No. Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv. — 180 Proof
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?I'm not exactly sure.... By "beings" I mean to denote "existence." — Frank Apisa
I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that — Pfhorrest
Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk:So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.
Just sayin'! — Frank Apisa
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?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.
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?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?"
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.No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.
Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as. 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.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.
Hi Forest!
Just curious, how would you defend your belief system? For instance, which domain would you draw from ( logic/deductive or inductive reasoning, cosmology, phenomenology/consciousness, metaphysics, existentialism, cognitive science/psychology).
I would be happy to debate the EOG based upon all of the above disciplines, if you want to start a thread. Up to you. I'm just wondering how an Atheist thinks, since I'm obviously not one. — 3017amen
To cut a lot philosophical arguments short, my current position is that while it is possible that (a) very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good being(s) could exist somewhere in the universe (but only in the universe, because physicalism; including in some layer of reality outside of what we falsely think is the universe if we are in something like a simulation, for instance), what you're talking about there now is basically an alien, and there is evidently (because Problem of Evil) no such being sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and good to fulfill the role of "God" here on Earth. So sure, I'm (weakly) agnostic about the generic existence of nice, smart super-aliens somewhere, but there is definitely no God in the usual sense around these parts. — Pfhorrest
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
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
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 would call it "someone demonstrating that a particular "belief" is wrong."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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify? — Frank Apisa
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
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
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
Pinprick
29
↪Frank Apisa Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. — Pinprick
If X=object, then what does -X=? — Pinprick
What part of your previous post did I sidestep?
I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. — Frank Apisa
Pinprick
30
I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object.
— Frank Apisa
That is impossible. — Pinprick
How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=? — Pinprick
BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why. — Pinprick
No...it is not impossible — Frank Apisa
If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. 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.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. — Frank Apisa
If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. — Pinprick
Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. — Pinprick
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
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? — Frank Apisa
Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa
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? — Frank Apisa
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. — Frank Apisa
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? — Frank Apisa
I answer "I think, no." But I am not sure of what you are actually asking. Would you reword it please. — Frank Apisa
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
Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate? — Frank Apisa
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
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.
Indeed you can, but also eventually you will die. Hence,for most folks, the self-bespoke answer.Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa
Me too. But how would god(s) differ in this case from magic hippopotami? - a serious question, btw.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
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
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.
What does that mean, Tim? — 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.