Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism. — Pinprick

True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.

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. — Pinprick

I may ponder:

If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If deities are non-physical entities then deities don't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the conclusion of deities not existing as true or in other words, I believe deities don't exist.

Someone else may ponder that God exists:

Deity exists.
If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If the deity in question is a non-physical entity then it doesn't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the assertion of deity existing not true or in other words, I don't believe deity exists.

And to do so...

...one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that "physical entities" are those thing that homo sapiens, the puny prime species of this tiny rock in space...is capable of detecting all entities that are physical!

Why would anyone do that?

...one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that "physical entities" are those thing that homo sapiens, the puny prime species of this tiny rock in space...is capable of detecting all entities that are physical!

Why would anyone do that? — Frank Apisa

You're right in implying it's a bold assumption. I adhere to the metaphysical doctrine of physicalism and do so based on my experiences and my rationalization of it all. It is not a belief denoting certainty because it isn't something that I could fully know. This is why I set my arguments as conditionals.

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

I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more.

In my humble opinion, contrary to what @180 Proof and you all seem to be trying to do viz. make the issue atheism about the nature of beliefs by saying things like atheism is a meta-statement and the like, I think atheism is a belief about the ontology of god, specifically the claim that god doesn't exist. The reasons behind assuming this position are irrelevant as to the adoption of the belief itself.

Pfhorrest: In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay.

To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more. — Pfhorrest

:up:

I think atheism is a belief about the ontology of god — TheMadFool

Yeah, I agree, but as an implication of believing that theism is not true, the truth-value of which being demonstrable, whereas the truth-value of any "belief about the ontology of g/G" is not directly demonstrable.

I/we believe (i.e. assent) that theism is an empty concept and every 'theistic g/G' is, therefore, fictional. — 180 Proof

My position - a-theism entailed by demonstrable anti-theism.

@Pfhorrest@Pinprick

Beliefs must be about propositions in that believing only works if there are propositions to invest belief in. What concerns us here are two propositions:

1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist

There are two epistemic "positions" we may take:

1. Certain that a proposition is true
2. Unsure that a proposition is true

Combine the propositions and the epistemic positions and we get:

1. Certain god exists = theism
2. Unsure god exists = agnosticism
3. Unsure god doesn't exist = still agnosticism
4. Certain god doesn't exist = A

I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.

True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism. — Frank Apisa

You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again.

I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain. — TheMadFool

Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence.

What concerns us here are two propositions:

1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist — TheMadFool

"God" undefined - sans definite predicates (i.e. what type of g/G? or what differentiates g/G from non-g/G?) - renders these statements incoherent (i.e. nonsense).

Rather:

1. Theism is true.
2. Theism is not true.

:yawn:

Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence. — Nobeernolife

You maybe right you know but let's see what amounts to disbelief? The dictionary defines "disbelief" as "mental rejection of something as untrue". Let's suppose that atheism is disbelief of the proposition "god exists". As per the definition then that is equivalent to saying the proposition "god exists" is untrue or false. If a proposition, here "god exists", is false then its contradiction, viz. "god doesn't exist", is true.

Either the above or you must mean that negating "god exists" also must factor in another possibility viz. "we don't know" the truth value of both propositions "god exists" and "god doesn't exist" but that's agnosticism.

So, either atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist or atheism is agnosticism. Since atheism isn't agnosticism, atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist.

The dictionary defines "disbelief" as "mental rejection of something as untrue". Let's suppose that atheism is disbelief of the proposition "god exists". As per the definition then that is equivalent to saying the proposition "god exists" is untrue or false. If a proposition, here "god exists", is false then its contradiction, viz. "god doesn't exist", is true. — TheMadFool

No, that does not follow. A rejection of a claim does not imply a belief in the opposite of the claim. For example if I claim that there is intelligent life in the outer Nebula, I do not claim that there is none. I simply reject your claim because we are talking about something that is unknowable. Clearer?

