If I say that I do not believe that any God exists, that isn’t a false statement. There’s no pretending. Conversely, couldn’t it be said that the issue actually is non-Atheists trying to define Atheism in a way that better serves their needs? Also, wouldn’t those people who identify as Atheists be the people best suited to define what Atheism is in the first place? I am not a Theist. Therefore I have no right to try to tell people who identify as Theists that actually they are defining Theism wrong. I have to accept whatever definition they provide. — Pinprick

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.

Atheists are defining "atheism" in a way that requires people like me to be considered an atheist. They are defining "atheism" in a way that requires every newborn baby, every infant, every toddler...to be considered an atheist.

That is abject nonsense, Pinprick.

My guess is that EVERY person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor DOES "believe" that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

THAT is the reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor...not because of a lack of belief in any gods.

I LACK A "BELIEF" THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I ALSO LACK A "BELIEF" THAT THERE ARE NO GODS. There is absolutely no way I should be considered an atheist just because atheists want to define atheist in a way that better serves their needs.

Can you truly not see that?

Everyone has things about which it is perfectly logical to say I do not believe X exists. And by the way my above possible examples are not a list of things I am saying are real or not. Just choosing some things that many people do not believe are real. — Coben

Yeah.

So long as we are clear that a person saying, "I do not 'believe' X is real"...does not mean that person is saying "I 'believe' X is not real."

It is totally reasonable and LOGICAL to say, "I do not 'believe' X is real...and I also do not 'believe' X is not real."

That is a very important proviso.

Yeah, I went hook, line, and sinker for religion earlier. Raised Catholic. Goes with the territory.

The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness.

On the question of "Is there at least one god...or are there no gods"...the best anyone can do is to make a blind guess. There is no way whatsoever that one can get to a "yes there is at least one" or "no, there are none" using logic, reason, science, or math. It just cannot happen that way right now.

So any theist saying, "I believe (in) God"...is merely making a blind guess in that direction...and disguising the fact that it is a blind guess by using the word "believe."

But it has become VERY OBVIOUS to me that the reason ANYONE uses the descriptor "atheist" is doing so because that person HAS MADE A BLIND GUESS that no gods exist...or a blind guess that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. (An assertion that one is more likely than the other...is also a blind guess, not a result of logic, reason, science, or math.)

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

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.

Just sayin'!

god must be atheist
1.9k
How about "a four sided triangle?"

Or..."a circle with corners?"
— Frank Apisa

Haha... those are not things. Name a THING.

There are many arguments why those figures can't exist... I won't go into that as there are many arguments already on this very same forum. Short-and-long of it, if you define something that violates the law of the excluded middle (a circle which has no corners which has corners) then you define something that necessarily is false, and therefore not a thing. — god must be atheist

A basketball with corners!

So you don't believe in god. — god must be atheist

"Believe in god?"

I do not even use that grammatical form when dealing with the question.

When someone says "I believe in..." my guess is they are unable (unwilling) to actually express the idea they are attempting to express using clear language.

For instance, if someone were to ask me, Do you "believe" in Democracy?...I would say, "If you are asking me if I prefer a democratic form of government over a dictatorial one...why not just ask the question that way ?

My response to the second rendering would be, "Of course I would prefer a democratic form of government over a dictatorial one."

You did not ask the question, but rather made a statement. (So you don't believe in god.) I would ask you: "Are you asking me if I 'believe' that at least one god exists"...which is to say, "Are you asking me if I blindly guess that at least one god exists?"

If you are, my response would be: "No, I do not blindly guess that at least one god exists."

Having obtained that response, would you logically be able to assert, "Therefore you do blindly guess that no gods exist????"

I cannot conceive of why you would...IF YOU WOULD.

Do you see my dilemma here?

Can you name something that is NOT capable of existing? I challenge you to name anything that can't exist (outside of god). — god must be atheist

How about "a four sided triangle?"

Or..."a circle with corners?"

Here is how I state my agnosticismt...and I see no logical protocols being violated.


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.

Unless I am misreading your OP...I disagree completely.

I'm going to take my disagreement in bits and pieces...rather than take such a big bite, neither of us can chew.

First...an obvious truth: There are people in this world who "believe" there is at least one GOD...and there are others who "believe" there are no gods. (I am not saying ALL people are either in one group or the other, merely that those two categories do exist.)

