Oh Lixluke you are so wrong, please check out this link to see why;
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2077115&postcount=301
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2077115&postcount=301
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well, it seems here's the rub.What? Where the hell did I say that?
Agnosticism: Knowledge of God is not possible.
Skepticism: Knowledge of anything is not possible.
-All skeptics are by default agnostics. Skepticism - Man cannot know anything for certain. Therefore, man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists.
-All agnostics are not necessarily skeptics. Agnosticism - Man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. I may or may not also believe that man cannot know anything for certain.
WTF??!!
You people cannot be serious. You have no clue what agnosticism or gnosticism means.
You seem have your personal dictionary and understanding of certain words, we all have ours.
You stick to your version / understanding of atheism / agnosticism / belief / whatever, we'll continue to use ours.
We'll discuss freely, using these terms as we do - you'll forever get frustrated as and when we don't use them the way you would like.
Well, it seems here's the rub.
You seem have your personal dictionary and understanding of certain words, we all have ours.
.
Lixluke has a very personal view of everything, self deluding himself how qualified he is for jobs, but not being able to hold one down, seeing better ways for the world to work, that reward him for doing nothing,...
This redefinition of accepted terms is just him trying to make the world work the way he thinks it should. It's possibly a symptom of schizophrenia.
This was already established in the beginning, and not in question. Anybody is free to discuss their idea and beliefs. What is in question is if your ideologies are such a great way of approaching these terms and definitions. Or if they are overcomplicated and pointless.We'll discuss freely, using these terms as we do
The dictionary states that Atheism is only those who believe God does not exist. SW, your leaders, want Atheism to be everybody that is a non-theist.
It is simply not logical. There are a plethora of isms out there. There is no term for anybody that does not take sides on any particular ism. If you do not take a side on something, you are simply not labeled. To say that there should be a term for those who alone do not take sides on whether or not God exists is irrational. Then to group them under the term that is specifically defined as those who take the side that God does not exist is even worse.
The simplicity is flawless:
-God exists - Theism.
-God does not exist - Atheism.
-It is possible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Gnosticism.
-It is impossible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Agnosticim.
-I do not know/Uncertain about any of the above - No term. There is no "ism" or label for somebody that does not have a stand.
Why change this? Why complicate it? Why would you want the term "atheism" to include all non-theists? Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Wait. You are agreeing with Sarkus who is referring to dictionaries which you have disparaged ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE as incorrect.Lixluke has a very personal view of everything, self deluding himself how qualified he is for jobs, but not being able to hold one down, seeing better ways for the world to work, that reward him for doing nothing,...
This redefinition of accepted terms is just him trying to make the world work the way he thinks it should. It's possibly a symptom of schizophrenia.
Sarkus is being critical of lixluxe for using a definition of terms that is different from those in dictionaries and you then agree with this criticism AND extend it via ad hom to include personal problems he may or may not have.
Wow.
I'm not attacking or discussing anybody's position. I am clarifying the definitions, terms, and standard use of positions.
EVERYTHING in your explanation is not only an illogical format for term definitions, it is not standard use of term definitions.
Just because it doesn't fit your strawman, that doesn't mean it is incorrect or illogical.
I shall start by providing definitions. Then I will proceed with logical analysis based on the definitions provided.
GIGO
Garbage definitions lead to garbage conclutions.
lixluke;2075934[B said:SWARM’S DILLEMAS[/B]
You need to look up the word "dillema."
A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
A theist simply believes that God exists. - good, we agree
Anybody who believes anything naturally believes that knowledge is possible. - Knowing something implies that one is certain and justified in one's belief. Just believing is a weaker stance because the belief has not been fully substanciated. Most theists I've encountered claim to know god exists.
Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
This is impossible. - well duh, we are talking about god.
What is the purpose of considering a belief to be something that a person is not certain of? - Because it is a test of faith.
Why do you want to complicate definitions beyond their actual meaning? - a definition which fails to account for all the members of the group it is defining is useless.
A Theist is simply an individual who is certain God exists. - Not all theists are certain. Some believe inspite of their uncertainty as a matter of faith.
A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.
This is incorrect again. An agnostic is an individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible. - No, the term agnostic just means you don't know that god exists. This includes those who just have not answered the question to their satisfaction yet and those who think the question cannot be answered at all.
An individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible CANNOT claim knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence. - agnostics by definition don't claim to have knowledge of god's existence. Belief, lack of belief and disbelief however don't require knowledge. In fact if you have knowledge then it is not necessary to believe, lack belief or disbelief.
