The suffix 'less' means without. Those who are godless are without god.
Look up words than end in 'less'. They all refer to being in a state without something.
No. They are godless because they are without a particular belief.
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Look up words than end in 'less'. They all refer to being in a state without something.
They do not know whether or not there is a God. That does not mean they are claiming there is no God. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087469&postcount=442
I would even go as far as to say that everyone is godless
Reading this thread I was thinking the same.
Ah. You beat me to it.
1111
I agree. I am saying that if they don’t believe in a god there they are without a belief in god, therefore they are godless. Godless is a state without a belief in god, not a stance that there is no god.
OK, we need to distinguish between lacking belief in any gods, no God, which is the default assumption for any claim about existence which has not yet been proven and claiming there couldn't be a god.
All atheists lack belief in god.
All rational discussions concerning existence presume a claim of existence false until it is shown to be true. I.e. there is no claim for god that can be accepted until such time that a god is presented.
Some atheists believe god is impossible. For example, god might be like a square circle.
If you lack belief in god it is because no god has be shown to your satisfaction. The theist can simple stop farting around just produce a god and poof, atheist becomes theist, but until then - no god.
If you think god is impossible you are making a claim and you need to support it.
There is no what? What is that word "goD" supposed to mean? Can you give me one single actual example so I know what you are talking about?
Until you do I have to assume you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
Godless is without God. Simply the state of being without God which is the same thing as the belief that there is no God. Somebody who is unsure is not neither with God or Godless. Somebody who is unsure or doesn't know is just as much without God as he is with God. They don't live life as if there is a God and they don't live life as if there is no God either. A Godless individual is one who lives life without any God. Without any belief in God. They are the ones who say there is no God. Either definitely, to the best of their knowledge, or however they want to put it. They don't have to prove it. They don't have to claim that evidence has to be provided. They are simply Godless which is what real atheism is about. Mr. "I don't know" is neither Godless or atheist.
OK your post is an example of how people twist words for the sake of their meaning. You can take any word on the planet, and apply whatever you want to mean on it. You can even make up your own terminology. You can even misdirect a person's remark in order to change the person's intention. All debate tactics, and absolutely not productive discussion.
You simply don't have the right to prevent atheists from discussing the nuances of the atheist position in these terms. Even if it wasn't commonly done, which it is commonly done, we could use those terms specifically for this discussion as long as we are clear about how we are using them.
Dictionary definitions are nice starting points, but that's all they are and often in philosophical discussions they fall short.
It is the consideration of nuanced meaning which can bring new light to ancient arguments.
I see it not so much as defending one side or the other as it is defending rationality over unreason.
Thanks.
Unfortunately they don't seem to hold power and usually lack the will to reign in the others. Seriously for every person such as yourself that actually will speak out there are thousands of loud proselytizers and tormenters back by untold masses of quiet sheep who let them get away with murder.
Actually heretics still are believers, they just believe "wrong."
Last edited:
We are all godless. Its just some realized it and some insist on clinging to their delusions.
If there actually was a god, we would not be having this discussion any more than there are "rock"ists and a"rock"ists. Rocks exist and their existence is so self evident and manifest that there is not a single doubt about it.
Your god is not even close to being as well represented as a simple rock.
I'm not twisting a single thing. I'm quite reasonably asking for an actual example of this thing you claim exists so I can know it exists and form an opinion about it.
Until you do that I must presume you are mistaken in your claim and you position is unfounded. It is no different than if you were claiming tooth fairies exist, Qerg exists, or rocks exist.
The object itself is final and full proof of its existence and without that I must presume your claim false.
So stop whining about my very reasonable request and pony up some god.
There is a difference between claiming that atheism should include those who do not necessarily believe there is no God, and using propagnda to change the historical intention to mean that.
Yes for discussions sake it is important that everybody be on the same page in order to understand what each other is communicating regardless of anything else.
Who cares? That is again using debate tactics to twist what is actually being said.
Theists claim that God exists. Atheists claim that there is no God which is Godless. Those who do not know, make neither claim, and do not fall under atheism in the original intention of the word. And it is furthermore, I see no practical reason to group them as such. All I see is atheists who believe there is no God not wanting to be considered as making a claim that there is no God. Therefore, they claim that everybody who doesn't know is of the position that there is no God wihtout claiming it instead of being of the position that there is a God without claiming it.