As for the people in the group who "believe" that at least one GOD exists: I am not one of those people.

I do NOT "believe" at least one GOD exists.

As for the people in the other group who "believe" that no gods exist: I am also not one of those people.

I do NOT "believe" that no gods exist.

So I am saying that I do NOT "believe" that at least one GOD exists and I do NOT "believe" that no gods exist.

You seem to be saying that there is an inconsistency in that.

Could you speak more to why you see that as inconsistent?

Great response, Dawn...and lots to consider. Unfortunately, my wife just called me into the living room to watch something or other that she wants to discuss with me.

I'll get back to you later...or in the interests of my relationship here...tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply.

Descriptor words, for the most part, suck.

Words like liberal, conservative, nice, high, atheist and such are virtually useless.

Words certainly are attempts at "transmitting concepts"...but some are just not up to the job. Concepts are better transmitted using sentences...often LOTS of sentences.

My position, though, is better described that the hard atheist and hard theist have a 0 % chance to be correct, because their respective claims aren't meaningful enough to trigger correctness conditions. Both claims can be disregarded. (This implies that an agnostic who believes that either the hard atheist or the hard theist is correct, would also have 0 % chance to be correct.) — Dawnstorm

Not sure what kind of rationalizations you are using to arrive at that point,..or why you are using them, Dawn, but it seems contrived to me.

THE REALITY is that their either IS at least one god...or there are none.

That is just the way things are. If you flip a coin and designated the heads side a guess of "There is at least one god" and the tails side a guess of "There are no gods"...

...one guess will be correct.

But, if you want to suppose someone saying that either "yes" or "no" is correct for a "yes or no" question...go with it.

Try that on this question: Are there any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol? Pose it as a question of "Do you guess that..." if you choose.

Don't have anything to add, but Einstein is a personal hero. I have 10 or more pictures of him facing me from across the room from where I am typing at my desk.

I walk by his house in Princeton often...just to be near to it.

180 Proof
775
What I don't do...is go to church or worry about the dictates of any gods.
— Frank Apisa
Yes, Godless -
ἄθεος; no reason given. My work's done here. Thanks, Frankie. :rofl: — 180 Proof

If there is a god (one of two mutually exclusive possibilities) I am NOT godless...and neither are you.

If you want to think "your work" is done here...no problem. Have a good life. Don't let the bedbugs bite.

180 Proof
773
You are asking me if I am "GODLESS" because of some reason...without even establishing that I am GODLESS.
— Frank Apisa
My intent is to establish whether or not you claim or agree that you are GODLESS - as I'd parenthetically spoon-fed (and then quoted by) you: — 180 Proof

And you fucked it up. That is NOT what your question asked. Read it with comprehension. Or better yet, get some school kid to read it for you and explain how to repair it.

In any case, I got the gist of what you mangled...and answered it.

IN OTHER WORDS, Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ...? — 180

Don't even know what that would look like. What I don't do...is go to church or worry about the dictates of any gods. I simply acknowledge that gods might exist. If any of them are like that savage god of the Bible...I am in a shit load of trouble.

Mmmm yummy yummy, Frankie ... quit spitting-out my yummy spoonfuls! :yum: — 180

Work some fava beans into that bullshit...and see what it gets you.

What does "GODLESS" mean?

And the ending of the first part of your "question" is Greek to me. — 180

Yes, I noticed. The rest was just jumbled bullshit.

In the original post the Greek word is linked to a wiki article which defines the word and its historical usage from antiquity to the present; and is synonymous with GODLESS. If you really want to know what I mean, follow the link for ἄθεος. :eyes:

I am totally willing to answer any question you ask
:roll: — 180

I am discussing this with you...not with the writer of an article who is not discussing it with me.
Okay?

...providing you do not tell me I must answer it only with answers you provide...
Well since I asked a Yes or No question, "yes or no" are the only answers relevant to the question; the list are not "answers" but suggested reasons for your answer, including an open undefined option for any other reason or reasons for the answer, quite the contrary, that you're refusing to give. :sweat:

If you want to ask me a question...ask it...and I will answer. Don't provide your answers and get pissed when I do not use them.

And if you learned how to write, you would see that your "question" is not what you seem to think it was.

I do not understand what that means.

Preexisting bias...is bias that precedes the argument made in either direction.

If you are disagreeing with what I said, we can discuss it.

