Like many others, Frank A, you confuse yourself about "atheism" by conflating its meta-statements (re: theism) with theism's object-statements (re: g/G). :point:
An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
I'm an atheist insofar as I claim that 'theism is false'.
And if this claim is warranted (which, at minimum both conceptually & physically, it is), then every theistic g/G is necessarily an empty name - cannot refer (like e.g. five-sided triangles, a fish ice-skating on the sun, the Great Cthulhu, etc).
In other words, I neither "believe" that there exists nor "believe" that there does not exist a g/G; but rather assert that the theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. Thus, "YHWH", "Ahura Mazda", "Shakti", "Zeus", "Quetzalcoatl", "Aten", "Vishnu", "Mithras", "Wotan", "Allāh", etc are merely (ritualized) fictions. For atheists like me, theistic-talk is nothing but (occasionally placebo effect-inducing) babytalk, or fetishistic gibberish (e.g. WOO-of-the-gaps); and, in this sense, I follow the via negationis of the apophatic tradition. — 180 Proof
I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole. — Frank Apisa
I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
— Frank Apisa
I am an asshole and you are CLEARLY a theist. Not even a closet theist, but a full-blown, all-out theist. — god must be atheist
There are many wrong things in your post that merely concern meaning and nothing else. I have pointed out many times before in other threads by other closet theists, similar to you, where their mistakes, identical to yours, CLEARLY lie.
I am just fed up with the theists who think every discipline of thought is a religion.
I shan't touch your thread, because you will learn nothing from it.
Show my position some respect
— Frank Apisa
I respect you. I respect your position. It's your intellect that sucks. — god must be atheist
It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa — Frank Apisa
↪Frank Apisa
1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.
2 im asking you that because you are lost in semantics, so I was walking you through the semantics. We can just focus on what the most sensible definition of atheism if you want instead if you like, these are two separate counter-points to your current position. — DingoJones
It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa
— Frank Apisa
So I guess they're also not not doctors or the president or cat lovers?
A tabula rasa is by definition atheist. Absence of a belief in God is the same as not believing in God until indoctrination occurs.
So the agnostic too is a form of atheist, because s/he is without a belief in God. She just is not a "positive atheist" who asserts the definitive absence of God. — Artemis
Bullshit.
I will go into more detail later. — Frank Apisa
I am not an agnostic. If you've read my previous posts and believe I am an agnostic, then you are mistaken - because you, like so many others, conflate meta-statements with object-statements and thereby confuse yourself about "atheism".One...I am not confused. This is a topic I have discussed with very learned people for decades now.
Two...if you are saying you are an agnostic ... — Frank Apisa
Bullshit.
I will go into more detail later.
— Frank Apisa
Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow: — Artemis
↪Frank Apisa
Thats not what Im doing, thats your own sensitivity. I think you are lost in the semantics, and explaining/showing you how is walking you through it, its not meant to be condescending. Its just that I think you are confused, and im just being honest and straightforward. — DingoJones
Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations.
Im not impressed by your appeal to other conversations you’ve had and I dont have time for some chip on your shoulder about being treated as an equal.
Maybe once you’ve cooled off you will see you’ve overreacted here and the discussion can continue but maybe not...it seems like you have more pressing matters to tend to anyway.
↪Frank Apisa If I am asked to check a box, where the choices are a list of religions and "atheist", I check "atheist". On a philosophy forum, I describe my position - which often results in getting more detailed than I gave you. And that's really my point: labels tell you very little, particularly among those of us who are not theists. Different people mean different things by the term - it can be defined narrowly, or broadly, and it's a waste of time to argue for one definition vs another. It's just a word. — Relativist
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
One...I am not confused. This is a topic I have discussed with very learned people for decades now.
Two...if you are saying you are an agnostic ...
— Frank Apisa
I am not an agnostic. If you've read my previous posts and believe I am an agnostic, then you are mistaken - because you, like so many others, conflate meta-statements with object-statements and thereby confuse yourself about "atheism".
I've also discussed "atheism" with philosophers, clergy, well-read laity for decades, Frankie, having precociously become a principled atheist in the late 70s as a consequence of a strict Catholic upbringing & education. If you're an agnostic, good for you. I find it an untenable, incoherent position with respect to any 'theistic g/G', but feel free to demonstrate otherwise, and I'll give your argument all the consideration it's due. But don't whine, Frankie; your confused OP is weak enough. — 180 Proof
Well, Frankie, as you say ...We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me. — Frank Apisa
Ditto. Adieu.If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother. — Frank Apisa
I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities. — Frank Apisa
You're right about that: it does stay with you. 1979, St. Patrick's Cathedral - I served mass with John-Paul II on his first visit to NYC as Pope.
We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me.
— Frank Apisa
Well, Frankie, as you say ...
If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother.
— Frank Apisa
Ditto. Adieu. — 180 Proof
I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities.
— Frank Apisa
Its the latter. Unwarranted judgements are strong indicators of stupidity, thats my litmus test. If someone has a problem with it it tells me everything I need to know about whose smart and whose not.
Anyway, your responses were about being offended so you have yet to address my actual points, if you care to do so. — DingoJones
And bald is a hair color. :roll:Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief." — Frank Apisa
1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. — DingoJones
I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine.
We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.
Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief."
— Frank Apisa
And bald is a hair color. :roll:
Good luck, ↪DingoJones :sweat: — 180 Proof
Consider yourself corrected again: I was talking about you, Frankie, not to you. Fora are public. You may start the thread but you don't own it. Besides, Dingo et al won't mind (even if you do). Like a latter-day Diogenes, I loiter with intent ...What are you doing here? — Frank Apisa
But I imagine lots of parents would object to the suggestion that their newborns are ATHEISTS by dint of a definition initiated by atheists usage.
Let's stick with this a bit. Hit me as hard as you can on this aspect. — Frank Apisa
But I imagine lots of parents would object to the suggestion that their newborns are ATHEISTS by dint of a definition initiated by atheists usage.
Let's stick with this a bit. Hit me as hard as you can on this aspect.
— Frank Apisa
There is no all-purpose definition. When the desire to communicate is strong enough, people will become flexible and work out definitions acceptable to everyone. — frank
But there are atheists INSISTING I am an atheist, despite the fact that I say I am not. They are insisting agnostics, by dint of "definition" are atheists. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.