↪SonOfAGun 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. — Frank Apisa
If I only confuse things further, please explain ...I prefer anti-theism to atheism (of any flavor), which I understand as a 2nd order objection to 1st order theism, or defeasible claim that theism is not true (because predicates attributed by (philosophical or religious) theism to any g/G are either easily falsified or conceptually incoherent and/or inconsistent with one another). The essential question concerns, as I see it, the truth-value of what we (can) say, or has ever been said, about a theistic g/G - as it was for the apophatics - and not 'whether or not any g/G exists'. — 180 Proof
An "empty set" adjust for the existence of the rest of reality. — SonOfAGun
I don’t understand this. I’m not making any claims about the rest of reality. There’s only two options: a box with at least one God in it, or a box with no Gods in it. A box with no Gods in it is an empty box because it contains nothing. There’s no need to try to make claims about what other things could be in the box, if that’s what you’re trying to say. — Pinprick
An empty box, does not contain "nothing". Even if you were to draw a perfect vacuum in the box and seal it in complete darkness it still contains space, virtual particals, and time. — SonOfAGun
You can have a box with no god in it. That is perfectly fine. Don't know how you are going to prove that though. — SonOfAGun
Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. — Pinprick
Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box? — Pinprick
What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism? — Pinprick
entomology — SonOfAGun
(Fun fact: I once wrote a paper for a philosophy class about Descartes' conceivability argument, wherein I argued that the argument is sound but Descartes misconstrues what "conceivable" really means, which I titled "Inconceivable: or, You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". The TA who graded it got a big laugh out of it.) — Pfhorrest
It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced. — Mac
If being unconvinced that god exists is atheism then what is being convinced that god doesn't exist? — TheMadFool
A subset of atheism, called "strong atheism". — Pfhorrest
Agreed.One way of being absent belief in X is to believe in X's negation ("not believing in X" is true when it is not assented to, and assenting to its negation is a way of not assenting to it). — fdrake
I/we believe (i.e. assent) that theism is an empty concept and every 'theistic g/G' is, therefore, imaginary.Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe? — SonOfAGun
(You could in principle believe neither, — Pfhorrest
Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe? — SonOfAGun
In plain English, you can't believe both something and its contradiction, or believe both the negations of those two things, but you can not believe both things so long as you don't believe not either of them. — Pfhorrest
Check your proof again — god must be atheist
You say you can beleive in not (both god and Not God.) — god must be atheist
:up:There's a difference between not-believing something and believing not-something. That's why I used functional notation, to make that clear.
B(not-G) is different from not-B(G). The former implies the latter, sure, but not vice versa. — Pfhorrest
You can believe in something not god, is different from not believing in god? It only means that in the first instance you make no claim about the existence of god. The claim and god don't intersect.B(not-G) is different from not-B(G). — Pfhorrest
Your use of the word in question is not typical of everyday speech. You say that there is nothing in the box, therefore, atheists believe in nothing, as an attempted philosophical argument, however, "nothing" in philosophical terms, where logic is applied, the term nothing has a very specific meaning, which is why we use the term "empty set" in reference to what you are talking about. — SonOfAGun
My assertion: Belief is not a valid approach to logic in the first place, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in here. The true test of of the truth value of a thing/concept is can it's existence be proven or can it be practically applied in reality. Whether or not humans believe something is entirely irrelevant. — SonOfAGun
If being unconvinced that god exists is atheism then what is being convinced that god doesn't exist? — TheMadFool
I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. — Pinprick
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.