atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently you can't comprehend simple definitions of the English language.

The Instructor

Yeah that only works when you're actually right.

You just demonstrably failed to comprehend basic set theory.

I did not just fail to understand "simple definition" of anything. [you did however]


Evidently I will have to teach you that which you should have learned as a ten year old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mathematics%29

A set is a well defined collection of distinct objects. The objects that make up a set (also
known as the elements or members of a set) can be anything: numbers, people, letters of the alphabet,
other sets, and so on. Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, gave the following definition of a
set at the beginning of his Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre:

A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception [Anschauung]
or of our thought – which are called elements of the set.

Sets are conventionally denoted with capital letters. Sets A and B are equal if and only if they
have precisely the same elements.

This definition is not sufficient for formal mathematics but is adequate for our purposes.

[as a general note I will say that people can have different levels of belief or disbelief about different
god concepts and could be a weak atheist in general but a strong atheist with respect to specific gods
but that's an over complication for the moment... I am also not considering crazy people, I don't know
if it's possible to simultaneously actively believe that a god does and does not exist... but the number of
people with such incoherent mental states is not significant enough to trouble us here.]


When talking about 'theists' and 'atheists' then the 'objects' in the set are people, with the defining
characteristics being the beliefs of those people.

For a person to be a member of the set T [theists] they must have a belief that
"a god or gods exist".

A person who does NOT have a belief that "a god or gods exist" is NOT a member of the set
T.

A person who is not a member of the set T, is a member of the set ~T [not-T].

~T is the set of all non-theists... ie atheists.


To be a member of the set SA [strong atheism] a person must have a belief that "god/s do not exist".
As all members of the set SA are by definition NOT members of the set T then they are also all members
of the set ~T.

So the set SA of strong atheists is entirely contained within the set ~T of atheists.

So while not all members of the set ~T are members of the set SA; All members of the set SA are members
of the set ~T

So while not all atheists are strong atheists, all strong atheists are atheists.


Which should be obvious.

Originally posted by apathist
My computer time is limited, so apologies if it seems I don't attend to the issues.

You think your definition for "weak atheism" excludes babies? I don't see how. I appreciate that it does exclude rocks, so kudos for that.

You seem to deny the possibility of, or at least the validity of the term, “implicit atheism” on the part of anyone ...[text shortened]... uld you suggest?

Good question. Non-theist, I suppose. Babies are also non-atheist.

My computer time is limited, so apologies if it seems I don't attend to the issues.

No problem; I also am often not on here for extended periods.

I think the rocks question is just silly. Rocks know nothing—do you want to call them agnostic? Fine. Rocks care about nothing—do you want to call them “apathists”? Fine. But it would be meaningless talk. And discussion of whether or not “weak (agnostic) atheism” covers rocks or not is just as meaningless.

Googlefudge is right: atheist and nontheist are really the same thing. I don’t mind using them somewhat differently for fine distinctions (e.g. between a “secular” atheist and an atheistic Buddhist)—as long as that is clearly spelled out, and its arbitrariness (in that there is no normative usage, and one could pick some other label just as easily) is recognized.

I don’t know how normative the phrase “implicit atheist” is—maybe one could say “non-cognitive”, or “pre-cognitive” atheist. But that’s not even about semantics anymore—just coming to agreement on a label for discussion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah that only works when you're actually right.

You just demonstrably failed to comprehend basic set theory.

I did not just fail to understand "simple definition" of anything. [you did however]


Evidently I will have to teach you that which you should have learned as a ten year old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mathematics%29

[quo ...[text shortened]... rong atheists, all strong atheists are atheists.


Which should be obvious.

Maybe you evilutionists should apply the set theory and then you would see that dogs are not apes or lizards and they never will be. Nor will apes ever be humans.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you evilutionists should apply the set theory and then you would see that dogs are not apes or lizards and they never will be. Nor will apes ever be humans.

The Instructor

You are right on the money there RJ: dogs are not apes ... well done

Unfortunately some apes are human; they're the ones we call ... er, human!

C- for that post.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You are right on the money there RJ: dogs are not apes ... well done

Unfortunately some apes are human; they're the ones we call ... er, human!

C- for that post.

F- for your post.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nor will apes ever be humans.

Humans are apes. You have been told this many many times and given references to back it up. Why do you find it so hard to learn something new?
Do you also deny that humans are mammals?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Humans are apes. You have been told this many many times and given references to back it up. Why do you find it so hard to learn something new?
Do you also deny that humans are mammals?