Here is the question, 180:

Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ἄθεος) -

(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???

You are asking me if I am "GODLESS" because of some reason...without even establishing that I am GODLESS.

What in hell does that mean?

What does "GODLESS" mean?

I am an agnostic. I have no idea if I am godless or not. If there is at least one god...I sure as hell am not godless...and neither is anyone else. IF at least one god exists, NONE OF US leads a godless life. IF there are no gods, I am leading a godless life BECAUSE there are no gods.

Now...I looked beyond that jumbled, poorly conceived, poorly executed mess and answered the question I supposed you were trying (unsuccessfully) to ask...and answered it fully and truthfully.

Where do you want to go with it from here?

I am totally willing to answer any question you ask...providing you do not tell me I must answer it only with answers you provide...and if you do not make unnecessary, assumptions about how I do or do not live my life.

And the ending of the first part of your "question" is Greek to me.

To you???

CeleRate
45
for instance is, "Is there a $10 bill in this (unopened) envelope or not?"...the answer is either YES or NO. It cannot be both.
— Frank Apisa

A couple of comments. One, the claim of a $10 bill in an envelope can be investigated. The claim could then be "proven" true or false. Two, the claim regarding the bill is a mundane claim. The evidence confirming or disconfirming would be ordinary. — CeleRate

Whatever it is, the "claim" shares one thing in common with the claim that either there is at least one god or there are no gods...and that "thing in common" is that it can either be YES or NO. (once again, Shrodinger's cat aside.)

Set up the P1 and P2 that logically leads to a C of: Therefore there are no evil spirits that can influence what any human does.
— Frank Apisa

I agree. I don't know how to inductively or deductively establish the truth for the presence or absence of a deity. — CeleRate

Neither do I...which is the reason I answered your question, "What would be the reasoning to reject a person's claim of committing an evil act because the devil made him do it? Could you reject such a claim if it is just as likely to be true as untrue?'...the way I did.

It cannot be logically answered. It can be answered in the "mundane" as you called it...or at least a reasonable guess can be made in the mundane. But we are above that here in this discussion...or at least, I hope we are.

Are you supposing that humans (Homo sapiens) at our stage of evolution are able to know everything about what does and what does not exist in the REALITY of existence?
— Frank Apisa

I have no issue claiming ignorance on any topic. But if ignorance about the specifics, or even the fact that we can't know anything with certainty, means that we can't know anything, or can't make reasonable inferences with respect to probability, then it seems like we have to throw our hands up and say that there's no good reason to have an opinion about any unsubstantiated claim. — CeleRate

I don't think it has to be all or nothing.[/quote]

I am not suggesting that we claim ignorance on everything. I understand the difficulty in proving anything, but we can certainly agree on things like, "I am sitting at my keyboard at the moment typing these words."

But your comment raises the question of: "Can we make a reasonable, inferential, logical probability estimate of whether at least one god exists or if no gods exist?"

My answer is a resounding NO...we cannot. Over the years I have read hundreds of attempts to show why it is MUCH more likely that at least one god exists rather than that none exist...

...and hundreds of attempts to show why it is MUCH more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists.

AND THEY ALL USE THE SAME EVIDENCE.

I say neither probability estimate is based on anything but a pre-existing bias one way or the other.

You?

Your question was an absurdity...poorly conceived and poorly constructed. I gave it the courtesy of a response...a reasonable response.

For anyone following this conversation, here is the question:

Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ἄθεος) -

(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???

(indicate those reasons which apply)

It is a jumble...makes unwarranted assumptions with which I am not comfortable...and suggests I answer whatever free option question is being proposed in a format the questioner devises.

Anyway...180...I will definitely enjoy the rest of my day. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day also.

CeleRate
43
So the hard atheist and the hard theist have at least a 50% chance of being correct.
— Frank Apisa

I'd like to press this line of reasoning a bit to see if there are conditions where you would differ. Is a 50% chance of being correct true of any theistic claim? — CeleRate

I'd have to hear each claim...and then comment on it...rather than as an over-all contention.

Would that then mean that the chances are 50/50 for the existence of Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Shiva, Amaterasu, etc? — CeleRate

I'll stick with the "hard atheist" and "hard theist" suggestion I made. And I will stick with the "AT LEAST..." part of my comment. It was made for a reason.