So, either atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist or atheism is agnosticism. Since atheism isn't agnosticism, atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

I think that a frequent misunderstanding of the two terms. However, ...theism refers to a belief, while ...gnosticism refers to knowledge. So agnosticism is not a weak form of atheism, as is often misunderstood, it is a differnt concept.

"God" undefined - sans definite predicates (i.e. what type of g/G? what differentiates g/G from non-g/G?) - renders these statements nonsensical utterances. — 180 Proof

Indeed, essential to every argument is a good definition but the discussion has strayed into the notion of belief and the nature of belief and what exactly god is isn't important. To say atheism is simply disbelief is tantamount to saying every act of rejecting a proposition is, in your terms, simply a meta-statement or nothing more than a pronouncement of the truth value of beliefs. Not so in my humble opinion because to reject a belief can mean negating a possibility in a disjunction and forces an acceptance of the possibility or possibilities that aren't/weren't negated and these possibilities in re beliefs are other beliefs. So, saying that the proposition "god exists" is false entails that you accept either that such a proposition is unknown/unknowable or that the proposition "god doesn't exist" is true and that is a belief in itself. Since to say the proposition "god exists" is unknown/unknowable is agnosticism, it follows that atheism must be the position that god doesn't exist.

No, that does not follow. A rejection of a claim does not imply a belief in the opposite of the claim. For example if I claim that there is intelligent life in the outer Nebula, I do not claim that there is none. I simply reject your claim because we are talking about something that is unknowable. Clearer? — Nobeernolife

That would be being agnostic about life in outer Nebula.

Clear as ... mud. You lost me, Fool.

That would be being agnostic about life in outer Nebula. — TheMadFool

No. Agnostic would imply that I think life in the outer nebula is unknowable, whch I do not.

Lets go back to your claim: You claimed that when an atheist rejects your claim about a god, he automatically implies a belief in something else. But that is not the case.

No. Agnostic would imply that I think life in the outer nebula is unknowable, whch I do not. — Nobeernolife

or unknown. The idea behind agnosticism is simply that the truth value of a proposition can't be determined. Whether it is unknowable or unknown or there exists other reasons for that is secondary.

Clear as ... mud. You lost me, Fool. — 180 Proof

It's ok. Thank you for engaging with me though. You seem to be someone who's already been to and traveled on from where I am right now. Thanks again.

Clear as ... mud. You lost me, Fool.
— 180 Proof

It's ok. Thank you for engaging with me though. You seem to be someone who's already been to and traveled on from where I am right now. Thanks again. — TheMadFool

Anytime.

Pfhorrest: In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay. — TheMadFool

I agree with what you said in your first paragraph...but disagree with these two sentences completely.

You haven't thought this through if you think "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist" is merely word play. They represent two completely different thoughts.

Agreed.

Nobeernolife
285
True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.
— Frank Apisa

You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again. — Nobeernolife

Are you saying that being unconvinced that gods exist AND being unconvinced that no gods exist...

...are not agnostic positions.

Or are you just shooting off your mouth?

Nobeernolife
285
I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.
— TheMadFool

Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence. — Nobeernolife

Bullshit.

Anyone using the descriptor atheist is using it because he/she either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Agreed.

The use of the word "atheist"...is result of a person doing "believing"...and for the most part, pretending that no "believing" is going on.

People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

ATHEISM is as much a product of "belief" as theism.

People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief.

Just as a reminder to Frank Apisa et al.... I didn´t think it is necessary on a "philosophy" forum, but here we go. Disbelieving a phantastic claim is NOT the same as believing something:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Nobeernolife
287
People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
— Frank Apisa

No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief. — Nobeernolife

You are correct..."disbelieving" IS NOT A BELIEF.

But is not what I said.

I said "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

And both of those things ARE "beliefs."

How about listing all the people YOU know who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...who DO NOT "believe" there are no gods...or who do NOT "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

My guess...you cannot name even one, because my further guess is that there are none.