I would like people to stop applying different connotations.
While you are correct there I think the subject of the argument is more about the definitions of 'without a belief in god' than just 'without god'.
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
A person who does not believe there is a God and does not believe there is no God can be categorized with those who believe there is no God only as much as he can be categorized with those who believe there is a God.
He is without the belief that "there is no God" as much as he is without the belief that "there is a God".
In 3 categories:
-Those with belief God exists. <- Godless only in a sense of when there is no actual God.
-Those with belief God does not exist. <- Godless in any sense of the word.
-Those with neither belief. <- Godless only in a sense of when there is no actual God.
I’m not disagreeing with that. The problem is that if the word godless means ‘without god’ or ‘without a belief in god’, then that fits anyone who doesn’t believe in a god.
Godless is without a beleif in god. It is not what you consider to be the opposing belief - a belief that there is no god.
So the third option, do they believe in a god? Yes or no.
It is not a question if they believe in God. They do not believe there is a God. They do not believe there is no God. May of these people do not want to be referred to as atheist or theist. Some of them are agnostic. Godless is not having any God. Without God as in there is no God. One who is undecided in the matter is not Godless in this sense. One who is without the belief in God is not Godless unless, they are characterized as those who view the world as without God.
If you do not view the universe as having a God, you are only Godless when you view the universe as without God. If you do not view the universe as without a God, it does not mean you necessarily view the universe as having a God.
The misconception is that those who do not view the universe as with God necessarily view the universe as Godless. Which is completely not the case.
The only reason atheists want claim anybody who is not a theist is Godless is because they don't refuse to admit that they believe there is no God. They are all undercover atheists. They call themselves atheists, and want to claim they do not believe there is no God when they actually do believe there is no God.
If you do not view the universe as having a God, you are only Godless when you view the universe as without God. If you do not view the universe as without a God, it does not mean you necessarily view the universe as having a God.
The misconception is that those who do not view the universe as with God necessarily view the universe as Godless. Which is completely not the case.
The only reason atheists want claim anybody who is not a theist is Godless is because they don't refuse to admit that they believe there is no God. They are all undercover atheists. They call themselves atheists, and want to claim they do not believe there is no God when they actually do believe there is no God.
Last edited:
With no disrespect but it is a case of "if we take your statement literally, it doesn't work", which is what I attempted to point out to you. If you consider not knowing as meaning they have no form of belief, (your words), then anyone that believes in a god but doesn't know if a god exists has no belief - something that, if you will acknowledge honesty, leaves you in the realm of contradiction.
This is utterly ridiculous, of course you can - and literally every human adopts such position countless times in their life. If you would like to test your claim then speaking to any theist will give you the answer. As humans, we often have belief in things that we don't know are true - and believe many things that aren't true. One such example would be the belief that man only uses 5-10% of his brain or that ostriches bury their heads in sand. Neither is true and yet many, if not the majority, believe them to be so.
Neither of those beliefs, (brain usage/ostriches), contains any knowledge of the matter whatsoever but lack of knowledge does not and never has prevented the belief.
What are you talking about? The person making the claim literally is making a contradiction.
If you say I don't know if X is true, but I believe X is true, that is a contradictory statement when taken literally. A person cannot make such a statement in logic.
The fact is, that is not what the person is actually saying. The person is actually making the claim that X is true. It doesn't matter how you say it, it is a claim that X is true.
When taken literally, "I don't know" implies having no knowledge of the matter being true or false. "I Believe" implies having knowledge that X is true.
But they don’t believe in a god do they? They are without a belief in god, correct?
Some of them may not due to the incorrect connotations that have been added by theists over the years. In fact many countries still see atheism as synonymous with immoral. That doesn’t change that the word describes them.
Okay agreed.
No. Being without a belief in something is not the same as a stance that it doesn’t exist.
If they are without a belief in gods then they are godless. To be godless you only need to be without a belief in god.
The suffix ‘less’ means ‘without’. Godless means without god. It doesn’t mean ‘opposite’, ‘anti’ or ‘a belief in the nonexistence of’
The definition of atheist or godless is a very simple one as demonstrated. It comprises anyone without a belief in god. Theists, feeling a need to return fire on atheists, cannot really attack such a position because no actual claim is made. So they need to redefine it to anyone who believes that there is no god.
Atheism is Godless, but those who do not know are not Godless. Everything within an individual's circle of knowledge is everything a person beleives. It is a cirlce of belief, and everything outside of that circle is what they do not know about to any degree. They can use phrases like "I know for sure" or "I believe". It is still a belief either way. If, to the extent of their understanding, they do not believe/claim to know that there is no God, they are not Godless.