If any question has an either YES or NO being...then either YES is correct or NO is correct. (Schrodinger's cat notwithstanding) If the question, for instance is, "Is there a $10 bill in this (unopened) envelope or not?"...the answer is either YES or NO. It cannot be both. To then ask, "Well then are you asserting that there cannot be three single dollar bills in the envelope, makes no sense. That, in a sense, is what you are doing here.

There may be gods (or a god)...or there may be no gods. What they are or what their characteristics are...is a different question entirely. Not ready to handle that question yet.

What would be the reasoning to reject a person's claim of committing an evil act because the devil made him do it? Could you reject such a claim if it is just as likely to be true as untrue? — CeleRate

Whether there is an evil spirit or are evil spirits that can impact on human activity...is an unknown. I do not make guesses about the unknown. Of course one "could" reject such a claim...but if this were pure debate based on logic...it would be a very difficult case to make. Attempt it if you want: Set up the P1 and P2 that logically leads to a C of: Therefore there are no evil spirits that can influence what any human does.

Finally, should we then treat non-theistic claims of the existence of ghosts, spirits, or other metaphysical phenomena as just as likely to exist as not exist?

Absolutely! Why not?

Are you supposing that humans (Homo sapiens) at our stage of evolution are able to know everything about what does and what does not exist in the REALITY of existence?

I am not.

There may be things around us in dimensional form that humans cannot discern at all. Human senses may NOT be the end-all thing we like to suppose they are.

MyOwnWay
13
↪Frank Apisa
Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it.
— Frank Apisa

If you can't explain it in a clear and concise way as you would to a child you don't understand it yourself. How can he be expected to take you seriously if you are unable to provide evidence for your claims, or even a general explination? — MyOwnWay

Take this in its progression, MOW.

Pinprick wrote: "How exactly is one supposed to vote responsibly?"

I replied, "If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote. No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible. Hoped that helped."

In one of the other forums where I post...where my fellow posters might be a bit less intellectual than the people here, I would have posted that remark in green font...the universally accepted way of indicating a post as being sarcasm or smarmy.

Here, in a forum devoted to Philosophy, I figured most people would be more than intelligent enough to understand the "Trump" part of my response as pure sarcasm. So when Pin asked about it, I indicated "if it has to be explained, you won't get it" as further sarcasm.

Sorry if this was above your head. I'll try to dumb my remarks down if I see further need for that.

I truly hope I don't.

I don't see why it's any easier. On the contrary. Thomas Huxley invented the term agnostic because he was tired of being mistaken for an atheist. He had to continually clarify that he had no proof that God doesn't exist. So he invented the term agnostic to make it clear that he also had no proof that God exists, so he abstained. — David Mo

Precisely. And Huxley's "need to clarify" was occasioned by the fact that back then (and through all of history) the term atheist meant...someone who denies the existence of God (gods).

The notion of atheist meaning "lacking a 'BELIEF' in any gods" is a recent invention of debating atheists, who wanted to disassociate themselves from any hint of having "beliefs."

I gave you a very specific answer to the question you asked. I refused to be limited to the answers you suggested were the only ones I could have.

And if you use atheist as a descriptor...it makes sense.

Not worthless babble in any way , shape, or form.

One of the things I "got" there, though, was a predisposition toward "There probably are no gods"...which is a perfectly fine take to have on the REALITY. Fact is, either there is at least one god...or there are none. So the hard atheist and the hard theist have at least a 50% chance of being correct. And the use of "atheist" as a descriptor for someone with that disposition MAKES SENSE.

Describing my position as an agnostic one, though, simply because of that one single element (lack of a 'belief" in any gods) makes as little sense as depicting it as a theist position because of the element (I lack a "belief" that there are no gods.

The agnostic has a 100% chance of being correct in what he/she is saying, but a ZERO chance of being correct about the "correct answer" to the question, "Is there at least one god or are there no gods?"

My quest to make the semantic distinction more abrupt (for want of a better word) has to do with a war, of sorts, against the negative forces of religion in a society such as ours. (MIND YOU...religion also have very positive aspects, so I am NOT saying that all of religion is a negative for society.)

More about that aspect as my thesis continues.

