No. Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is a television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv. — 180 Proof
Unless, of course, one claims 'no theism' because its claims are false or nonsense - instead of 'no g/G' because g/G does not exist - in which case one is not making an object-statement of "belief" (re: g/G-Token) but rather a meta-statement of critique (re: g/G-Type), as I pointed out in my prior post (and elsewhere), which is demonstrable and not "precarious and untenable" in the least.When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no Go[ds], that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same. — 3017amen
:up: :smirk:I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that.
It's just that someone who does not believe either way still does not believe there are any gods, and so still counts as an atheist. — Pfhorrest
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:I LACK A "BELIEF" THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I ALSO LACK A "BELIEF" THAT THERE ARE NO GODS. — Frank Apisa
I take issue with a g/G-Type (re: theism) not a g/G-Token (e.g. Allah). By 'theism' I understand the belief that, at minimum, there is at least one Ultimate Mystery that Created existence and Intervenes (Causes Changes) in the universe. This g/G-Type covers the Abrahamic (JCI) deity, pagan-totemic (anthropic) pantheonic deities ... as well as any philosophical tri-omni (absolute) deity, however they are defined within their respective traditions are nonetheless members of the Mystery-Creator-Intervener (i.e. theism) set.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
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods. — Frank Apisa
Easily. Atheism, as I understand it, is a meta-statement about the truth-value of theism, or what is said / believed about g/G, and therefore not an object-statement about g/G. I.e. There's nothing but nonsense on tv so I turn it off, which is not me watching (i.e. suspending disbelief in) another show on another channel ...How can you say that atheism isn't a belief? It is. Beliefs are propositions held to be true and "god doesn't exist", aka atheism, is a proposition. — TheMadFool
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
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
Well, atheist or not, you certainly ain't no thinker, Frank.I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa
Unless, of course, one claims 'no theism' because its claims are false or nonsense - instead of 'no g/G' because g/G does not exist - in which case one is not making an object-statement of "belief" (re: g/G-Token) but rather a meta-statement of critique (re: g/G-Type), as I pointed out in my prior post (and elsewhere), which is demonstrable and not "precarious and untenable" in the least.
~ 180 Proof
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. — Frank Apisa
Easily. Atheism, as I understand it, is a meta-statement about the truth-value of theism, or what is said / believed about g/G, and therefore not an object-statement about g/G. I.e. There's nothing but nonsense on tv so I turn it off, which is not me watching (i.e. suspending disbelief in) another show on another channel ...
NB: But I'm also an antitheist (scroll up), so what do I know? — 180 Proof
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. — Frank Apisa
[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)
↪TheMadFool It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced. — Mac
Unless, of course, one claims 'no theism' because its claims are false or nonsense - instead of 'no g/G' because g/G does not exist - in which case one is not making an object-statement of "belief" (re: g/G-Token) but rather a meta-statement of critique (re: g/G-Type), as I pointed out in my prior post (and elsewhere), which is demonstrable and not "precarious and untenable" in the least. — 180 Proof
↪Mac I view it as a lack of belief as well. If Theists believe that a God exists, “God” is the object that their belief refers to. If Atheists believe that no Gods exist, then “no Gods” would have to be the object that their belief refers to. But “no Gods” isn’t an object. It is empty (or “nothing” as I referred to it earlier). — Pinprick
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. — 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.