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

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.

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

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.

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

:up: :smirk:

I LACK A "BELIEF" THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I ALSO LACK A "BELIEF" THAT THERE ARE NO GODS. — Frank Apisa

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

I do not live as though there are no gods...any more than I live as though there are gods.

But, you are determined to suppose I am an atheist. I guess having people like me in the atheist camp would increase the IQ level of the group...but you gotta do without me. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

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

Yes...you are wrong again.

And to think...you people pretend that you are basing your arguments on logic and science..a laughable assertion if ever there was one!

There is absolutely NO UNUMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for...or against...the existence of gods.

Of course, that does not stop theists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that at least one GOD exists...nor does it stop atheists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that none exist.

Atheists/theists...two sides of one coin!

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa

Well, atheist or not, you certainly ain't no thinker, Frank.

Happy Friday the 13th!

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.

Ok, now I have shown you the valid definitions of atheism, but this dose nothing to stop people from doing silly things like using the "non" translation, or claiming the grammatically invalid "no theism", and that is on top of the people using the word to express a disbelief in god. All of this confusion because the average person is not a scholar or genius. To me this word is far to confused to be of any real use.

Agnostic is a much better word, which basically means: No Permanently occulted/esoteric knowledge, or in other words: present the evidence and reason for your claims, otherwise why should we even listen to you.

Happy Friday 13th back atcha, 180.

Life has changed so much over the last week...I feel like I'm in another world...one created by Stephen King.

Since the vast majority of the people in the world are not scholars the definition usually chosen to work with is the colloquial definition ... — SonOfAGun

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Colloquial is as colloquial does ... :yawn:

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.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Colloquial is as colloquial does ... :yawn: — 180 Proof

It is not an ad populum. It takes into account how people understand the word on a large scale. Also there is nothing false about that definition. Many people take it to mean just that.

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

Looked it up this isn't true

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

Atheism is a meta-statement on theism? Well, in a sense, atheism is claiming the statement "god exists" is false but if it were left to that alone I would agree with you; however, to say "god exists" is false , is to imply "god doesn't exist" is true. It's this inference, "god doesn't exist", which is a proposition, that constitutes a belief and is what atheism truly is; atheism may be a claim on the truth value of theism's central claim but that is done with an objective - to claim god god doesn't exist which is a belief if ever saw one.

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

according to google, etymology of theism places its origin in the mid 17th century and atheism in the 18th century.

[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)

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

Atheism is a lack of belief or not being convinced of a god. I don't understand how you get to a belief in "nothing." show me nothing.

It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced.

[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)

Those are not referring to the the same thing. the first is a Greek to middle french translation of "godless", and has no relevance to the current understanding of the word theist. Also one cannot possibly create an opposition without something to oppose. so theos or the middle french théisme must first already be understood/understandable.

↪TheMadFool It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced. — Mac

Its about how people interpret/understand the word and use it just as you are doing now. many people have many interpretations of the word and use it in various ways, very few of which are actually correct. and this causes communication problems.

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

Hey 180!

Not sure I follow that completely. If an atheist makes any kind of positive statement or proposition or judgement that says, " God does not exist ", therein lies your paradox. You may certainly question the EOG in normal discourse, but as an atheist you just can't make any declarative/sentence or oral statements.

If you did, you would have to defend it just like a theist. Am I missing the obvious?

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).

↪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

Yah, but belief in an empty set does not constitute belief in nothing. Maybe they believe in fairies. What? There is nothing stopping them from believing in fairies.

Huxlian agnosticism is the true path.

What is the difference between emptiness and nothingness?

↪SonOfAGun What is the difference between emptiness and nothingness? — Pinprick

An "empty set" adjust for the existence of the rest of reality.

^^^ Plus we also don't need to define the rest of reality in terms of belief.

^^^ Also the hard difference: Nothing is impossible. Something can actually be empty given the right definition of empty. "My glass is empty mam. Will you please refresh my beverage?" "My Glass has nothing in it." = false statement.

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.

K?

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

That is not the current definition of Theism man, don't know how to simplify it for you any more than that man. As well, concept of theos predates athéisme. with out the concept théisme having already been understood/understandable you cannot have the opposing atheism. you cannot just make up anything you want to put an opposition to "I am aparforial" it doesn't mean anything man. at best they came into existence at the same time and then your athéisme doesn't even refer to the current ENGLISH WORD and usage. for the love of Oden's beard man.

Calm down, Man...you're gonna blow a gasket.

You were suggesting an incorrect etymology of the word "atheist"...and I corrected you. Seems to me a "thank you" is in order...not all this bullshit.

Yes, I agree with you that debating atheists have managed to get the meaning of the word "atheist" changed from what it SHOULD mean...a person who supposes there are no gods...or who supposes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...to anyone lacking a "belief" in any gods.

But doing that forces agnostics, babies, infants, and toddlers to accept the descriptor "atheist" to be considered atheists. I cannot speak for all agnostics or babies or infants or toddlers...

...but I will not accept that. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Not sure why that argument bothers you so...but you certainly are entitled to be as bothered as you chose to be.

I have no problem with the stated entomology, only the interpretation and being told that I am wrong, when, through the course of logic, I have shown my reason to be sound.

1. your entomology doesn't refer to the English usage
2. it is impossible to oppose something that does not already exist.

aside from that, your authoritative use of the word Yo kinda pissed me off. You should deal with my arguments rather than your current strategy.