We are all Atheists

Originally posted by Agerg
What he says highlights the reason why we are atheists of course, I'm not challenging that.
But to use your definition of "atheism" is throwing away the very thing that encapsulates the position we (I presume) all share; that is...disbelief in [b]any gods that are so far known to us; not just a sub-collection of them.[/b]

I think the quote only makes sense if a new definition of atheism is used in the preamble.

Most of us think (I assume) that atheism denotes a lack of belief in the existence of any of the members of the set of putative gods, let's call the set G. So the general term 'atheist' means somebody who does not believe in g1, g2, g3,.....

Now we introduce the notion that somebody can be an atheist with respect to a specific element of the set, so to say that somebody is an atheist with respect to g3 means that they do not believe in the existence of g3.

According to this use of the term, it makes sense to say that Jones is an atheist with respect to Thor, or Jones is an atheist about Poseidon.

In that context, the quote makes sense.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think the quote only makes sense if a new definition of atheism is used in the preamble.

Most of us think (I assume) that atheism denotes a lack of belief in the existence of any of the members of the set of putative gods, let's call the set G. So the general term 'atheist' means somebody who does not believe in g1, g2, g3,.....

Now we introduce t ...[text shortened]... ct to Thor, or Jones is an atheist about Poseidon.

In that context, the quote makes sense.

I agree 🙂

Originally posted by 667joe
I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Henry Roberts

that doesn't make sense. kinda like saying we are all murderers but some of us have 0 murders to brag about

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that doesn't make sense. kinda like saying we are all murderers but some of us have 0 murders to brag about

No, more like saying that all of us have chosen not to kill, even murderers.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, more like saying that all of us have chosen not to kill, even murderers.

then they aren't murderers
still doesn't make sense

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then they aren't murderers
still doesn't make sense

FAIL

Originally posted by Palynka
FAIL

somehow, a fail from the village idiot isn't so offending as one would think. maybe because i am so darn insensitive

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
somehow, a fail from the village idiot isn't so offending as one would think. maybe because i am so darn insensitive

You're like the student who looks at a blackboard with complicated formulas and finds it hard to believe there is actually meaning in there.

Except that the formulas are simple.

Originally posted by Palynka
You're like the student who looks at a blackboard with complicated formulas and finds it hard to believe there is actually meaning in there.

Except that the formulas are simple.

sure bonzo, whatever you say.

that must mean you are the genius that refuses to think

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure bonzo, whatever you say.

that must mean you are the genius that refuses to think

Did you understand ATY's point or not yet?

Tic...toc...tic...toc...

Originally posted by Lord Shark
In that context, the quote makes sense.

And that is quite obviously the context in which he uses it, and more or less explains it in sentences 2 and 3. I fail to see why it should be in the preamble. The whole point is to shock you with sentence 1, then point out later what he is saying.
I certainly don't see why it should be labeled moronic nor why anyone should 'have a problem' with the word athiest. It is quite clear by the time you have read all three rather short sentences what is intended without the need for a preamble.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is quite obviously the context in which he uses it, and more or less explains it in sentences 2 and 3. I fail to see why it should be in the preamble. The whole point is to shock you with sentence 1, then point out later what he is saying.
I certainly don't see why it should be labeled moronic nor why anyone should 'have a problem' with the word ...[text shortened]... have read all three rather short sentences what is intended without the need for a preamble.

I think what is obvious is observer-relative.

You inferred what I called the preamble from the text. Whup-de-do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is quite obviously the context in which he uses it, and more or less explains it in sentences 2 and 3. I fail to see why it should be in the preamble. The whole point is to shock you with sentence 1, then point out later what he is saying.
I certainly don't see why it should be labeled moronic nor why anyone should 'have a problem' with the word ...[text shortened]... have read all three rather short sentences what is intended without the need for a preamble.

what i have a problem with is the use of the words

yes, you can define atheist as a christian that believes in 1 less god. and yes you can define christian as an atheist that believes in one more god. do you not see the contradiction yet?

will we define ourselves by what we do not do? if so, then my sentence does indeed make sense, we are all murderers but some didn't commit any murders. but what use does such a language have? Hi, i am a murderer that hadn't committed a murder and a thief that hadn't stolen, i am also an atheist that believes in Allah and his prophet Mohamed and i am a retired 60 year old woman with XY sex chromosomes that hadn't retired yet and didn't turn 60 yet. Seems an odd way to communicate, hmm?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what i have a problem with is the use of the words

yes, you can define atheist as a christian that believes in 1 less god. and yes you can define christian as an atheist that believes in one more god. do you not see the contradiction yet?

will we define ourselves by what we do not do? if so, then my sentence does indeed make sense, we are all murdere ...[text shortened]... somes that hadn't retired yet and didn't turn 60 yet. Seems an odd way to communicate, hmm?

"Hi,I practice incest, since we are all derived from the same ancestor(s)...) 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"Hi,I practice incest, since we are all derived from the same ancestor(s)...) 🙂

With which relative? Fornication is fornication. Or is it sodomy?