Any claim that anybody makes, whether 100% certain or not, is a belief. It does not matter if they say "I believe" or "I know for sure". If the person "does not" have any form of belief that there is no God, the person is not Godless in that sense. Simply not believing in God does not make one Godless. In order to be considered to be Godless, one must also have the belief that there is not God. That is no different from saying that one who doesn't have the belief that there is no God is with God.
If you claim that one who "does not believe there is a God" is without God, then you have to claim that "one who does not believe there is no God is with God". There is not reason to claim one, and not the other. Both claims are just as nonsensical as the other.
Any claim that anybody makes, whether 100% certain or not, is a belief. It does not matter if they say "I believe" or "I know for sure". If the person "does not" have any form of belief that there is no God, the person is not Godless in that sense. Simply not believing in God does not make one Godless. In order to be considered to be Godless, one must also have the belief that there is not God. That is no different from saying that one who doesn't have the belief that there is no God is with God.
If you claim that one who "does not believe there is a God" is without God, then you have to claim that "one who does not believe there is no God is with God". There is not reason to claim one, and not the other. Both claims are just as nonsensical as the other.
So you're saying that not believing in, say, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or not believing in Santa Claus, does not make you fairyless or Santaless?
So, to be considered Santa-less, you must have a positive belief that Santa does not exist.
If you're not sure whether Santa Claus exists or not, then you're a believer in Santa Claus?
I am an aSantaClaus. No amount of twisting words or convoluted lingnastics will change it.
1111
1111
Oh, and you win the award for using the most catchy new word 'lingnastics' in this thread. I like it. it looks suitably awkward as well, with the 'ngn', and the 'gnas' could be part of 'gnash' which could imply the gnashing of teeth at Lixluke's stupidity.
It works on many level, many thanks!
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheism is about not believing in god. If you don't know if there's a god you don't believe in it, wouldn't you say ? :bugeye:
By the way, you are started to squirm I can tell from your choice of words.
Atheism is about not believing in God only in the sense of believing there is no God. If you don't know if there's a God, you are not atheist.
Yes. One who does not know whether there are fairies or Santa is not neccessary with or without. They simply don't know. In logic, in order to be with, you must have the belief in existence. And in order to be without, you must have the belief in nonexisetence.
Language does not necessarily tend to spefically express what a person is saying. Typically, when an individual states "I don't believe in God", it is safe to assume they believe there is no God without asking them to be more specific. However, when taken literally, "I don't believe in God" statement can include those who don't know.
"I don't believe God exists" = All those who believe there is no God, and all those who don't know.
"I don't believe no God exists" = All those who believe there is a God, and all those who don't know.
1. Godless in the sense of the universe without God has no bearing on an individual's belief. If there is no God, it doesn't matter if you are a theist or atheist, you are Godless either way. I can believe all I want there is a million dollars in my hand. That doesn't make it so.
2. Godless in the sense beleiving the universe is without God includes only those who believe the universe is without God. The claim that Godless = without belief in God is incorrect because "wtihout belief in God" also includes those who don't know. If one does not believe there is a God on the basis of not knowing either way, they cannot be said to be Godless. One who does not proclaim "there is a God in the universe" does not by necessity consider the universe to be with or without God. It is illogical to impose Godlessness upon them.
For one who claims to not know, they claim that there may be a God and there may not be a God. It is absurd to simply consider them Godless(without God) or with God either way when they simply don't know.
If it is given that a box either has a ball in it or it is empty.
-You might claim there is a ball in it.
-You might claim it is empty.
-You might simply say you don't know.
To categorize one who doesn't know with those who claim the box is empty (balless) is no different from categorizing them with those who claim there is a ball in the box. However, to simply impose emptiness on them is unsound.
-"There might be a ball in it. It might be empty. I don't know"
-"You do not believe there is a ball in it, therefore, you should be categorized with those who believe the box is balless. You shall be characterized by ballessness because you, like the rest of us, do not believe there is a ball in the box. And I don't care if you do not necessarily believe that the box is actually balless. STFU!"
One thing I noticed is that many people who claim to be agnostic or claim to not know whether or not God exist actually believe there is no God, and refuse to admit it.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Whatever.. dude it's not true just because you say so.
I never said it was true because I say so.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2089451&postcount=514
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Theism includes only those who believe there is a God.
Atheism includes only those who believe there is no God.
Not only is historically inaccurate to include those who don't know under atheism, it is completely poitnless.
1+1 = irrelevant.
- Status