I said apes are not humans and I stick to that statement. It has been reported that there are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them.

Apes were not made in the image of God.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said apes are not humans and I stick to that statement. It has been reported that there are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them.

Apes were not made in the image of God.

The Instructor

Humans closest living relatives are chimps and bonobos.
And our DNA differs by about 1%.

Given we have appx 3 billion DNA base pairs that means that we differ by around 30 million
DNA base pairs. [not 150 million]
Or about 10 times the difference between individual humans which clocks in at around 0.1%
or 3 million DNA base pairs.

However given that apes include Orang-outangs, Gorillas, Chimps, Bonobos, Humans... all of
which are different species, the question would be (not that it's really relevant) not how
different we are from our closest living relative but what the level of differences between different
apes is.

And the differences between the different apes is greater than the difference between us and
Chimps.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said apes are not humans and I stick to that statement.

And once again, you fail primary school set theory.

Originally posted by googlefudge
non-theist IS what atheist means.

non-atheist means non-non-theist... which is a double negative and means theist.

Babies are not theists, they are non-theists... they are atheists.

Thank you for making my point.

I know what the prefix means. I admit that if you insist, yes atheistic thought processes are par with rock thought processes. YOU WIN. Well done, pardner. We are proud of you.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]My computer time is limited, so apologies if it seems I don't attend to the issues.

No problem; I also am often not on here for extended periods.

I think the rocks question is just silly. Rocks know nothing—do you want to call them agnostic? Fine. Rocks care about nothing—do you want to call them “apathists”? Fine. But it would be meaningle ...[text shortened]... But that’s not even about semantics anymore—just coming to agreement on a label for discussion.[/b]

I've heard that every baby remembers Heaven and God. So all babies are theist. The further from birth, the harder to remember.

Look, let's get real. Life goes on. Someone is all telling people to believe in gods. The believers are theists. Others decide they don't buy it. They are atheists.

Babies and rocks did not decline to buy it. I claim they are therefore not opposed to theism, they are merely unexposed. This isn't rocket surgery.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Humans closest living relatives are chimps and bonobos.
And our DNA differs by about 1%.

Given we have appx 3 billion DNA base pairs that means that we differ by around 30 million
DNA base pairs. [not 150 million]
Or about 10 times the difference between individual humans which clocks in at around 0.1%
or 3 million DNA base pairs.

However giv ...[text shortened]... differences between the different apes is greater than the difference between us and
Chimps.

Problem is on pure taxonomy it is an unresolved question as to whether apes are a paraphyletic group, meaning that although humans have the same heritage they aren't classed with the apes. The thinking of biologists has moved back and forth over the years. Wikipedia has a reasonable discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape (see the section titled Greater and Lesser as well as the section on History_of_hominoid_taxonomy).

Linnaeus classed us as apes in 1758 and they've been changing their mind ever since. The (scientific) argument is over whether walking, big brains and sophisticated tool construction make us different enough from the rest of the clade to count as a separate group.

The strange thing is that if we are right, the universe is old, and evolutionary theory is at least broadly correct, then it may be wrong to class humans as apes; on the other hand if RJ is right and Genesis is true then there is no reason not to as we can't diverge from them any more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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'.

No atheist is from the Greek atheos meaning "without god" (see the thread in debates). At various times it has been used to mean actual atheists, various don't knows, and Christians (by the Romans in the pagan era). The standard definition that most people use is someone who doesn't believe God exists. New born babies are in a category of not being able to understand the question yet. There is nothing to be gained from categorizing them as atheists. The categorization of adults who haven't heard of the concept is a more interesting one. This would most clearly apply to the few people who are in paleolithic lifestyles - there is a fair amount of evidence that they tend to be animists, so if anything left to their own devices people tend to give inanimate objects or places souls. This doesn't count as theist as there are no powerful gods, but it's not really atheist either.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Humans closest living relatives are chimps and bonobos.
And our DNA differs by about 1%.

Given we have appx 3 billion DNA base pairs that means that we differ by around 30 million
DNA base pairs. [not 150 million]
Or about 10 times the difference between individual humans which clocks in at around 0.1%
or 3 million DNA base pairs.

However giv ...[text shortened]... differences between the different apes is greater than the difference between us and
Chimps.

New studies show the DNA differs even more.

The Instructo0r

Originally posted by RJHinds
New studies show the DNA differs even more.

The Instructo0r

Reference? To a peer reviewed journal and not a video or a creationist site.