There is no such thing that somebody who can believe in something, yet claim that one cannot know something for certain. - People do it all the time.
All a belief is, is an individual’s proclamation of certain knowledge. - you are mistaken. Knowledge is a certain and justified belief. A belief can have certainty, but that certainty is unsupportable or it would be knowledge, not belief.
A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
There is no such thing as hard or soft agnostic. Its nice to see you so mistaken.
Why bother grouping them into different categories? To clarify the nuances of the different possitions.
A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.
This implies that there are theists or atheists that are not open being proven wrong. - There are theists who will not accept any counter point to their position - period. Hard atheists aren't quite as rabid. If you brought an actual deity over for dinner they would probably reconsider, but nothing short of that is going to do the trick.
Just because you are 100% certain of X, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are no open to being proven wrong. - You seem to not understand what the word "certain" means.
A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.
Wait. You are agreeing with Sarkus who is referring to dictionaries which you have disparaged ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE as incorrect.
Sarkus is being critical of lixluxe for using a definition of terms that is different from those in dictionaries and you then agree with this criticism AND extend it via ad hom to include personal problems he may or may not have.
Wow.
I think you too, need to go read swarm's most excellent post on the differing viewpoints. Lixluke disagrees with just about everything, that's the crucial difference.
Source, please? And when you do provide your source, please be sure to provide ALL meanings that "the dictionary" give.The dictionary states that Atheism is only those who believe God does not exist.
"God exists" is not theism. Theism is "the belief that God exists".The simplicity is flawless:
-God exists - Theism.
-God does not exist - Atheism.
-It is possible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Gnosticism.
-It is impossible for man to have knowledge of God's existence - Agnosticim.
Theists are ones who hold that, or believe that, or claim that... God exists.
"God exists" is nothing more than a statement. One can do absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that statement.
It is the relationship to that statement that determines whether you are theist or not.
Further, A-theism is to theism what a-moral is to moral.
Note the difference beween "amoral" and "immoral" - the former is merely "without morals", the latter is "anti-morals".
Agnosticism, but you choose to ignore this meaning.-I do not know/Uncertain about any of the above - No term. There is no "ism" or label for somebody that does not have a stand.
Or merely apathetic.
Source, please? Or is this merely a confidence statement?Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".
Wait. You are agreeing with Sarkus who is referring to dictionaries which you have disparaged ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE as incorrect.
Sarkus is being critical of lixluxe for using a definition of terms that is different from those in dictionaries and you then agree with this criticism AND extend it via ad hom to include personal problems he may or may not have.
Wow.
Also, to clear things up, the usage of atheist to mean 'someone who denies the existence of God' while technically correct in one specific circumstance, is misleading.
Atheist means someone who does not believe in God. A subset of those might go as far as denying god (so meet the general criteria), but the superset is not defined by the constraints of the subset. Get it? Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists, the relationship is not a bijection.
Most atheists who do not pander around Mickey Mouse websites do not include or want to include "those who are uncertain" under "atheism".
Again, that is just not true.
If I ask the question;
"Do you Believe in God?"
1, Yes
2, No
3, Don't Know
You count the number of theists by the number of people that answer '1'
You count the number of agnostics by the number of people that answer '3'
You count the number of atheists by the number of people that no not pick '1'
Not knowing is not a pro position. It cannot be included in '1'. Atheists are $$ \overline {theists}$$, so all other options but '1'. Please note, the question deals with the responses to the belief in god. To prove some counter point, please create a poll based around the question 'do you deny the existence of God', and see where you get.
Last edited:
This is rediculous. It is a dictionary. Simple as that. Not some idiotic website full of stupidity.Source, please? And when you do provide your source.
This is the original intended and commonly accepted definition of atheism. Other definitions circulating the internet are simply what a handful of people "want" atheism to be defined as.Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Twisting definitions of certainty and belief is not relevant.
Either you claim that God exists or you claim God does not exist. There is no reason to group those who do not take a position on the issue as atheism. Agnosticism does not take either position, so no reason to claim them as atheism either. Agnosticism is simply a position that man can never know either way. No reason to try to make it complicated.
Here are the different positons:
1. Those who claim God exists.
2. Those who claim God does not exist.
3. Those who do not make either claim.
4. Those who do not make either claim, and make the claim that man cannot know whether or not God exist.
That is all there is. There is no such thing as the claim that God does not exist, and being uncertain about it.
A belief that is not a claim of certain knowledge is impossible, illogical, and not even relevant. Unless you make a claim on God being real or not real, there is no reason to categorize you as theism or atheism.
