↪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

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.

Sorry for the doubble message. Forgot to quote.

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

If I only confuse things further, please explain ...

My position - anti-theism - consists only in the positive statement that 'theism is not true' (which, if true, then entails that there aren't any theistic g/G's). In other words, I'm confident I can demonstrate (beyond a reasonable doubt) that whatever is said about - whatever precisely theistic predicate has been ascribed to - any g/G is false or unfalsifiable (i.e. nonsense). I only talk about 'theistic talk about g/G' and defend evaluative meta-statements about theism (i.e. what 'theists claim' g/G is) without making any (of my own) object-statements about g/G.

For example: Monster & Dragon - the latter is a member and the former is a set to which the latter belongs. I claim that the properties of the set Monster are false or unfalsifiable; thus, the set being fictional, and by implication it's members e.g. Dragons are also fictional.

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.

Great, thanks 180. I would invite you then over to the new existence of God thread that Forest created, and I would be happy to debate you.

We're just starting with all the semantics stuff, meaning of terms, words, paradigms, and so forth... . Just as a highlight, there might be some interesting exploration of Spinoza's pantheism and such...

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. So I don't know where you are coming up with this box filled with nothing from. it is not possible: nothing. At least as far as we know. 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.

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

Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. Also, I hope you realize I’m not discussing physics in this thread. Space, particles, and time are only relevant to this discussion if they are used to represent something metaphorically. So in the context of the requirement for beliefs to have objects, what would those things represent?

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

Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box?

:cool: Will check out that thread.

Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. — Pinprick

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.

Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box? — Pinprick

I am not concerned with metaphor. One could just as easily claim that metaphorically the box contains the fundamental physical properties of the universe, therefore, atheists believe in the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and who even knows if that is the truth. Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe?

what is the empty set — Pinprick

Set Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/

^^^ empty set is also defined by this symbol "∅" not zero.

What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism? — Pinprick

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.

entomology — SonOfAGun

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



(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.)

entomology
— SonOfAGun

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Pfhorrest

haha damn you atuocorrect

(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

Yah, is one of the all time greatest movies, I really do know the difference between the words, I swear.

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?

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".

A subset of atheism, called "strong atheism". — Pfhorrest

There are only four possible propositions that can be subject to belief in re god:

1. god exists
2. god doesn't exist
3. god may or may not exist
4. I don't know what god means. Never heard of god

1 is theism, 3 is agnosticism, 4 is lack of belief in god

Ergo 2 must be atheism

If you're unconvinced that god exists then you're denying 1 is true or claiming 1 is false. The remaining options are 2, 3 and 4. 3 is agnosticism and 4 is false for the atheist, leaving only one option viz. 2, the belief that god doesn't exist: atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist.

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

Agreed.

Furthermore, however, whether or not I/we "believe" ...

(A) To the degree the sine qua non claims of theism (i.e. a mystery (1) that created existence (2) and intervenes - causes changes - in the universe (3)) are falsified, Theism's Negation is true (re: anti-theism);

(B) therefore, by implication of Theism's Negation being true, every Theistic g/G's Negation is also true. (re: atheism)

Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe? — SonOfAGun

I/we believe (i.e. assent) that theism is an empty concept and every 'theistic g/G' is, therefore, imaginary.

NB: As for non-theisms (e.g. animism, pandeism, gnosticism, acosmism), I(we) tend to find them either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché).

I'm getting so tired of writing thousands of words about subsets and multidimensional spectra that I decided to just draw a picture instead and see if that's worth more:



Of particular note: all soft atheists are agnostics of some kind (5 & 8), but not all agnostics are soft atheists, some soft agnostics are theists (4) or hard atheists (6). But all hard agnostics (8) are also soft atheists. Sorry Frank.

(You could in principle believe neither, — Pfhorrest

I find the position IMPOSSIBLE to not beleive in both Strega-etcs exist in your room, and that they don't exist in your room. That is a huge logical error, because it contradicts the law of the excluded middle. That you beleive in neither, is impossible.

That was the entire point of my "agnosticism" thread that was shredded by the religious, for some reason or another.

The law of the excluded middle demands that G or not-G, but when we have a function B(G), the law of the excluded middle permits B(G), B(not-G), not-B(G), and not-B(not-G).

B(not-G) entails not-B(G), so if B(G) then not-B(not-G), but you can not-B(G) and not-B(not-G) at the same time with no contradiction.

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.

Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe? — SonOfAGun

I believe the following (not proven facts, but items of belief):
- supernatural forces don't exist, supernatural beings don't exist
- matter and energy can't be created or destroyed
- laws of nature can't be bridged or short-circuited or acted against
- humans (and all other living creatures as well) are the products of natural evolution
- life started naturally and arising on its own by natural forces, and is based on chemistry
- life forms (sentient, feeling beings) other than our carbon-based chemical lives are possible
- in the unassailability of the law of the excluded middle
- in the ability of reason to come to better conclusions than the ability of believing and obeying dogma

What I don't know and therefore refuse to speculate on, and refuse to accept claims by others on these things:

- if matter is infinite in amount in the entire universe (not just in the known universe)
- if god exists or not (I choose to believe he does not)
- if the soul survives the body and there is an afterlife or not (I believe it does not)
- if there is an afterlife, I don't have any clue what it's like for the soul (IFF souls live outside the body, before and after occupying a body, I believe it may be horrible, and therefore we, as souls in the non-physical world, strive to get into a living body, any body, and we fight tooth-and-nail with each other to do so)
- whether the world I experience is real, or else is how I perceive real, or else I live in a state of solipsism (But I choose to believe that it is how I perceive real)
- whether others around me have souls and feelings (but I choose to believe they do)

What I know for sure, and which knowledge items are in the realm of empirical knowledge:

- I exist
- space is infinite (3D space) and is here to stay, forever since infinite past

----------------------------

So far so good. Maybe I left out a few things, essential ones, too, but this should do for the time being.

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. It is not right.

1. You say you can't believe in both God and Not God.
2. You say you can beleive in not (both god and Not God.)
3. not changes the god to not god and the Not God into God, while cancelling out not.
4. This (3.) changes your claim to "it is possible to believe in not god and god both".
5. You claim 2 is possible. But it is not, since it claims the same as 1, which you declared true, and because it has been shown in (3) and (4) that (1) and (2) are equivalent. One can't claim the equivalent of itself and declare that one is possible and the other isn't.

Check your proof again — god must be atheist

It's not a proof, just an explanation.

You say you can beleive in not (both god and Not God.) — god must be atheist

Nope, I say you can not-believe in both God and Not God.

You can't "believe both something and its contradiction" = believe in God and Not God
You can't "believe both the negations of those two things" = believe in Not God and God
You can "not believe both things" = not believe in God and not believe in Not God

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.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.' ~Ibn Sina

:death: :flower:

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

:up:

B(not-G) is different from not-B(G). — 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.

Proof I proposed mentions "beleiving in not god". I meant to say "not believing in god" is equivalent to "believing not in god." I will re-write my claim, because the way I wrote it, is not the way I meant it. You are right, and Proof180 is right. Right now I am naked, going into the shower, just having woken and gotten up from bed. Wait a few hours, please, for my response. I give you round 1.

Okay, I am still pre-shower, but I could not wait with this.

0. "I don't believe in god" is equivalent to "I believe not in god".
1. I believe (in god and not in god). <impossible.
2. I beleive not(not in god and not not in god). <negating the terms inside the bracket and outside the entire term, not changing thus truth value.
3. I believe not(not in god and in god). <cancelling "not not", thus not changing truht value.
4. I believe not (in god and not in god). <exchanging the terms inside the bracket, not changing truth value
5. (4) I believe not (in god and not in god) therefore has the same truth value as (1) I believe (in god and not in god).
6. Therefore, since (1) is necessarily false, and because we never changed its truth value in the proof, "I believe not (in god and not in god)" is also necessarily false.

Off to the shower.

Your wording was confusing, BUT...if you were asserting that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist...and

b) I "believe" no gods exist...

...are equivalent...you are dead wrong.

They are not the same thing at all.

One can logically say, "I do not 'believe' any gods exist and I also do not 'believe' there are no gods." (Some people 'believe' at least one god exists and some people 'believe' there are no gods...and I am not a part of either of those groups.)

One CANNOT logically say, "I 'believe' no gods exist...AND I 'believe' at least one god exists.

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

If the term “empty set” suits you better, so be it. I think my point remains valid regardless.

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

I’m not trying to determine the truth of anyone’s belief. I’m trying to determine if believing that there are no Gods is logically possible. I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. Therefore, Atheism (and possibly other terms such as Nihilism) are better defined as a lack of belief in X, as opposed to believing that not-X, when not-X implies an empty set. Believing that not-X, when doing so implies an empty set, is actually not a belief at all. That is my claim.

If being unconvinced that god exists is atheism then what is being convinced that god doesn't exist? — TheMadFool

Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism.

http://geekofalltrades.org/_misc/atheist-agnostic.png — Pfhorrest

Agree 100% with this as long as you aren’t equating “thinks” with “believes.”

I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. — Pinprick

No matter that you "feel" that way, "believing" (guessing, supposing) that an "empty set" is an empty set...is not equivalent to "lacking 'belief.'"

If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that there is (something) in a box...that, you agree, is a "belief" (guess or supposition).

If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that the box in question is empty (except for space and air)...that is as much a "belief" (guess or supposition) as the former.

Your arguments that it is not...apparently based on an insight you suppose you have had...seems contrived. The fact that X is emptiness (except for space and air)...is no different from (something/anything) when a guess that X is what the box contains.

Or so it seems to me. At 83, I am far removed from the philosophical arguments you seem to be presenting in what does appear to me to be contrivance.