Spirituality
13 Jul 13
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree that you do not have to justify not-believing in god. It would be in epistemic good faith, however, to justify believing that not-god (~G).
I disagree that atheism is not a philosophical position. Agnosticism certainly is. Philosophical positions come with baggage, with atheism the implication is that I have an answer to the question "Does God exist", since I don't have an answer I don't see why I should justify the negative one.
Incidentally regarding the foreigner analogy - just becau ...[text shortened]... eing the old Anglo-Saxon word for foreign).
Edit: Capitalization of Heinlein reference.
08 Aug 13
1 edit
Just as an aside, for a long time, I applied to myself the term “non-theist”, to distinguish myself (as a philosophical nondualist, and generally a Zen Buddhist) from the more “secular” atheists, such as Robb. It was, I eventually decided, an unnecessary piece of pedantry.
It also alliterated better with my broader self-identification as a “non-aligned, non-supernatualist, non-theist nondualist”.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBangs head on desk...
I disagree that atheism is not a philosophical position. Agnosticism certainly is. Philosophical positions come with baggage, with atheism the implication is that I have an answer to the question "Does God exist", since I don't have an answer I don't see why I should justify the negative one.
Incidentally regarding the foreigner analogy - just becau ...[text shortened]... eing the old Anglo-Saxon word for foreign).
Edit: Capitalization of Heinlein reference.
Atheism is not about the question "does god exist?".
The question is "do you Believe god/s exist?"
Its a question of belief not knowledge.
If you don't know if you believe that god/s exist then you don't currently believe
that gods exist.
You can't have a firm conviction that god/s exist and not know that you have a
firm conviction that god/s exist.
theism/atheism is belief vs lack of belief.
gnosticism/agnosticism is knowledge vs lack of knowledge.
They're answers to different questions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdOh yeah you have to justify the claim ~G just as you would have to justify any other claim.
I agree that you do not have to justify not-believing in god. It would be in epistemic good faith, however, to justify believing that not-god (~G).
~G is in this instance the much less extraordinary claim than claiming G, but it's a claim
non-the-less and needs sufficient justification.
However atheism simply requires not claiming G. It does not require claiming ~G.
And as such has no burden of proof as it is not making any claims that need justifying.
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYeah, I am still making the distinction in propositional content between positive and negative (strong/weak) atheism--only the positive atheist has that epistemic responsibility.
Oh yeah you have to justify the claim ~G just as you would have to justify any other claim.
~G is in this instance the much less extraordinary claim than claiming G, but it's a claim
non-the-less and needs sufficient justification.
However atheism simply requires not claiming G. It does not require claiming ~G.
And as such has no burden of proof as it is not making any claims that need justifying.
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes. The standard epistemological formulation is that knowledge is “justified, true belief”. That is a belief that is justified (by reason and/or empiricism), and happens to be true. For one who does not hold a belief (again—we are agreed on this), the question of epistemic justification does not apply. And, again, (1) not-believing that G and (2) believing that not-G have, as LemonJello noted, different propositional content.
Bangs head on desk...
Atheism is not about the question "does god exist?".
The question is "do you [b]Believe god/s exist?"
Its a question of belief not knowledge.
If you don't know if you believe that god/s exist then you don't currently believe
that gods exist.
You can't have a firm conviction that god/s exist and not know that you ...[text shortened]... gnosticism is knowledge vs lack of knowledge.
They're answers to different questions.[/b]
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeNow you are accusing me of saying something I didn't, although we do seem to agree on what agnosticism is. I said an answer to the question, having an answer does not imply the answer is correct, or even particularly logical. If one believes God exists then the answer is yes; if one believes to the contrary the answer is no; I do not care to give an answer or know one. Explain to me how my lack of either belief or disbelief makes me either one or the other?
Bangs head on desk...
Atheism is not about the question "does god exist?".
The question is "do you [b]Believe god/s exist?"
Its a question of belief not knowledge.
If you don't know if you believe that god/s exist then you don't currently believe
that gods exist.
You can't have a firm conviction that god/s exist and not know that you ...[text shortened]... gnosticism is knowledge vs lack of knowledge.
They're answers to different questions.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think the clearest answer is set theory.
Now you are accusing me of saying something I didn't, although we do seem to agree on what agnosticism is. I said an answer to the question, having an answer does not imply the answer is correct, or even particularly logical. If one believes God exists then the answer is yes; if one believes to the contrary the answer is no; I do not care to give an an ...[text shortened]... one. Explain to me how my lack of either belief or disbelief makes me either one or the other?
For a person to be a member of set T (theism) then they must have a belief
[a firm conviction that] that G [god/s exist].
Anyone who does not have a belief that G is not in set T and must therefore
be a member of the set ~T.
Atheism is the set ~T.
Thus the answer to your question is that unless you actively believe that god/s exist
then you are not a theist. Atheist is simply the term for people who are not a theist.
It's not a distinction between those who answer the question "do you believe that god/s exist?"
Yes and those who answer no.
It's a distinction between those who answer yes and those who answer anything else.
Which is why atheism is NOT a philosophical position.
It's single sole defining characteristic is that you are not a member of the set T.
WHY you are not a member of set T is irrelevant, and hugely variable.
Again atheism does NOT require ANY beliefs. You do not have to believe ~G, you just have to
lack belief in G.
What you are saying is "well I don't believe G, and I don't Believe ~G, So what am I?"
You're an atheist.
You're also an agnostic.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipWrong.
