Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
You make claims of historical inaccuracy - but you have not pointed out any source to support your claims.
You revert to dictionaries which don't support you.
You revert to etymologies that don't support you.
All you have is your confidence.
All dictionaries I have seen define "atheist" as the specific "I believe God does not exist" variety AND ALSO "I do not have the belief that God exists" variety.
The etymologies we have seen take it back to the greek atheos meaning "Godless" - and so you take your argument to one of what "Godless" means and you still fail to deliver.
You are intentionally misinterpreting the dictionary. This is a direct quote: "the doctrine that there is no deity". It also says it is a disbelief in the existence of a diety. It goes further to say that a disbelief is a mental rejection of something as untrue. It is a rejection of the existence of a diety as untrue.
Whether or not you agree with this source's definition, the proper interpretation of this source's definition is that atheism only describes the existence of a diety being false. Agnosticism describes the existence or nonexistence of God as unkowable.
Atheism is about Godless, and one who does not claim there is no God cannot be said to be Godless or with God. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2089451&postcount=514
It depends on how you define no belief. Literally, "no belief" includes those who do not know. Typically, "no belief" is semantically meant to express a belief that there is no God.
Literally, one who has no belief that "there is a God" does not necessarily have the belief "there is no God". One who does not have the belief "there is no God" cannot be said to be Godless/Without God. One who does not know if God exists or does not exist does not fall under atheism.
Semantics are used by those who believe there is no God in order to cover the fact that they believe there is no God simply because they do not have an epistemological understanding of what a belief is.
1. One cannot choose what they believe. You try as hard as you can to believe you have an elephant in your living room. But no matter how hard you try, you essentially have no control over what you believe.
2. Many of the members of this forum go around claiming how they don't believe there is no God, but it is completely clear and apparant that they totally believe there is no God. The fact that they refuse to acknowledge a belief they have no control over is irrelevant.
3. Here is a list of epistemological questions:
- Are you in front of a computer?
- Do you have a safe with a billion dollars in it under your bed?
- Do I have an bucket full of popcorn on my desk?
- Does a square have 4 sides?
- Are you currently on Mars doing backflips?
- Is the shirt I am wearing yellow or green?
- Is there is a flying spahetthi monster in your closet?
- Is the earth shaped like a frisbee?
- Is the radius of a circle always half of the circle's diameter?
- Is there a large furry orange sasquatch with purple feet sitting on top of your head?
- Is there a God?
Any answer you have to any of these questions is a belief. Everything one knows no matter how certain they are or no matter what method they use to prove it is a belief. One has no control over what one believes. Whatever one claims to believe or not believe is irrelevant to what they actually believe. The only time a person does not have a belief is when they don't know either way.
In the case of atheism, it is empistemologically unsound to impose a state or belief on somebody when they do not know. If one does not know if my shirt is yellow or green, one cannot be pointed to either state of being. If one doesn't know if the universe is with God or without God, one cannot be pointed to the state of being without God. Which is the belief that the universe is without God.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
How so? It is illogical to define an individual under atheism if they do not have the belief there is no God. Simply no having belief in God does not make one atheist or Godless.
Because it is simply pointless to include those who do not know under atheism. There is no reason to group those who do not know with those who believe there is no God. It is no different from grouping them with those who believe there is a God. Furthermore, it is just as illogical to claim those who do not know as without God as it is to claim they are with God.
Either you misphrased this or you are mistaken.
Atheism is just any one who lacks a belief in goD.
Some go above and beyond that. Some don't.
Some have specific reasons for it. Some don't.
Because atheist in its most general form is just a lack of belief in goD the variety of atheists can cause misunderstanding when the above and beyond is confused with the base position. Thus it is helpful to distinguish these seperate issues. In particular it is helpful when a theist picks a side issue and them pretends it applies to all atheists.
Atheists all think goD talk is a bunch of hooie. Anything beyond that is up to the individual.
Yep and all you have to do as a the bear minimum to be an atheist is say: "Nice claim. I don't believe you so prove it."
Actually they don't have to. Anything not proven to exist is assumed to not exist. goD, unicorns, tooth fairies, rocks, ponies, angels, strings, Qerg is doesn't matter. If you claim it exists you either offer proof of that claim or it is presumed false. The actual existence of the object in question is the only sufficient proof of its existence.
Yes agnostics and some agnostics just don't know about such things and some agnostics say claiming knowlege of such things is preposterous. Some agnostics are theists, some atheists and some neither. Knowledge and belief are two different approaches to the question.
Yes we know you are a lazy theist who rather attack a strawman than pony up some goD because you have no goD to offer and this is the best you can do. So you pretend attacking atheists means something instead of admitting your mistake.
