Pfhorrest
1.5k
about what the word "believe" means.
— Frank Apisa
To believe something is just to think it’s true, nothing more. You could believe for no good reason (a “blind guess”), or you could believe for reasons. My entire OP is a list of reasons why I believe various things that I do. You can contest the cogency of those reasons, but to label the conclusions “blind guesses” without addressing those reasons at all is just to object to the very having of this conversation, in which case... there’s the metaphorical door. — Pfhorrest
Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism. — Pinprick
I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. — Pinprick
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 mentioned I don't believe in a universal purpose. — StarsFromMemory
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
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
tim wood
3.9k
Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not.
— Frank Apisa
Indeed you can, but also eventually you will die. Hence,for most folks, the self-bespoke answer. — tim wood
There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.
— Frank Apisa
Me too. But how would god(s) differ in this case from magic hippopotami? - a serious question, btw.
tim wood
3.9k
Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?
— Frank Apisa
Substitute for "gods" in your sentences any of a variety of alternatives. Likely you will see faults emerge. For the purpose, absurdities work best (e.g., magic hippopotami). And there is plenty of unambiguous evidence, certainly at the least adequate as a basis for a meaningful guess. — tim wood
Kant observed that the question of god - or gods if you must - was one on which men could not remain indifferent. At some point you formulate your own answer to your own question on your own terms, and you live and die with it. Your life, then, is your answer. You can call it a meaningless guess if you want to - because death means you have made some decision. Most folks try for meaning. Our effort here is to try to find the right ground from which to build up reason that can inform.
Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out. — Pinprick
If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. — Pinprick
Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. — Pinprick
And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand. — Pinprick
Pinprick
30
I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object.
— Frank Apisa
That is impossible. — Pinprick
How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=? — Pinprick
BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why. — Pinprick
Pinprick
29
↪Frank Apisa Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. — Pinprick
If X=object, then what does -X=? — Pinprick
What part of your previous post did I sidestep?
Pinprick
28
↪Frank Apisa My position is that you are wrong about what a belief is, if, that is, you don’t think they require objects. — Pinprick
Pinprick
27
If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.
— Frank Apisa
Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.
I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.
Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.
I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.
— Frank Apisa
Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?
Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?
— Frank Apisa
Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:
As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.
— Frank Apisa
So do guesses require objects? — Pinprick
Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."
Would that be reasonable in your opinion?
If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"
If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then? — Pinprick
No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.
The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you. — Pinprick
But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.
That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense
Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as.. — Pinprick
Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know. — Pinprick
793
So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.
Just sayin'!
— Frank Apisa
Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk: — 180 Proof
I would call it "someone demonstrating that a particular "belief" is wrong."The bullshit that atheism is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hair color...is just that...bullshit.
So, Frankie, what do you call it when a person knows - can demonstrate - that belief-T is false? Or simply rejects belief-T because either its claims lack sufficient evidence or it is inconsistent with demonstrably true belief-N? — 180
Also, how do you differentiate "belief in", "belief that" & "know that"? Or do you often conflate them just because, in your incorrigibly addled, feeble mind, they're all the same "bullshit" to you? :sweat: — 180
The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"
— Frank Apisa
Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that. — Pfhorrest
Fair enough. Let's try this. Of all the anythings in the universe we-all know about, whether directly or indirectly, one way of dividing them is to ask if it's man-made. I think it's pretty clear that there must be lots of things in the universe that are not man-made. Question: whatever is meant by "god," is it man-made? I wonder how you answer? — tim wood
tim wood
3.9k
↪Frank Apisa Hmm. I have to ask what you mean in your !), 2) 3) by "existing," "Beings" and again, "Beings."
If by these you mean idea, that god corresponds exactly (i.e., no more and no less) to what mind(s) think he is, then I have no problem. Is that what you mean? — tim wood
tim wood
3.9k
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
Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."
Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief. — Pinprick
Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.
Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it? — Pinprick
That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits... — Pinprick
I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought. — Pinprick
I think saying it is a blind guess is exaggerated. Atheists and Theists alike both have reasons for their stance. Something must have convinced them one way or the other. — Pinprick
How does confidence equate to belief? As an example, an Atheist could say the following. “Theists have been unable to convince me that at least one God exists. Therefore, I do not believe a God exists, and am confident that I am right.” — Pinprick