It is impossible to beleive something without certanty. What makes you think a belief implies uncertainty?
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Don't know/uncertain.
In the case of the claim that God does exist:
1. True
2. False
3. Don't know/uncertain.
#1 is theism. #2 is atheism. #3 is not an ism because they don't take a position. What reason is there to define theism and atheism as anything else?
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Don't know/uncertain.
In the case of the claim that God does exist:
1. True
2. False
3. Don't know/uncertain.
#1 is theism. #2 is atheism. #3 is not an ism because they don't take a position. What reason is there to define theism and atheism as anything else?
But I am hopeful that you are aware that there is more than one dictionary? And thus if you say "THE dictionary..." I would expect some source cited.This is rediculous. It is a dictionary. Simple as that. Not some idiotic website full of stupidity.
And yet you don't define what "disbelief" is.This is the original intended and commonly accepted definition of atheism. Other definitions circulating the internet are simply what a handful of people "want" atheism to be defined as.Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Twisting definitions of certainty and belief is not relevant.
If you want to claim "disbelief in X = belief in not-X" then you'll struggle.
Disbelief is the refusal to accept something as true.
Disbelief is not the acceptance of that thing as false!
So while your dictionary certainly supports your understanding of "atheism", you unfortunately, or deliberately, ride rough-shod over the first definition of "atheism" in that very same dictionary... i.e. "disbelief in the existence of a deity".
So please, for the sake of us all - either abide by ALL the definitions your source-dictionary gives you... or STFU!!
The rest of your arguments are irrelevant because of your failure to understand the first definition from your own source dictionary.
Hey ho.
Lixluke, you are wrong, end of story. It's about faith, which you clearly do not understand.
If you had any intellectual honesty you would respond to my post, using the contrary position, 'do you deny the existence of God. But for some reason you daren't do that.
If you had any intellectual honesty you would respond to my post, using the contrary position, 'do you deny the existence of God. But for some reason you daren't do that.
I WILLNOT answer questions that are ad hom instead of focus on topic. Ad hom focus is illogical, and has no relevance to facts. Discussions never have anything to do with the individual. Here is what is being discussed:
The term atheism. Either it shouldo only be used for only those who believe there is no God or it should be used for everybody that is not theism.
Disbelief is the rejection of a matter as being true. Disbelief in X = Belief in not X = Belief X is false.
Legitimate dictionaries define atheism as those who claim there is no God. Dictionaries aside, whether you like this definition for atheism or not. This is the historical interpretation of atheism, and the standard use of the term.
It is a position, and therefore an ism. Not a term for all those who do not abide by the ism. It is illogical to categorize anybody that does not claim "the existence of God is false" under atheism. It is simply not an ism. Why place somebody that does not claim "there is no God" under atheism?
The term atheism. Either it shouldo only be used for only those who believe there is no God or it should be used for everybody that is not theism.
Disbelief is the rejection of a matter as being true. Disbelief in X = Belief in not X = Belief X is false.
Legitimate dictionaries define atheism as those who claim there is no God. Dictionaries aside, whether you like this definition for atheism or not. This is the historical interpretation of atheism, and the standard use of the term.
It is a position, and therefore an ism. Not a term for all those who do not abide by the ism. It is illogical to categorize anybody that does not claim "the existence of God is false" under atheism. It is simply not an ism. Why place somebody that does not claim "there is no God" under atheism?
Last edited:
Disbelief is the rejection of a matter as being true. Disbelief in X = Belief in not X = Belief X is false.
Not true.
Not believing I will win the lottery != disbelieving there is a lottery I could win.
Your 'logic' fails.
Disbelieving is simply defined as a rejection of a matter as true. If you claim that you will not win the lottery, it means you reject the claim that you will win the lottery. Whatever word you want to use or interpretation of it, the whole point is a claim that something is false. If you don't like that definition for disbelief, find another word for it, and use it. All you are doing is arguing definitions. Definitions arguments are based on intent and standard use.
Your arguments tend to run along the lines of...Disbelieving is simply defined as a rejection of a matter as true. If you claim that you will not win the lottery, it means you reject the claim that you will win the lottery. Whatever word you want to use or interpretation of it, the whole point is a claim that something is false. If you don't like that definition for disbelief, find another word for it, and use it. All you are doing is arguing definitions. Definitions arguments are based on intent and standard use.
My source defines X as (a), (b) and (c).
I choose (a) and reject all other definitions.
Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with the dictionary.
Therefore anyone who also uses (b) or (c) are wrong.
QED.
Thus endeth the discussion, methinks.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.