An Agnostic says one of two things:
1.) "I don't know if God exists or not. Maybe somebody out there knows."
Or
2.) "I don't know if God exists or not. Nobody else knows either."
An Atheist says -
1.) "No God exists."
2.) "See #1."
Seriously, how hard is this to grasp.
An atheist is simply someone who LACKS a belief in the existence of god/s.
I am [and this is dependent on] a STRONG atheist. I believe gods don't exist.
But I know plenty of atheists, including prominent ones, who simply lack a belief in gods
and don't disbelieve in them.
They ARE atheists, They ARE part of the atheist movement, and they DON'T say that
no god exists. They say they don't know, they say they lack a belief in gods.
They prove you wrong.
Now can we all get over this f***ing stupid argument over labels that says absolutely nothing
about who is right or why.
YOU as a theist DO NOT get to dictate what OTHER people believe. Or what the labels THEY give
THEMSELVES mean.
Atheists are simply people who are not theists.
Period.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Wrong.
Seriously, how hard is this to grasp.
An atheist is simply someone who LACKS a belief in the existence of god/s.
I consider this a popular modification designed to rig the debate so that no burden is left upon the atheist for proof.
Now, philisophers revisit their arguments, tune them up, strengthen them, improve them and bolster them up to make them stronger. Both theists and atheists do this.
Christians apologists revamp their arguments when they discover weak points of vulnerability. Atheists do the same thing.
So I regard your revision similar to Christian apologists redefining the cosmological argument to make it better -
Previous - Everything that exists has a cause.
New and Improved - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Likewise the new atheists revamp.
1.) Atheism is the belief that no God/s exists.
2.) Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods.
I am [and this is dependent on] a STRONG atheist. I believe gods don't exist.
Okay. I think we know that. But the difference between a strong or weak atheist is just his or her ability to defend the belief.
Atheists, like theists, can have varying degrees of eloquence and debating ability.
But I know plenty of atheists, including prominent ones, who simply lack a belief in gods and don't disbelieve in them.
Googlefudge, if you don't believe in God then you lack a belief in God. What is the difference ?
Maybe you are saying that there are ANTI-theists and A-theists.
But regardless of how strong a fellow can argue - to not believe in God is to be ANTI theist. How hard can that be to grasp ?
He may be strong ANTI like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or he may not be so eloquent but an atheist just the same.
They ARE atheists, They ARE part of the atheist movement, and they DON'T say that no god exists. They say they don't know, they say they lack a belief in gods.
If they say that they do not know if God is a reality or not then they are agnostics. That is what agnosticism means - "you don't know."
If you want the back door ajar to be able to say that you don't know if God is real or not then have the guts to tell the world that you're an agnostic rather than an atheist.
What you seem to be trying to do is make more room for more people to be called atheists so you don't feel too isolated and lonely. You want to assure yourself that more and more people, after all, are on your side.
My guitar is sitting beside me. I assure you my guitar lacks a belief in God. Is my guitar an atheist ?
They prove you wrong.
Now can we all get over this f***ing stupid argument over labels that says absolutely nothing
about who is right or why.
YOU as a theist DO NOT get to dictate what OTHER people believe. Or what the labels THEY give
THEMSELVES mean.
Atheists are simply people who are not theists.
Period.
There you go again fuming and foaming at the mouth in vehement anger.
How do you define an atheist who has to curse to make his argument sound stronger ? lol.
So an agnostic is a brand of atheist ?
Oh well. What do you think of this guy ? He claims to have evidence that atheists are on average less educated. I don't know that. But it is interesting that the claim is being made.
Go ahead and take it on the chin now. I just suffered through a 20 minute brow beating from an Oxford atheist philosopher debating with W.L. Craig.
Can you imagine ? "Most Atheists are Uneducated"
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipYou are clearly confusing arguments with definitions. They are not the same thing at all. The only reason you are objecting to our definition for 'atheist' is because you think it is an argument. You are wrong.
I consider this a popular modification designed to rig the debate so that no burden is left upon the atheist for proof.
Now, philisophers revisit their arguments, tune them up, strengthen them, improve them and bolster them up to make them stronger. Both theists and atheists do this.
Christians apologists revamp their arguments when they discover we ...[text shortened]... evision similar to Christian apologists redefining the cosmological argument to make it better -
Definitions are neither true nor false nor right or wrong.
And I think I agree with googlefudge that anyone who chooses to use a label for themselves has priority when deciding a definition. I use the same rule when it comes to the label 'Christian'. I recognise the right of anyone to call themselves a Christian whatever they think that label means.
Of course you retain the right to have your own private definition and dogmatically refuse to accept the one we use, but that will only lead to the kind of confusion RJ keeps creating when he refuses to use words like evolution according to their standard definitions because he has a religious fear of the word itself.
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm pretty sure you are way smarter than I am, so I say this carefully.
I did give that as the etymology.
[b]At various times it has been used to mean actual atheists,
Now we have 'actual atheists'? What are the 'I don't knows'? Fake atheists?
The standard definition that most people use is someone who doesn't believe God exists.
No, it is not the standard definition. It is not clear that there is a ...[text shortened]... ng them as atheists. [/b]
And nothing to be lost either. They are certainly not theists.[/b]
Standard defintions lose traction the more technical an issue becomes. It makes more sense to notice how the experts use the words in question, as opposed to insisting that standard definitions must prevail. Yes?
And exactly what proof do you have that newborns are not from the heavens and therefore can not possibly remember anything prior to birth?