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
See more
See less

Definition of Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Agnostic 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.
    They'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.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Basically 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.
      As I've said, I'm happy to defend my position. Just don't expect me to try to convince anyone that God doesn't exist.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        They'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.
        There'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.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          I have no idea how that addressed my point.


          You said:
          Just to avoid confusion, I'm the one who said that.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
            Just to avoid confusion, I'm the one who said that.
            Um, that's why I said 'you said'; you're the direct object of the 'you' there.
            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
              There 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.
              That is incorrect. All but 1 show that you are an atheist. An atheist is just someone who is not a theist.
              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                It'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.
                Again, simply false. Atheist just means "not theist". And that's all it means.
                America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                  That is incorrect. All but 1 show that you are an atheist. An atheist is just someone who is not a theist.
                  Nope. 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.
                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                    Again, simply false. Atheist just means "not theist". And that's all it means.
                    Nope. There are non-theists who aren't 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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                      The agnostic and the igtheist can say that.
                      Which is fine, because they are both atheists.
                      America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Basically 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.
                        And being an atheist does NOT mean that you are arguing that there is no Sweden. it just means that you don't believe there is a Sweden.
                        America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Which is fine, because they are both atheists.
                          Nope. Some non-theists aren't 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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            Agnostic 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.
                            You are using definitions of both 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' that do not match those in current use.

                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              There'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.
                              Again, you are incorrect. Agnosticism is not just saying that I don't know; it's saying that it is not possible to know. If I say I am an atheist and add that I am an agnosticism, the addition is not redundant; it says something that my being an atheist does not.
                              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                Nope. 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.
                                Whether they'd deny it or not is irrelevant; they are atheists, by definition.

                                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 JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X