↪Frank Apisa
If you’re only referring to Atheists in this forum, you are likely correct. I am referring to society in general. Watch any televangelist, or attend practically any church long enough and you will hear Atheists being disparaged. My claim is also that history bears this out. The number of nonbelievers who have been killed in the name of God far outnumbers the number of Christians or even Theists in general that have been killed in the name of Atheism. Also, I would suspect that you are more likely to encounter Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated.

For the record, I would agree that a lot of Atheists are resentful towards Christianity for the reasons I earlier explained. I’m not trying to defend anger or animosity from either side, just observe and hypothesize. — Pinprick

I agree that there is plenty of anger on both sides...and, unfortunately, in society in general. Not sure if it has always been this way, but it certainly is now. I really would like to see us all get along a bit better. Perhaps some of my feelings about this rub off from another forum where I post...and where the atheist seem to be in high dudgeon almost every moment.

As an aside, and with my tongue planted firmly in cheek, your remark, "Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated"...immediately caused me to think..."Hummm...I always though education and agnosticism seem the more proper fit."

CeleRate
37
Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
— Frank Apisa

Clarifying questions are great.

I suspect that...
— Frank Apisa

It may be true. It seems irrelevant if you've gone through the step of clarifying what the other party means, but okay.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.
— Frank Apisa

Okay. You don't call yourself an atheist. — CeleRate

More than that. My contention is that I am NOT an atheist.

What is the contention? Other people describe your position as that of an atheist? If you say, "well, you use that term, but I don't think it appropriately represents my position". What else is there to do? Sticks and stones will break my bones? — CeleRate

I am saying that any unbiased assessment of what it takes for a person to self-describe as an "atheist" must include the notion of "a 'belief' that no gods exist" or "a 'belief' that it is more likely that no gods exist than at least one does."

That is not just being petty...it is being efficient with the language.

A definition of "atheist" as "a person who 'believes' (guesses, supposes, estimates) that no gods exist' or "who 'believes' (guesses, supposes, estimates) it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...simply makes more sense. It relieves the need for agnostics to be included and for babies, infants and toddlers to be included. And it does not harm atheists in any way...because it is accurate. I still suggest for debate purposes that most (probably all) people who use the word as a descriptor...do either 'believe' no gods exist or 'believe' it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

You raised a point that the etymology of the word atheist differed from some of the current usage with respect to lack of belief. Some people responded by pointing out that usages change over time. That premise is either true or false. Is it true that word usages change over time? — CeleRate

Absolutely! Word usages do change. In fact, it should be apparent that I am advocating for such a change in the interests of greater clarity greater conciseness. It appears that the current usage (NOT UNIVERSAL) is a product of Internet atheists wanting to insist that they do not have "beliefs" in the opposite direction from theists...when in fact, it is obvious they do.

I don't.

There are people who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I am not one of those people. It seems to me that ONLY those people want to be described as atheists...and ONLY those people actually use the word as a descriptor.

Please...let's discuss this in greater depth.

CeleRate
37
Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
— Frank Apisa

Clarifying questions are great.

I suspect that...
— Frank Apisa

It may be true. It seems irrelevant if you've gone through the step of clarifying what the other party means, but okay.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.
— Frank Apisa

Okay. You don't call yourself an atheist. What is the contention? Other people describe your position as that of an atheist? If you say, "well, you use that term, but I don't think it appropriately represents my position". What else is there to do? Sticks and stones will break my bones?

You raised a point that the etymology of the word atheist differed from some of the current usage with respect to lack of belief. Some people responded by pointing out that usages change over time. That premise is either true or false. Is it true that word usages change over time?

The movie Back to the Future made fun of this point when Marty Mcfly called serious matters, "heavy", and Doc responded with, "Is there a problem with Earth's gravitational pull in the future? Why is everything so heavy?" — CeleRate

Thank you for this response, CeleRate.

I'm going to respond in a following post, but for here, I'd like to share a joke (apparently you've heard it, but some others may have not. I'm sure they will understand the reason I'm sharing it here. (Blatantly stolen joke!)


A new monk arrives at a monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books.

So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."

So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. He is gone for hours...and finally some of the other monks get worried and go down to look for him. They find him...head down in his hands, sobbing.

"What is wrong?" they ask.

"My God," says the Head Monk, "they left the "r" out. The word was supposed to be "celebrate."

180 Proof
767
↪Frank Apisa Is it that you simply can't or stubbornly won't answer the actual question (with a reason, or reasons, (a) thru (h)) which I've asked? — 180 Proof

I did answer your question. Perhaps you did not like my answer. Discuss it with me. I am more than willing.

