i.e. darkness). "Not" photon can also mean inversion of a photon (i.e. antiphoton).
In human linguistics, the prefix A-<something> is used to express absence while the prefix Anti-<something> is used to express inversion.
For example.
"Not" photon can mean absence of a photon (i.e. darkness). "Not" photon can also mean inversion of a photon (i.e. antiphoton).
In human linguistics, the prefix A-<something> is used to express absence while the prefix Anti-<something> is used to express inversion.
my thoughts exactly!
my guess is : they want to make atheists lack of belief in gods into a BELIEF system.
and in the next step they will label atheists believers and call Atheism religion.
atheism=lack of belief in gods,,note NO capital A in atheism,its NOT religion!
in my case Im an atheist-agnostic towards all gods
www.godchecker.com
and Im a strong atheist towards xian god as I know with 100% certainty such god is Impossible to exist
http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
and IF a monster as that god existed Id hate him and be a maltheist.
1. There is no such word as antitheist.
1. While the prefix "anti" is typically intended to signify being in opposition of something, it does not signify antithesis of a viewpoint. You might be either prowar or anti-war. Pro-guns or anti-guns. Pros and cons. For or against.
2. In the English language, "anti" is not typically used between antithetical viewpoints about reality.
Throughout history, philosophers discuss their views on various subjects. Some views building on others. Typically, when there is a popular view, there tends to be those with a counterviewpoint.
View = X
Counterview = -X
Those who for whatever reason do not praticipate or are undecided/uncertain about the subject have no reason to be labled under any "ism". There is the "ism" of View X. Then there is the "ism" of View X's counterview which is View Y. There is no reason to label those who do not participate. In theism, those who do not take a side, are not considered to be theist or atheist. This goes for any ism in philosophy. Especially in consideration to people who have never even thought to dsicuss a subject. They certainly do not fall under any "ism".
There is such a word as antitheist.
You obviously don't understand the workings of prefixes & suffixes.
There is no ism in atheism.
1111
You obviously don't understand the workings of prefixes & suffixes.
There is no ism in atheism.
1111
The evidence is to the contrary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antitheist
This is true because once specific details are attached to pro-viewpoint you end up with a complex assertion whose inverse might not be coherent. A geniuinely coherent anti-viewpoint is very likely targeting a few specific parts of a complex pro-viewpoint assertion.
I agree, and I think this is most likely because a viewpoint inverted tends to lose coherency the more complex it gets; however, a person whom has a coherent partial anti-viewpoint is likely to percieve it as a full inversion. Presence / absence of specific viewpoints are much simpler because there is only one variable being considered; hence, coherency isn't typically lost.
I do agree and at the same time the counterview example being demonstrated is a partial inversion. Atheism isn't inversion (or partial inversion), it is a viewpoint presence / absence and it makes sense for it to have a label... much like we treat the presence / absence of photons (light and dark) and the presence / absence of heat (hot and cold).
I do agree that atheism isn't an -ism... which is why there is an 'A' prefix qualifier which says just that. Simply put atheists are not believers in a 'God'.
Last edited:
Lixluke,
from Skinwalker,
"As an atheist I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist since I recognize that while I dont have a belief in gods I also recognize that I cannot empirically inspect the entire universe to test my hypothesis"
So it appears there is yet another person who is an agnostic atheist like myself.
We already discussed this from page 6 -10 on the other thread.
I proved you wrong over and over again with evidence, logic and reasoning. You provided nothing but your own opinion about how we have to take a single position. With no facts to back up your claims you still cling to this absurd notion that you can tell us that we only have 3 choices. Atheist, agnostic or theist. Left, right, middle.
You were successful at one thing and one thing only and that is avoiding the discussion about how you have come to be a theist.
You really need to let it go. It's bordering on stupid at this point.
from Skinwalker,
"As an atheist I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist since I recognize that while I dont have a belief in gods I also recognize that I cannot empirically inspect the entire universe to test my hypothesis"
So it appears there is yet another person who is an agnostic atheist like myself.
We already discussed this from page 6 -10 on the other thread.
I proved you wrong over and over again with evidence, logic and reasoning. You provided nothing but your own opinion about how we have to take a single position. With no facts to back up your claims you still cling to this absurd notion that you can tell us that we only have 3 choices. Atheist, agnostic or theist. Left, right, middle.
You were successful at one thing and one thing only and that is avoiding the discussion about how you have come to be a theist.
You really need to let it go. It's bordering on stupid at this point.