Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't recall you guys ever answering that question. Maybe, you have responded to something similar in the past, but I don't recall that either. I think you don't have a logical answer that you like.
Its funny how many times that question has been answered, yet people keep on asking it as if asking it over again might change the answer.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you know what a set is?
But you have a belief on the issue, so what does that make you?
The Instructor
In mathematical terms.
I.E. have you heard of and understand the [very] basics of set theory?
Because set theory makes this question very easy to answer.
If we consider 'atheism' to be the set of all people who lack a belief in gods.
And we consider 'strong atheism' to be the set of all people who believe in a lack of gods.
Then it should be immediately apparent that the set 'strong atheism' is entirely contained within
the set of 'atheism', and thus all "strong atheists" are also "atheists".
As all people who believe in the lack of gods also lack a belief in gods...
Please bear in mind when answering this that basic set theory is taught in primary school in the UK.
So I am going to have a really really really hard time believing that someone who* studied engineering
doesn't understand this..
*claims to have
Originally posted by DowardYes, I understand that. However, it rules out the Darwinian macroevolution or evilution idea.
apparently you do not actually understand what intelligent design encompasses. I.D. does not mean that evolution did not happen, but rather It was an integral part of the greater plan.
The Instructor
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou claim the definition of an atheist is one that has no belief on the issue of God and that includes babies. I am pointing out to you that you do have a belief on the issue of God. So you can not include yourself in that definiton of someone that has no belief on the issue. Therefore, I asked the question what does that make you? You certainly can't logically consider yourself as part of that set definition.
Do you know what a set is?
In mathematical terms.
I.E. have you heard of and understand the [very] basics of set theory?
Because set theory makes this question very easy to answer.
If we consider 'atheism' to be the set of all people who lack a belief in gods.
And we consider 'strong atheism' to be the set of all people who believe i hat someone who* studied engineering
doesn't understand this..
*claims to have
I say one has to believe himself to be an atheist. Therefore, the atheist has a belief. This is just a different definition than yours and has nothing to do with mathematics, but with language.
The Instructor 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, he did not.
You claim the definition of an atheist is one that has no belief on the issue of God ....
The definition of an atheist is one that does not hold a positive belief in the existence of God/gods.
A 'theist' is someone who positively believes in the existence of a God/gods. Anyone else is an atheist. The a- prefix is equivalent to 'non-' in this case.
The etymology of the prefix is from Greek, meaning 'without'.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, he did.
No, he did not.
The definition of an atheist is one that does not hold a positive belief in the existence of God/gods.
A 'theist' is someone who positively believes in the existence of a God/gods. Anyone else is an atheist. The a- prefix is equivalent to 'non-' in this case.
The etymology of the prefix is from Greek, meaning 'without'.
Obviously, there can be several definitions of an atheist. You could have also said that an atheist is one that holds a negative belief in the existence of God/gods. The a- prefix does not mean one does not have a belief system, it only means one's belief system is not theistic.
The Instructor 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsSpeaking of intelligent design the ancient Egyptians had four separate creation myths. In one of them the god Ptah created himself and then created the world as a designed thing. He then created Ra who created all other living things (including men and gods) by calling them into being using their true names.
Yes, I understand that. However, it rules out the Darwinian macroevolution or evilution idea.
The Instructor
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell, even they had a better idea of how things happened than you evilution guys. I wonder who they heard that from.
Speaking of intelligent design the ancient Egyptians had four separate creation myths. In one of them the god Ptah created himself and then created the world as a designed thing. He then created Ra who created all other living things (including men and gods) by calling them into being using their true names.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. He did not. And you know perfectly well that he did not, or you would have quoted him doing so.
Yes, he did.
Obviously, there can be several definitions of an atheist.
Yes there can. However we were talking about the one googlefudge gave.
You could have also said that an atheist is one that holds a negative belief in the existence of God/gods.
Yes, some people interpret it that way. I prefer to use 'strong atheist' for that meaning.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by googlefudge:
No. He did not. And you know perfectly well that he did not, or you would have quoted him doing so.
[b]Obviously, there can be several definitions of an atheist.
Yes there can. However we were talking about the one googlefudge gave.
You could have also said that an atheist is one that holds a negative belief in the existence of God/gods.
Yes, some people interpret it that way. I prefer to use 'strong atheist' for that meaning.[/b]
"Babies are not theists, they are non-theists... they are atheists
But if (as you correctly say) babies have not, and indeed cannot, consider
the issue of gods existing then they are by default atheists.
As is anyone else who has no beliefs on the issue."
How about that for quoting googlefudge?
I told googlefudge, I quote
"You claim the definition of an atheist is one that has no belief on the issue of God and that includes babies."
I think that pretty much includes everything he said. You claim he did not say that.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsIts easy to quote him, but not so easy to quote him saying what you claim he said. What you quoted does not say what you claimed he said. The problem seems to be your reading comprehension.
How about that for quoting googlefudge?
You claim he did not say that.
Yes, I claim he did not say that - and he didn't. In fact, if you look at his next post you will see that he clearly explains that that is not what he said.
He said: the set of atheists includes those with no beliefs regarding God.
You said: atheists are exclusively those with no beliefs regarding God.
There is a difference.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsOk... Apparently you can't comprehend basic set theory as it is taught in primary school.
You claim the definition of an atheist is one that has no belief on the issue of God and that includes babies. I am pointing out to you that you do have a belief on the issue of God. So you can not include yourself in that definiton of someone that has no belief on the issue. Therefore, I asked the question what does that make you? You certainly can't l ...[text shortened]... ion than yours and has nothing to do with mathematics, but with language.
The Instructor 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've missed the point, they had four mutually contradictory creation narratives, they would have had no difficulty in believing the scientific narrative as well. Five was a significant number to them so they'd be pleased with an extra narrative. They would probably have regarded it as complementary rather than contradictory.
Well, even they had a better idea of how things happened than you evilution guys. I wonder who they heard that from.
The Instructor