What would help with the anger of Atheists is Christians refraining from making sweeping judgements about Atheists (and the reverse of this also applies). However, I think there is also a distinction to be made in the kinds of aggressive/antagonistic comments made on either side. An angry Atheist will make comments ridiculing Christianity, but angry Christians often make more personal comments, such as claiming that an Atheist is evil, going to hell, needs to beg for forgiveness, and is generally deserving of hate and is to be shunned. Personal attacks are more likely to elicit anger. In other words, the Christians started it and have historically been more violent towards nonbelievers. — Pinprick

I gotta be honest with you on this, Pin...I see 50X's more invective hurled at Christians by atheists...than invective hurled by Christians at atheists. It is not even close.

I very seldom see a thread started by Christians aimed at belittling atheists...and see dozens upon dozens of threads started by atheists aimed at belittling Christians.

And I've got no dog in this fight. I am an agnostic...taking aim at both Christians and atheists at times. I just think you are all wet on what you said up above.

The only proper way to do that, though, is to do it honestly.

A question that should be asked of every person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor is: Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?

I suspect that damn near EVERY person using "atheist" as a descriptor...would answer that in the affirmative. And I suspect that damn near EVERY person using "atheist" as a descriptor uses it BECAUSE of that "yes" rather than merely because they lack a "belief in any gods."

That latter description of the word...holds very little water.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.

Every atheist lacks a "belief" that any gods exist...but NOT every person lacking that "belief" is an atheist.

Not sure why that is so uncomfortable for atheists to discuss with an agnostic like me..but, I've met this resistance before...and just feel a form of pity for the people so wedded to their notion of the word that they refuse to truly discuss it.

And anyone else I missed:

Bottom line…I personally have never met a person who uses the word atheist as a descriptor (or part of a descriptor) who does not either “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that there are no gods…or “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Granted, my outreach may be too limited, although I have discussed and debated this topic for over two decades on the Internet…and for about two decades earlier in letters/op ed pieces in newspapers.

Is there anyone here who uses “atheist” as a descriptor or part of a descriptor…who falls outside of that parameter? I’d love to discuss the issue with anyone who does.

Anyway, if it actually is the case that one must have one of those two qualifiers to feel comfortable with being designated an atheist, perhaps atheists and agnostics together should alter usage so that the dictionaries can feel comfortable changing what they have to say on the word.

I live my life the way I live my life. I am not answerable to any gods...or religious convictions.

Many of the matters I hold dear...ARE part of many religions. "Live and let live" is a diredct function of "Do unto others..."...and I hold that thought in high regard.

But if the question "Are there any gods or do no gods exist?" is proposed to me, my answer is a resounding, "I have no goddam idea whatsoever."

That often is expressed in a more moderate tone by inserting my take on the matter:

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.

Coben
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Odd that you liked that. You bring anger directly to discourse as an agnostic. You seem very angry. I was criticizing in this thread his approach, which it seems to me is masked aggresssion, which he is now calling tough love. it seems like a couple of angry people, you and him, who judge the directness of the anger of those atheists who are publically angry. No, that doesn't even work, since you are directly angry in your threads. I didn't realize you had a problem with people being angry. Or is it just other people? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. — Coben

Even odder that you find it odd that I gave Amen an AMEN on the comment. I saw it to be a nail being hit squarely on its head.

Look, Coben...we all can be angry. If a person is arguing (discussing) in an Internet Philosophy forum...and does not occasionally show some anger...that person should probably leave the forum and take up crocheting.

I do not mind the "anger" of atheists, although I often laugh at the scorn and contempt some atheists show for Christians and other theists. They hurl vindictive toward the absurdness of Christian "beliefs"...while espousing stealth "beliefs" every bit as absurd in the opposite direction.

Like either side can make any reasonable comments about the unknown!

In any case, if I have stepped on any toes (seemingly because of anger over others being angry)...I apologize. It would be hypocrisy of the first order to do so...and I have never intended it.

3017amen
1.4k
↪Coben

Maybe you should read the thread instead of troll it.

Otherwise , to answer your concern, it's called tough love. — 3017amen

Amen, please allow me an AMEN to this!

Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism". — Dawnstorm

YES...it means with a god...NOT without a 'BELIEF" in a god.

That is my point.

