Originally posted by mattbballman31
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Definition of Atheism
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBasically he is using the same arguments as I am here, so I am sure we will cover it. Once you label yourself an atheist and consider yourself part of a group of likeminded people, it becomes a philosophy, not merely a lack of belief. When you come on a theology web site and start arguing FOR your "lack of belief" it becomes a positive metaphysical claim that you need to defend. Like in that article, if you merely want to disbelieve in Sweden that is fine, but once you try arguing that there is no Sweden then you need to defend your argument and the burden of proof is yours.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThey're basically the same thing. I as an agnostic can say that I don't know, while at the same time say that I see no sound reason to believe. In my opinion everyone, if theism and atheism is dependent upon knowledge then whether they are believers or not they are agnostic, because no one can honestly say that they know.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostJust to avoid confusion, I'm the one who said that.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThere are four positions you can take to a proposition:
1. You can believe it is true.
2. You can believe it is false.
3. You can suspend belief about whether it is true or false.
4. You can say it's meaningless.
If the proposition is 'God exists', then 1 implies you're a theist, 2 implies you're an atheist, 3 implies you're an agnostic, and 4 implies you're an igtheist.
Done.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostIt's a little more complicated than that. Non-theist can include atheists and igtheists and agnostics. Atheists just need to bone up and stop being scared of the burden of proof. They just want to widen the definition as far as possible for political reasons. Sad.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View PostThat is incorrect. All but 1 show that you are an atheist. An atheist is just someone who is not a theist.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View PostAgain, simply false. Atheist just means "not theist". And that's all it means.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBasically he is using the same arguments as I am here, so I am sure we will cover it. Once you label yourself an atheist and consider yourself part of a group of likeminded people, it becomes a philosophy, not merely a lack of belief. When you come on a theology web site and start arguing FOR your "lack of belief" it becomes a positive metaphysical claim that you need to defend. Like in that article, if you merely want to disbelieve in Sweden that is fine, but once you try arguing that there is no Sweden then you need to defend your argument and the burden of proof is yours.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View PostWhich is fine, because they are both atheists.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostAgnostic atheism is semantically redundant or contradictory.
It's typically spelled out in terms of not knowing, but believing that God doesn't exist. It's contradictory because if you don't know, then you don't believe, since knowledge is a subset of belief.
But if it's tweaked to include 'lack of belief', it's just redundant, since agnosticism already semantically includes the idea that you don't have the belief. So, it's like saying I don't believe, and, by the way, I don't believe that God exists.
So, that Venn diagram is just semantic obscurantism.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Agnosticism is the position that it is not possible to know whether or not a god exists.
When you say that "It's contradictory because if you don't know, then you don't believe, since knowledge is a subset of belief.", you have it backwards. Because knowledge is a subset of (or kind of) belief, of course you can believe without knowing. You can't know without believing, however.
No, agnosticism does not include the idea that you don't have the belief.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThere's semantic overlap. If atheism is lack of belief, it's semantically redundant to tell me if you don't know. If you don't believe, you can't know. So, if you, as an agnostic, tell you me that you don't know, I already know that since you see no sound reason to believe. Again, it's semantically equivalent to saying, I don't know (which implies I don't believe), and I don't believe. It's like saying, I don't eat food, and, by the way, I don't speghetti. Yea, we'd know that already.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostNope. 3 includes agnostics. 4 includes igtheists. Both would deny being atheists, as it's stipulated in the literature. It makes absolutely no sense to include agnostics and igtheists (both of whom are nontheists) as atheists. It's like saying that everything that is not bipedal is a mammal. No . . . lots of bipedal organisms are not mammals. Lots of non-theists aren't atheists.
And no, it's not remotely like saying that everything that is not bipedal is a mammal. All non-theists are atheists, by definition.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
508 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment