Pfhorrest
1.5k
about what the word "believe" means.
— Frank Apisa

To believe something is just to think it’s true, nothing more. You could believe for no good reason (a “blind guess”), or you could believe for reasons. My entire OP is a list of reasons why I believe various things that I do. You can contest the cogency of those reasons, but to label the conclusions “blind guesses” without addressing those reasons at all is just to object to the very having of this conversation, in which case... there’s the metaphorical door. — Pfhorrest

What I actually wrote was:

"When the question is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence? (of which "Is there at least one god?" is just a part)...the word "believe" is, understandable, used as a substitute for 'blind guess.'"

I stand by that completely .

If you disagree...I acknowledge that you have every right to be incorrect on this issue.

The first thought that came to my mind when I read your OP was:

We make people take a test BEFORE allowing them to drive a car. But we allow them to procreate as long as they have mastered the art of fucking.

Even a porcupine can do that...and there is a lot more danger involved.

With those conditions...probably not too often.

But some of the wars of less expanse have killed LOTS of people...and the people killed (or displaced) are unlikely to make such a distinction. The Russian, French, and Spanish Civil Wars were pretty bad...and exacted huge tolls. The war in Syria, wars between Irish and Irish or Irish and English, the Korean War, the War in Afghanistan, the Boer War, The Zulu Wars...and such.

Our need to kill one another is not endless, by any means...but it is far from minor.

Just the bona fide wars of Europe since the 11th century...indicates that war is a frequent enough condition to be considered ongoing.

Is your question merely a way of indicting the media as sensationalists?

That can be done without the "how much war" element...especially in a capitalistic society. The media wants to sell newspapers and attract viewers. Sensationalism does that job much better than ho-hum.

And to do so...

...one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that "physical entities" are those thing that homo sapiens, the puny prime species of this tiny rock in space...is capable of detecting all entities that are physical!

Why would anyone do that?

Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism. — Pinprick

True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.

I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. — Pinprick

No matter that you "feel" that way, "believing" (guessing, supposing) that an "empty set" is an empty set...is not equivalent to "lacking 'belief.'"

If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that there is (something) in a box...that, you agree, is a "belief" (guess or supposition).

If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that the box in question is empty (except for space and air)...that is as much a "belief" (guess or supposition) as the former.

Your arguments that it is not...apparently based on an insight you suppose you have had...seems contrived. The fact that X is emptiness (except for space and air)...is no different from (something/anything) when a guess that X is what the box contains.

Or so it seems to me. At 83, I am far removed from the philosophical arguments you seem to be presenting in what does appear to me to be contrivance.

Lots of talk about what the word "god" means...but not about what the word "believe" means. Too bad, because a lot more is obtained on the issue being discussed by determining what is meant by "believe" ...than by determining what is meant by "god."

When the question is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence? (of which "Is there at least one god?" is just a part)...the word "believe" is, understandable, used as a substitute for "blind guess."

We humans have trouble understanding what time, space, time/space means...so the full "true nature of the REALITY of existence" is so far beyond our scope of understanding, the very best we can do is to make blind guesses about it. (Yeah, we can think of our blind guesses as hypotheses, but...)

We blindly guess that what we supposedly "know" about REALITY actually is knowledge rather than a transient hypothesis that will one day be shown as suspect...and we blindly guess that our supposed "knowledge" leads to logical conclusions.

A "belief" in the context of the discussion happening here in this thread, folks...is nothing more than a blind guess in disguise. Given that...what difference does it really make about what we mean when we use "god?"

Your wording was confusing, BUT...if you were asserting that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist...and

b) I "believe" no gods exist...

...are equivalent...you are dead wrong.

They are not the same thing at all.

One can logically say, "I do not 'believe' any gods exist and I also do not 'believe' there are no gods." (Some people 'believe' at least one god exists and some people 'believe' there are no gods...and I am not a part of either of those groups.)

One CANNOT logically say, "I 'believe' no gods exist...AND I 'believe' at least one god exists.

I agree with the part of your post that indicates that atheists want to claim me...and all agnostics. It would markedly improve atheistic DNA...so I don't really blame them. I never have.

I merely point out that I am NOT an atheist.

And I further point out that since EVERY atheist I've ever known or known about...DOES believe (guess) that there are no gods...or DOES believe (guess) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...that element should be part of the definition of "atheist"...which would eliminate me (and many, but not all, others who designate themselves to be agnostics)...making the word a more useful one.

The rest of what you wrote is bullshit...and I suspect you know that.

But thanks for sharing it.

Yes, I have. Many times. More times than I hear the name Trump, lately.

Most of the hosts and their guests bring him (Sanders) up often. For some reason, many of them want to see him leave the scene...to refrain from giving Trump and the GOP more fodder for their General Election commercials.

I disagree with them...but I understand where they are coming from. I'd rather Biden face at least one one-on-one debate with Sanders right now. It could give us a better idea of whether or not Biden can stand up to the classless bullshit the Jackass-in-Chief will throw his way during the GE.

I don't know what in hell you are talking about, Shawn.

Every newspaper I have read indicates that Sanders won California...big time.

Yeah, they have more votes to count, but (and this may come as a surprise to you)...California is a very large state. There were nearly 4,000,000 votes to count...and MANY OF THEM had to be hand counted.

What is your beef?

Calm down, Man...you're gonna blow a gasket.

You were suggesting an incorrect etymology of the word "atheist"...and I corrected you. Seems to me a "thank you" is in order...not all this bullshit.

Yes, I agree with you that debating atheists have managed to get the meaning of the word "atheist" changed from what it SHOULD mean...a person who supposes there are no gods...or who supposes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...to anyone lacking a "belief" in any gods.

But doing that forces agnostics, babies, infants, and toddlers to accept the descriptor "atheist" to be considered atheists. I cannot speak for all agnostics or babies or infants or toddlers...

...but I will not accept that. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Not sure why that argument bothers you so...but you certainly are entitled to be as bothered as you chose to be.

Yo...

...the word ATHEISM came into the English language BEFORE the word THEISM...

...so it does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a god exists) = without a 'belief that a god exists.

It derives from the Greek, through the French...and means "without a god"...NOT without a "belief" in a god. Most people realize that until VERY RECENTLY...the word "atheist" was always used to denote a godless person...someone who denies the existence of any gods.

Now...if you want to dispute the etymological dictionary entries I offered...be my guest.

But do not expect me to agree with doing that.

K?

[reply="atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

(As you can see...from about 1580.)

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=atheis


theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

(As you can also see...from about 1670)

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theism

It is not about how you can rig the translation of Atheist to make it say what you want it to mean. In fact, this is precisely the problem with the word. The Greek prefix "a" can translate to the following: no, not, is not, non, un, without, cannot be; for instance, for the word atom (a-tom) the translation is read as such, "cannot be cut". for the translation of Atheist you must apply all possible logically sound variations of "a" to the an accepted definition of "theism". Since the vast majority of the people in the world are not scholars the definition usually chosen to work with is the colloquial definition (theism colloquial definition: belief in a god). Then you make the translations and any of these is valid: "no belief in a god", "Without belief in a god", "cannot be belief in a god". The other translations of "a" are grammatically unsound, but there is one of these unsound translations that many atheists seem to be constantly drawn towards: "non", however, it is not grammatically sound to define things in terms of exclusion, just as one would not define a civilian as a non-military person. As for all of the valid translations (no, without, cannot be) these are all claims of disbelief, or a belief of the negative persuasion. — SonOfAGun

I grok what you are saying here, SoaG, but the problem with your argument is that the word "atheism" came into the English language before "theism"...by almost 100 years...

...so it could not possibly have derived that way.

Happy Friday 13th back atcha, 180.

Life has changed so much over the last week...I feel like I'm in another world...one created by Stephen King.

I mentioned I don't believe in a universal purpose. — StarsFromMemory

The OP topic truly does not interest me very much...but what you wrote here does. if I may...

...did you actually mean "I don't believe in a universal purpose"...or did you mean "I believe there is no universal purpose?"

Those are two different things...and the "I don't believe X..." structure often is used when "I believe not-X is intended.

There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
— Frank Apisa
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:

Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. Insofar as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.

To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated. — 180 Proof

Yes...you are wrong again.

And to think...you people pretend that you are basing your arguments on logic and science..a laughable assertion if ever there was one!

There is absolutely NO UNUMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for...or against...the existence of gods.

Of course, that does not stop theists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that at least one GOD exists...nor does it stop atheists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that none exist.

Atheists/theists...two sides of one coin!

And therefore YOU LIVE AS IF "there are no gods" which makes you an atheist in practice, even though not in theory. Of course, Frankie, you're entitled to your own self-definition, but not to your own implications thereof. So suck it up, Humpty - definitions don't only mean whatever you say they mean. :razz: — 180 Proof

I do not live as though there are no gods...any more than I live as though there are gods.

But, you are determined to suppose I am an atheist. I guess having people like me in the atheist camp would increase the IQ level of the group...but you gotta do without me. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I would have simply said something I have said time and time again to people who claim Agnostics are fence sitters:

There is no fence sitting in saying "I do not know if any gods exist or not"...and there is no fence sitting in acknowledging that "any guess made is about as meaningful as a coin toss."

If the Pyrrhonists were to demand a decision other than the decision not to make an up or down decision on the issue...I would gladly flip the coin.

tim wood
3.9k
Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not.
— Frank Apisa
Indeed you can, but also eventually you will die. Hence,for most folks, the self-bespoke answer. — tim wood

What does that mean, Tim?

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.
— Frank Apisa
Me too. But how would god(s) differ in this case from magic hippopotami? - a serious question, btw.

There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.

There is abundant unambiguous evidence against the existence of your "magic Hippopotamus."

That is a fairly significant difference...wouldn't you agree?

tim wood
3.9k
Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?
— Frank Apisa

Substitute for "gods" in your sentences any of a variety of alternatives. Likely you will see faults emerge. For the purpose, absurdities work best (e.g., magic hippopotami). And there is plenty of unambiguous evidence, certainly at the least adequate as a basis for a meaningful guess. — tim wood

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.

Not so with gods.

Kant observed that the question of god - or gods if you must - was one on which men could not remain indifferent. At some point you formulate your own answer to your own question on your own terms, and you live and die with it. Your life, then, is your answer. You can call it a meaningless guess if you want to - because death means you have made some decision. Most folks try for meaning. Our effort here is to try to find the right ground from which to build up reason that can inform.

Then, with as much respect as possible, Kant is all wet.

Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not. Not sure what Kant's problem with that would be, but there is no way I can debate him on the point for obvious reasons.

Tim, I will not discuss "god" or "God."

If you want to discuss the possibility of "gods" that we can do.

As far as "gods" are concerned, my position is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?

Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out. — Pinprick

It is my contention that EVERY use of the words "I believe..." can better be stated using "It is my opinion..." "I estimate..." "My guess is..."...or something like that.

As far as the "object" thing is concerned...I have no problem with you requiring an object...but I think not-X is as valid an object as X.

Obviously you are exploring something that does not interest me as much as it does you...so I will bow out.

If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. — Pinprick

Not sure how you can say that. On this particular issue...a "belief" is just a disguise word for a blind guess. How more particular can one get?

Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess?

And to meet this arbitrary need for an object, let me restate that: Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe that the assertion 'there is at least one god'...is incorrect?"...is anything but a blind guess? (The "object" being the assertion "there is at least one god."}

Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. — Pinprick

It has stopped being a question for you, P...it has become an assertion...and in my opinion, a not very satisfying assertion.

Let's bring Geraldo Rivera into this. At some point, he was going to open Al Capone's safe. You seem to be saying that a person asserting, "I 'believe' there is nothing (other than air) in that safe"...is making a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence (that is not necessarily a grammatical error); stating an oxymoron; or stating a logical contradiction?

The "belief" (or guess) "There is nothing in the safe (except air)" is as good as a guess that there are guns or money or a dead body in it.

And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand. — Pinprick

P, the first sentence of your OP read, "In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God." How the hell can discussing the definition of atheism be a digression from it?

Pinprick
30
I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object.
— Frank Apisa

That is impossible. — Pinprick

No...it is not impossible.

How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=? — Pinprick

Beats the hell out of me. But this is a digression from the the issue. ON THE QUESTION "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.

Let's deal with that.

BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why. — Pinprick

Okay.

You explained: "My assumption is that when people say things like “I believe that no Gods exist” it is either 1) a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence, 2) an oxymoron, such as stating that you feel numb (numbness is defined as the absence of feeling), 3) a logical contradiction, as a belief implies possession and you cannot possess “nothing,” or 4) some other reason I might have missed."

My assumption is that that is incorrect for the reasons I have stated several times already.

Pinprick
29
↪Frank Apisa Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. — Pinprick

Question??? I did not see any questions (or question marks) in the post to which i was replying.

If X=object, then what does -X=? — Pinprick

Beats the piss out of me. I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. Not-X does not equal NOTHING.

What part of your previous post did I sidestep?

The part that began with the word "Getting"...though the word, "...issue?"

Pinprick
28
↪Frank Apisa My position is that you are wrong about what a belief is, if, that is, you don’t think they require objects. — Pinprick

My position is that I am correct.

When discussing the question "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.

Not sure what you mean by "requiring an object"...but if it negates that or requires that to be "incorrect"...it is wrong.

If the notion you are attempting to assert here is that X is an object and not-X is not an object (in the context of your comments)...you are wrong. Not-X is as much an object of "belief" as is X.

I notice you side-stepped the essentials of my last post, Pinprick. I wish you hadn't. I am interested in what you have to say .

Pinprick
27
If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.
— Frank Apisa

Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.
— Frank Apisa

Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?
Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?
— Frank Apisa
Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:
As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.
— Frank Apisa

So do guesses require objects? — Pinprick

Getting unwieldy here.

Let's deal with this one item at a time:

Atheists want the word "atheist" to include anyone/everyone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. That requires agnostics, babies, infants, toddlers...ALL to be considered atheists.

There is absolutely no reason to have atheist be defined that way...except that it allows atheists to claim FALSELY that they have no "beliefs." The actual reason atheists use the descriptor is NOT because of a lack of "belief", but BECAUSE of "belief." They "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (My experience indicates that almost no one who does not possess one of those two "beliefs" uses the descriptor "atheist.")

I consider that gratuitous, self-serving description to be unacceptable.

You seem to think I am being unreasonable in that regard.

If I am correct that you think I am being unreasonable...please explain to me why you feel that way.

If I am incorrect, please correct me and explain, if you can, why you are giving me so much grief on the issue?

Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."

Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"
If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then? — Pinprick

If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.

No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.
The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you. — Pinprick

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.

But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.

That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense
Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as.. — Pinprick

Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?

Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know. — Pinprick

As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.

THAT is what I see as "belief" on this issue.

What do you see as unreasonable about that?

793
So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.

Just sayin'!
— Frank Apisa
Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I'm an agnostic...and I am not an "atheist in practice."

I'd love to have you explain why you say that I am an "atheist in practice." I think it will help my argument.

The bullshit that atheism is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hair color...is just that...bullshit.
So, Frankie, what do you call it when a person knows - can demonstrate - that belief-T is false? Or simply rejects belief-T because either its claims lack sufficient evidence or it is inconsistent with demonstrably true belief-N? — 180

I would call it "someone demonstrating that a particular "belief" is wrong."

What would you call it?

Also, how do you differentiate "belief in", "belief that" & "know that"? Or do you often conflate them just because, in your incorrigibly addled, feeble mind, they're all the same "bullshit" to you? :sweat: — 180

If you want to ask this question without the childish insults...do so. I'll respond.

The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"
— Frank Apisa

Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that. — Pfhorrest

Good for you.

I suspect MOST (perhaps, ALL) people who use the descriptor "atheist" also "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

I object to defining "atheism" as simply lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. That requires agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers to be included as atheists. It seems to me more sensible to define "atheist" as someone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...and possessing a "belief" that no gods exist or a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I do not see the reason for the objection to what I suggest here.

