Are you able to find a rock?
What is atheism?
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
Are you able to find a rock?
In the expanded form, yes. Though (3) should be modified to be more clearly ontological. But I like to present the ontological status first. Sam and I had a discussion like this before and she was unable to distinguish epistemology from ontology. So my method seemed much simpler. Also, my account holds up with the most common - and widely understood - notions of three-value logic.
Sam doesn't recognize any difference between epistemology and ontology. The last time her and I chatted about this was discussing the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. I tried many times to lay it out for her but it never got through.
Shame you can't back that up with anything coherent.
And Sam is someone who doesn't understand basic logic, epistemology or ontology. Which is neither surprising nor necessarily a bad thing. Most people haven't studied philosophy!
Nope. If I don't put a cookie in the cookie jar, has the number of cookies in the jar grown? Most people over the age of 2 would say no. People under that age don't talk much.
Go read more on ontology. I've explained it enough times and you never seem to get it. So either you're more stubborn than a mule or I'm bad at explaining.
Is that what you studied in philosophy? That ad hominems are a substitute for an argument?
If you look at a cookie jar and say there are no cookies inside it, is that not an addition to your ontology about the cookie jar?
Here is a guy who makes sense :
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
Actually nothing I said was ad hominem.
(1) It is a shame you can't back that up with anything. That line may have been condescending, but it didn't attack your character at all.
(2) We have had chats about epistemology and ontology before, and you never seemed to have acknowledge the difference.
(3) The cookie jar thing is silly, maybe even demeaning, but it doesn't attack your character at all.
(4) The last line is really just advice.
At least one thing I learned in my studies is what ad hominem means. And how to use metaphors!
In my metaphore, the cookie jar is your ontology. A cookie is a possible member piece. You hand me a cookie and I don't put it in the jar. Thus my ontology has not changed. It's a metaphor.
Also, even in your metaphor (which is not related to the question at hand), the answer is still no!
Step 1: I walk in my kitchen and see a cookie jar. At this point my ontology contains all the other things I accept as real plus a cookie jar.
Step 2: I open the top, look in and see no cookies.
------------------------
Result: My ontology contains all the other things I accept as real plus a cookie jar.
(1) It is a shame you can't back that up with anything. That line may have been condescending, but it didn't attack your character at all.
(2) We have had chats about epistemology and ontology before, and you never seemed to have acknowledge the difference.
(3) The cookie jar thing is silly, maybe even demeaning, but it doesn't attack your character at all.
(4) The last line is really just advice.
At least one thing I learned in my studies is what ad hominem means. And how to use metaphors!
In my metaphore, the cookie jar is your ontology. A cookie is a possible member piece. You hand me a cookie and I don't put it in the jar. Thus my ontology has not changed. It's a metaphor.
Also, even in your metaphor (which is not related to the question at hand), the answer is still no!
Step 1: I walk in my kitchen and see a cookie jar. At this point my ontology contains all the other things I accept as real plus a cookie jar.
Step 2: I open the top, look in and see no cookies.
------------------------
Result: My ontology contains all the other things I accept as real plus a cookie jar.
If the cookie jar is not able to be opened, then I would make zero claim as to how many cookies are inside. Without getting a hammer to break the jar, I'd be forced to acknowledge that I have absolutely no knowledge of how many cookies are in that jar. It could be 0, it could be 8, it could be a million.
In fact, that's a perfect metaphor for atheism. The cookie jar can't be opened:the proposition can't be proven - so I don't know how many cookies are in there:so I don't know if there's a god.
But atheism doesn't claim to lack knowledge. Thats agnosticism.
Atheism is the denial of God.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
No, it's not. Atheism is an ontological position. People who are ontological atheists have ontologies that don't include god. Agnosticism is epistemology. An agnostic holds that there is (at least, at present) no way to get knowledge of gods.
Many atheists are agnostics. Many agnostics are atheists.
Ontology and Epistemology. Sorry, Sam, I'm not going through this discussion again. You still don't understand the divide.
-----------------
Let me make something very clear to you, okay?
Even if you want to define "atheism" as an epistemological position, that's not how most people in philosophy define it. If you're entire driving purpose is to change people's minds about how to define words, you've fallen off the deep end. You've completely devoted yourself to the useless task of semantics.
So from now on, Sam, I don't care if you want to define "atheism" as the same as traditional "strong atheism". If you really want, we can pick a new word to describe my stance (which is a very common stance among those self-identifying as atheists) on the issue. You can call it anything you like.
I'll just refer to it as "My Stance".
Ontology containing no deity. Epistemologically holding the position that knowledge of a god has (at least so far) not been reached.
Two good examples of religious people who apparently can't comprehend how anybody could really have no god or religion. And so, we have from Signal the assumption that atheists must consider themselves gods, and from ggazoo the assumption that atheism must be like a religion in itself.
To really understand atheism, you're going to have to get past the idea that everybody needs a god.
Tell me which part of this you don't understand:
Can't see inside the cookie jar. Therefore on the Grand List of Things Tyler Believes To Exist there is no statement about how many cookies are inside.
Haven't seen any proof of god. Therefore on the Grand List of Things Tyler Believes Exists there is no statement about a deity.
Can't see inside the cookie jar. Therefore on the Grand List of Things Tyler Believes To Exist there is no statement about how many cookies are inside.
Haven't seen any proof of god. Therefore on the Grand List of Things Tyler Believes Exists there is no statement about a deity.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, it's not !
Atheists just don't buy the crap theists tell them.
I don't recall picking a side on this issue. Could you point out where I did so?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheism is not some "thing" that I believe. It's the name of an ontological position.
I understand you're incapable of budging from your prejudice on the definition of this word. That's fine, Sam. I know it helps you to feel more justified in certain arguments.
So, as I said, Sam, when you and I talk, we can drop the word. We can just use the words "Tyler's Stance". We will both know what we're talking about and we'll never need to use this word you're so obsessed with again.
Oh, pardon me. I thought that it wouldn't take you to long to come to a decision about whether or not you believe in the existence in India of giant yellow and purple spotted pandas. Apparently, I was wrong.
When you've formed a belief on the matter, please get back to me with your reasons.
Actually, I have no opinion on the subject. If I were to see, for example, an article on purple pandas [or even a real one], it would not be of any interest to me.
Sure, as long as you don't define it as atheism I have no issue with you having a novel definition to suit your stance. My issue is only with people who deny that atheism by definition is the denial or rejection of God.