You do not seem to be aware what this discussion is about despite the title, and the many times I have repeated the main point. All you seem to do is move it in circles, and twist definitions to avoid the main points.
1. The term "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God.
2. Those who do not know whether or not there is a God do not hold the claim that "all are Godless". They are not considered under atheism as originally defined. However, claims that they should be considered as atheists is a different story. I see no reason to start considering those who do not know under atheism.
That is really what is in question. Why claim that people who "do not know" to fall under atheism?
Last edited:
Agnosticism as defined by the dictionary:
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
To elaborate, agnosticism describes those who do not believe either way. They believe existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable. There is a misconception that agnosticism describes those that believe that existence of God cannot be proven. While it is quite similar, this is simply not the case. By this definition, agnosticism is the view that man cannot know whether or not God exists or does not exist. Therefore, they abide by neither beleif.
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
To elaborate, agnosticism describes those who do not believe either way. They believe existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable. There is a misconception that agnosticism describes those that believe that existence of God cannot be proven. While it is quite similar, this is simply not the case. By this definition, agnosticism is the view that man cannot know whether or not God exists or does not exist. Therefore, they abide by neither beleif.
Last edited:
Lixluke, you totally contradicted yourself there.
1. You have NOT SHOWN that "atheism" was originally intended to specify only those who claim there is no God. Nowhere have you provided a source that supports this claim. At best you have gone back to the root word ("atheos" - greek) meaning "godless" - and here you merely twist the definition of godless, or cherry-pick one to suit your purpose rather than accept the ACTUAL MEANING of the word.
You thus appear to be deliberately dishonest in your endeavours.
2. Those who claim to not know are "without" until they decide to be "with".
If you don't know whether you want to be indoors our outdoors... where are you? Are you trapped in some temporary limbo of no-space?
Likewise, if you do not know if God exists or not, you are without-God until you choose to be with God.
Having a belief is a binary proposition - either you have that belief or you do not have that belief... and note that not having that belief is NOT the same as believing the opposite.
If a ball is hidden from you, you either believe it is white, or you don't. If you don't believe it is white, do you therefore believe it to be black? No. You just don't have the belief that it is white.
You fail to grasp this simple point.
Not all of them do fall under atheism.
Some agnostics are also theists - believing in God through Pascal's wager (the benefits of believing and being wrong outweigh the risk of not-believing etc).
Atheism is just a question of not being a theist.
If you are not a theist... you are an atheist.
Last edited:
lixlukism : the belief that nothing actually exists except consciousness
1111
1111
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So Mr. "I don't know" believes in god ?
1. I have not cherry picked anything to make "atheism" suit what I feel is best. Take it or leave it, the term was originally intended to describe those who reject "theism" in the sense of the claim "God exists" is false.
2. Those who claim to not know are not without until they decide to be with. This is absurd and completely illogical. That is like saying those who claim to not know are with god until they decide to be without.
Whether you are indoors or outdoors has no relevance to the state of where you want to be. You wither want to be in, want to be out, or don't know. You could be inside or outside. Somebody who does not know will not claim to want to be indoors as much as he will not claim to want to be outdoors.
Having the belief is a binary position. You either have it or do not have it. Those who do not have the belief there is no God are not atheism. Those who do not have either belief do not fall under either ism.
Yes you believe a ball is either white or not white. That is logical. You either believe "there is no God" or you do not believe "there is no God". Those who do not believe "there is no God" either fall under theism or fall under an ism.
Those who do not claim there is no God cannot be said to be Godless. One who does not know, neither abides by the claim that God exists or God does not exist.
Claiming that atheism is "all who do not abide by the belief that there is God" is no different from claiming theim is "all those who do not abide by the belief there is no God".
Theism and Atheism are positions in a matter. One who does not know whether or not there is a God is not claiming there is or isn't one. One who is not claiming there isn't a God is not "without God" as much as he is not "with God". In order to be considered "without God", one must take the position being "without God".
In actuality, Godlessness or without God is simply that the universe, not any particular person is without God. Thus, the position a person takes is irrelevant to the actuality of the person being Godless. If there is no God, then all theists are Godless/Without God. If there is a God, all are not Godless, but with God.
One position claims that the universe is with God. The other position claims that the universe is without God/Godless. Those who do not know certainly do not make the claim that the universe is with God. Those who do not know certainly do not make the claim that the universe is without God. In actuality, one can either be with God or without God regardless of what claim they make. You either claim that all are Godless or none are Godless.
- Status