Fair enough. Let's try this. Of all the anythings in the universe we-all know about, whether directly or indirectly, one way of dividing them is to ask if it's man-made. I think it's pretty clear that there must be lots of things in the universe that are not man-made. Question: whatever is meant by "god," is it man-made? I wonder how you answer? — tim wood

I answer "I think, no." But I am not sure of what you are actually asking. Would you reword it please.

tim wood
3.9k
↪Frank Apisa Hmm. I have to ask what you mean in your !), 2) 3) by "existing," "Beings" and again, "Beings."

If by these you mean idea, that god corresponds exactly (i.e., no more and no less) to what mind(s) think he is, then I have no problem. Is that what you mean? — tim wood

I'm not exactly sure.

For one thing, I doubt I would ever use that pronoun in describing what I mean...despite the fact that so many of the examples I gave were of male gender.

By "beings" I mean to denote "existence." I often mention that I never use that "supernatural" designation in my (rather pathetic) attempts to define what I mean. If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural," but rather are a part of what exists...which to me means...a part of nature.

Discussing gods (I try always to use that plural form) for me is mostly about trying to understand what "existence" is all about. "Being" is so mysterious...I sometimes recoil from trying to think too deeply into it. It "scares me" for want of a better way to express it. (Fills me with awe, might work.)

Anyway...the entire of the "There is a GOD"/"There are no gods" works best with a simple...I do not know and cannot meaningfully guess.

When pressed in a forum for a guess...I use Mr. Coin...a Sacajawea coin my wife and I use during football season to settle disputes about who to choose in our Pool. Heads - I guess there is at least one god...tails - I guess there are none. (For the pool, it is heads - Home Team...Tails - visitors.)

Says everything I want to say about "choosing" on the issue.

tim wood
3.9k
All the non-atheists posting here will please tell us what they mean whenever they use the word "god." In substantive terms, so that everyone can tell if they're on point in commenting, or off on a tangent, or on a woods-path. — tim wood

Ummm...when I suggest "gods" may or may not exist, I mean any of several things…all of which can be considered a GOD.

1) For instance (but not limited to)…an eternally existing creator of all the stuff we humans consider “the universe.”

2) Beings that have specialties…creators of individual items in this thing we humans consider “the universe.” A creator of living things…of animals...of plants...of inorganic matter...of space...of time.

3) Beings like those (perhaps invented by primitive peoples) with the qualities those primitives envisioned. Ya know, the likes of Zeus, Yahweh, Aton, and that ilk.

So...what do those who doubt the existence of any gods mean when they use the word"god" in sentences like, “There are no gods?”

Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."
Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief. — Pinprick

I can see that there is precious little chance that we will ever agree on a proper definition of “atheist” or “atheism.” I will try to avoid using them without modifying statements.

I am saying this, though: Anyone who asserts “There are no gods” or “It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…is simply making a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

That same thing holds for anyone asserting “There is at least one GOD” or “It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are none.”

BOTH are nothing more than blind guesses. And each, if made an assertion, bears the burden of providing proof.

Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.
Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it? — Pinprick

Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."

Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"

That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits... — Pinprick

No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.

I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought. — Pinprick

It is not debatable at all. THEY CAN'T!

But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.

That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense.

I think saying it is a blind guess is exaggerated. Atheists and Theists alike both have reasons for their stance. Something must have convinced them one way or the other. — Pinprick

There is the possibility that using "blind guess" is stretching things a bit...but I have searched diligently for years myself for any unambiguous evidence to persuade me "there is a GOD" or "there are no gods"...and have not found ANYTHING remotely edifying.

My opinion (guess) is that every statement of "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...is nothing but a guess. I use "blind guess" because it more closely explain my feelings.

How does confidence equate to belief? As an example, an Atheist could say the following. “Theists have been unable to convince me that at least one God exists. Therefore, I do not believe a God exists, and am confident that I am right.” — Pinprick

My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."