Pony up some goD. It doesn't matter what the atheists and agnostics do or don't do.
If you can't pony up some god, you are wrong to claim there is a god and need to stop claiming things you can't make good on.
The claim of God talk being hooie is a belief that there is no God.
The claim "I don't believe you so prove it" semantically is probably best to be interpreted as the belief there is no God.
Anything that is presumed or assumed or claimed to be false is a belief that it is false.
Anybody that does not know such as agnostics does not fall under the belief there is no God. Thus they cannot be said to be atheist.
Those who state "I don't believe in God" can, in practicality, be interpreted as meaning that they believe there is no God. Whoever if somebody claims they don't know, they are just as much atheists as they are theists. They just as much belive there is a God as they believe there is no God.
Somebody claims there is no God. Response:
The claim "I don't believe you so prove it" semantically is probably best to be interpreted as the belief there is no God.
Anything that is presumed or assumed or claimed to be false is a belief that it is false.
Anybody that does not know such as agnostics does not fall under the belief there is no God. Thus they cannot be said to be atheist.
Those who state "I don't believe in God" can, in practicality, be interpreted as meaning that they believe there is no God. Whoever if somebody claims they don't know, they are just as much atheists as they are theists. They just as much belive there is a God as they believe there is no God.
Somebody claims there is no God. Response:
This individual may be theist or simply does not know. If he does not know, it does not make him a theist. Nor does it make him an athest.
Here is the actual run down...
1. I accept empty claims as proof of goD.
2. I deny empty claims as proof of goD.
3. I don't know whether or not goD exists.
4. I cannot know whether or not goD exists.
Not necessarily. Knowing and belief are related but not synonymous.
There are theists who believe and hold that you cannot know because it is a test of faith. They believe inspite of not knowing.
There are agnostics who just don't know. They neither believe nor disbelieve.
This is not true when you are discussing things like gods which are simply mental constructs to begin with. You can simply decide you believe in god.
double negative.
I don't know about "many" members, but I'm claiming if you want to talk about this god stuff produce a god so we know what we are talking about, because I don't believe you have the least clue about these matters.
or you misunderstand.
epistemology
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
"Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Those are questions, but not epistemological questions. You should read the wiki on this, its pretty good.
So you hold there is neither certain nor reasonably certain belief, i.e. for you the word knowledge has no distinct meaning.
You are quite mistaken. The blatent fact that your talk of god is hooie is all about you not having a leg to stand on and nothing about god except as the consequence of that being the topic you have no knowledge of.
I need not be an atheist to know you have nothing. I could hold any belief about god and know you are just blowing steam.
You are way over using the word "belief" and using it inconsistantly and in nonstandard ways.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yea, you are right.. looks like Lix twisted and I fell.
Oh well.. the real issue here what the def of atheism is. I still stand by my point.
You do not have a choice as to your beliefs. A claim of God being a mental construction as opposed to reality is a belief that God does not exist. People who claim that they do not believe in God typically believe there is no God without acknowledging it. People who truly do not know support neither claim that the universe is God or withoug God.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2088534&postcount=9
Here is a list of epistemological questions:
- Are you in front of a computer?
- Do you have a safe with a billion dollars in it under your bed?
- Do I have an bucket full of popcorn on my desk?
- Does a square have 4 sides?
- Are you currently on Mars doing backflips?
- Is the shirt I am wearing yellow or green?
- Is there is a flying spahetthi monster in your closet?
- Is the earth shaped like a frisbee?
- Is the radius of a circle always half of the circle's diameter?
- Is there a large furry orange sasquatch with purple feet sitting on top of your head?
- Is there a God?
You have yet to answer the questions. Instead, you cavile.
1. There is a God.
2. There is no God.
3. I don't know. < - This is as much not having the belief in God as it is not having a belief there is no God.
Theists do not know there is a god.
Thanks. It just came out. The rest was intended but the gnash similiarity was unintended. I didn't even notice that part until you mentioned it. Fits tho.
1111
Thanks. It just came out. The rest was intended but the gnash similiarity was unintended. I didn't even notice that part until you mentioned it. Fits tho.
1111
You are quite mistaken about that.
Those are questions, but not epistemological questions. You should read the wiki on this, its pretty good.
epistemology
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
"Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Ok, in general I couldn't care less about spelling errors, but if you are going to try and use fancy words as insults, spell them correctly you simp.
Here is the actual run down...
1. I accept empty claims as proof of goD.
2. I deny empty claims as proof of goD.
3. I don't know whether or not goD exists.
4. I cannot know whether or not goD exists.
and for completeness...
5. I do know whether or not goD exists.
I'm behind my computer.
1111
1111
- Status