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

  • #76
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Nope. There are non-theists who aren't atheists.
    No, there are not, by definition.
    America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
      Nope. Some non-theists aren't atheists.
      No, there are not. All non-theists are atheists by definition.
      America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        No, there are not. All non-theists are atheists by definition.
        Give me the definition.
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
          No, there are not. All non-theists are atheists by definition.
          And give me a source. If you cite Aron Ra, I'm going to gouge out my eyes.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            Um, that's why I said 'you said'; you're the direct object of the 'you' there.
            And yet you quoted Juvenal above that.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
              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.
              Atheists don't believe there is a Sweden?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                You said:
                Anyone who claims to have a cogent proof that there is a God is wrong. Anyone who claims that it is irrational to not believe there is a God is wrong. Anyone who claims that not believing there is a God makes one a bad person is wrong. etc.

                An agnostic or an igtheist could affirm this. That's all I said.
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                Just to avoid confusion, I'm the one who said that.
                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                Um, that's why I said 'you said'; you're the direct object of the 'you' there.
                You seem a bit slow on the uptake, matt.

                For the record, I'd be willing to defend the last two, but I disagree with the first.

                One should never underestimate the power of a fungible definition, stoic. I'm pretty sure I could mount a cogent argument that cats exist. On the other hand, with apologies to your dog, I'd need a bit more evidence for the stoic.

                Which God did you say you believe in, matt?

                Please say it's coffee. I shun caffeithen. Got m'self a Keurig shrine where I do my devotions every morning.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  One should never underestimate the power of a fungible definition, stoic. I'm pretty sure I could mount a cogent argument that cats exist. On the other hand, with apologies to your dog, I'd need a bit more evidence for the stoic.
                  Okay, maybe I should have qualified that to limit the definition a bit.

                  OTOH, I never said I couldn't be proved wrong. It's just that in the case of a strange definition of "God", proving me wrong wouldn't have much effect.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Atheists don't believe there is a Sweden?
                    If a god exists is based on knowledge then since nobody can honestly say that they know god exists, we can all be said to be agnostics. But that a god exists is not based on knowledge, it's based on belief. So an athiest is simply a non-believer, the thiest, a believer

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                      No, there are not. All non-theists are atheists by definition.
                      That would depend on the definition used.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        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.
                        Lackethiets lack the capacity/willingness to understand nuance.

                        Though, i'd personally change 3 to believing the ontological status of God is unknowable (of "God's existence is knowable" is false).
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Give me the definition.
                          Any dictionary will do.

                          Merriam Webster:
                          Definition of atheism
                          1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
                          b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

                          "A lack of belief". If you don't believe (i.e., if you're not a theist), you're an atheist.
                          America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                            Any dictionary will do.

                            Merriam Webster:
                            Definition of atheism
                            1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
                            b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

                            "A lack of belief". If you don't believe (i.e., if you're not a theist), you're an atheist.
                            Again, only going by the definition given. You're free to agree and I'm free to disagree.
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              Again, only going by the definition given. You're free to agree and I'm free to disagree.
                              And if I say that the word 'apple' means a long, yellow, curved fruit (actually a herb), I'm wrong only going by the definition given. But if I ask you for an apple, I'm not going to get a banana - because I'm simply wrong. As you are here.
                              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                                And if I say that the word 'apple' means a long, yellow, curved fruit (actually a herb), I'm wrong only going by the definition given.
                                You're free to use "apple" to a long, yellow, curved herb, it's not incorrect. It's just an abnormal usage of the word .

                                But if I ask you for an apple, I'm not going to get a banana
                                If you ask me for an apple, I'm going to give you want I conceive of as an apple. If you mean something else by the usage of "apple", I would first need to understand what you mean by your usage.

                                because I'm simply wrong. As you are here.
                                It's impossible to be wrong in regard to word usage, merely abnormal.
                                P1) If , then I win.

                                P2)

                                C) I win.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 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