Some atheists here are saying I must be classified as an ATHEIST, because i lack A BELIEF IN A GOD.

How many ways can that be brought to your attention.

Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism".

It never happened. — Dawnstorm

The "it never happened" refers to the contention that the word atheist happened by someone prefixing a "a" to the word "theist."

THAT NEVER HAPPENED. The word atheist was a part of the English language BEFORE the word theist.

The more you talk about etymology, the less persuasive you actually become. — Dawnstorm

Then leave the conversation if you think I am not up to the job...or if I am annoying you with my advocacy.

Anyone actually listening to what I am saying about the entire situation sees my point completely. I am not an atheist by dint of that preposterous, unnecessary "definition"...and neither is any baby, infant, or toddler.

If you cannot see that, the deficiency is in you...not in my arguments or presentation.

Fortunately, I decided I should check out other points of view on god and encountered agnosticism. Agnosticism, to me, is the refusal to commit to a side in the god-debate for the simple reason that the evidence and arguments from both sides of the divide are unsatisfactory and this is an incontrovertible truth and thus is the best option in my mind. Both unfortunately and as expected, agnosticism doesn't get as much publicity as its more flamboyant cousins, atheism and theism, and so people, unaware of its existence, simply don't have it in their list of available belief options. I don't blame anyone for it though; after all to say "I don't know whether god exists/not" is rather dull and uninteresting. — TheMadFool

I agree...it is rather dull and uninteresting.

BUT...(a huge BUT)...if the objective is to lessen the influence of religion in our lives...agnosticism provides a stronger, more realistic approach to that end.

Essentially, the atheistic approach is to say, "Your blind guess that there is a God IS WRONG...and my blind guess that there are no gods IS CORRECT."

That approach is going nowhere...and actually is counterproductive. It reinforces the idea that blind guesses about this issue...MAKE SENSE.

News flash: They don't.

Better to simply say: We do not know if gods exist or not; the evidence (such as exists) is so ambiguous as to be worthless; and making blind guesses about it is about as good as using a coin flip...so let's not do it.

Look...it ain't gonna work anyway. The religious will almost always decide it makes sense to presume a God...and the atheist will almost decide to be arrogant in his/her denial. But at least we would be working toward the end in a reasonable way.

Or at least, that is my opinion.

Such an angry little man you are. I'm asking questions and challenging your positions to test their validity. If you can't handle skeptical criticism of your ideas, then you probably shouldn't be in a philosophy forum. — CeleRate

You are NOT doing that. You essentially accused me of being a hypocrite for doing something that I did NOT do...

...and then you suggested a course of action to correct what you perceived to be my errors THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.

So get off your nonsense that you are merely asking questions and challenging positions to test validity...IF YOU HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION.

I have been participating in Internet fora since the late 1990's...and know how to handle criticism. But I do expect at least a modicum of diligence from someone presuming to criticize.

This is funny. How do you deal with other prefixes like "anti"? Is antimicrobial ok, or just microbial? — CeleRate

"Anti" has a specific meaning. The letter "a" at the beginning of a word does not. Agreed? Or do you think "agreed" means being without "greed?"

I hadn't heard this claim before. I didn't find reference to it either. Do you have a reference? — CeleRate

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

atheist (n.)
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).


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

theist (n.)1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

It's odd to me that you rail against the idea that people would label you incorrectly, and then in the same thread insist that your definition be applied to how someone else would self-identify. Don't you think this is somewhat hypocritical? — CeleRate

Sorry you find it odd.

But I am NOT insisting that they use that descriptor. I MUCH prefer that people set out their take in words...rather than using a descriptor...and have said so many times here.

There is no hypocrisy on my part at all.

Why not just inform someone how you plan to use a word with multiple known usages so you can have a meaningful conversation? — CeleRAte

What is the matter with you? Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth?

I DO INFORM PEOPLE. I have set out my agnosticism several times already. Here it is again for the slow learners who want to suggest that I do what I have been doing regularly:


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.

THAT...is not the take of an atheist. It is the take of an agnostic.

...just some inspiration from a man who was at best, an agnostic. My question is for the atheist; wouldn't agnosticism be a better alternative? — 3017amen

Yup. Especially those atheists who make claim to science, logic, and reason.

Agnosticism is where science leads; agnosticism is where logic leads; and agnosticism is where reason leads.