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

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, but do not want to describe yourself as an agnostic for some reason...fine with me. I support your position.

Three...THERE ARE AGNOSTICS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE TOLD BY INSISTING ATHEISTS THAT BECAUSE THEY LACK A "BELIEF" IN ANY GODS, THEY ARE PERFORCE, ATHEISTS.

I am one of them. Show my position some respect.

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.

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.

Unnecessarily rude comment deleted by user.

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

Out of courtesy for you, I will agree that you are an asshole...but I am not a theist of any sort.

Sorry you made that mistake, but considering your immediate concession, I can understand it.

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.

Calm down, GMBA...you are gonna blow a gasket.

I am not a theist...and I suspect many of the people you imagine you schooled are not either.

If you feel I have made any mistakes...name them rather than generically saying I have made mistakes.

I am just fed up with the theists who think every discipline of thought is a religion.

Okay...and you must be mistaking me for someone who cares what you are fed up with. That may be our problem here.

I shan't touch your thread, because you will learn nothing from it.

You already have...and my guess is you will again.

Show my position some respect
— Frank Apisa

I respect you. I respect your position. It's your intellect that sucks. — god must be atheist

Whoops...here you are again.

I was correct above.

Anyway...I thank you for your respect of me. I thank you for your respect of my position. I could not care less that you think my intellect sucks. My intellectual achievements are many...and you are just out of control.

Calm down...and try to discuss rather than school. You might be better at the former than the latter.

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.

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.

↪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

I've got to leave right now...I have an aunt in intensive care that I have to tend to. But I just read this...and I suggest you get off the condescension. I guarantee I have discussed these issues with people more credentialed and informed than you...and I am not about to have you suppose you are "walking me through any semantics."

Now I'll leave and come back...I hope a bit cooled off. This can be a good discussion if we treat each other as equals...rather than you as a scholar attempting to school me.

Okay ?

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.

Bullshit.

I will go into more detail later. — Frank Apisa

Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow:

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.
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.

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.

"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.

Bullshit.

I will go into more detail later.
— Frank Apisa

Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow: — Artemis

If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother.

↪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

No you are not...you are being condescending...blatantly so. But I have cooled down, so I am going to over-look it and in fact, I offer an apologyfor my outburst. My aunt's illness has got me on edge. She is my last living older relative. (She is not in intensive care, by the way. She is in rehab...93 years old with a fractured hip and an attitude of a honey badger. Not a lot of fun.)

Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations.

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.

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.

Then don't be impressed. If you want to discuss the issue...let's do so. If you want to be condescending to me...take a hike.

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.

I can multi-task with the best of people.

↪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

I like describing my position, although sometimes it saves time to use the label, agnostic.

Here is my take on the question of gods:

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.

"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

Hey, Proof.

I understand that Catholic thing. As an adult (over 60 years ago) I had the pleasure of serving Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Even though I am 6 decades away from that event, I still treasure the moment. It was something that stays with you.

We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me.

Have a great life.

You're right about that: it does stay with you. 1979, St. Patrick's Cathedral - I served mass as an altar boy (Cardinal Spellman H.S.) 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.

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.

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

Yeah...see ya around.

But I gotta congratulate you on the John Paul II thing. That was big. I also served as acolyte to the Primate of England in 1956 or 1957 (can't remember which.) It was a High Mass for American service members. They don't usually allow lay people to serve as acolyte, because it is one of the minor orders.

Great memories...but I am delighted I am relieved of that religion burden.

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

Name the single one item you want me to comment on...and I will do so.

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.

Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief." — Frank Apisa

And bald is a hair color. :roll:

Good luck, :sweat:

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 dispute that.

Who gets to decide what "the proper usage" of the word is?

Atheists?

They have a dog in this fight...and I am not willing to give them that authority over me.

I acknowledge that atheists want to insist that ANYONE who does not "believe" (in) any gods...is an atheist.

I'm telling them to get lost.

I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine.

I am arguing that it should not be used the way it is being used. Period.

There is no structural background for its use the way they are demanding.

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.

Where does that all come from? What did I possibly say that causes you to think any of that.

My problem with the word is that it is used the way it is used.

I am simply saying I will not allow that definition to require me to be considered an atheist.

I truly do not care if I am the only person on the planet who feels that way.

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.

Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief."
— Frank Apisa
And bald is a hair color. :roll:

Good luck, ↪DingoJones :sweat: — 180 Proof

Correct me if I am wrong on this...but didn't you say "adieu" to me in this discussion?

What are you doing here?

What are you doing here? — Frank Apisa

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 ...

:death: :flower:

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.

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

I like that idea, Frank, and agree with it.

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.

I am discussing that complexity here.

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

I'd like to discuss the bigger picture for a second.

Educated people are more likely to be atheists. I suggest the reason for this is that educated people have been insulated from the harshness of human life. They've been able to avoid the fear and pain experienced by those living on the edge. People who watch one child die after another turn to religion to maintain sanity. Marx referred to it as opium, and he was right. What's often overlooked is that an anesthetic can make the difference between standing soberly at the graveside and being curled up in a ball on the floor. Religion sustains.

So discussions about what to call whom are dust compared to the mighty agent of atheism called penicillin: saver of children. Think about that the next time a positive atheist is annoying you. "You're nothing compared to the stuff we get from bread mold."

But look out at the world: do you see the advantages of healthcare expanding out around the globe, destroying religion in its wake? I don't. I see Medicare getting ready to dry up. I see pharmaceutical companies eyeing the bottom line. I see people drowning in medical debt and thankful to be drowning instead of dead.

This trend is fertilizing the ground for voodoo practitioners and shamans. It will fill the churches with the grieving. The occasional moongazer will say in his heart that there is no god, but atheism as we know it will be gone.

One day.

Well, that's some ... "voodoo" fertilizer. :mask: