Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Definition Of Atheism

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 9:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's just an attempt to avoid the burden of proof.

Here's a bizarre implication of atheism as the "lack of a belief": it's neither true or false. The proposition "Atheism is true/false" becomes meaningless, since a lack of belief can't be true or false.

If someone tries to avoid this by saying "No, atheism is true in the sense that it is true that I lack a belief in God." But only gets worse! Since the proposition "Atheism is true" and "God exists" can be true at the same time, meaning that atheism is compatible with theism. They're supposed to be contradictories.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 9:58:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe in God vs I believe in no God

A belief is and expectation that (P) is True
Let God =G
An Atheist does not believe that (G) is True.
AKA
An Atheist does not expect that (G) is True

Set logic:

Let a Particular Believe=B Let Entity=P

Thus:

B(P) is to say that an Entity is within the framework of a Believe.

Thus B(G) is a particular Belief.

Therefore for an Atheist:

B(~G) Refers to a Belief in no god.

However: B(~G)<->~(B)G

That is, a belief in the non-existence of God is logical equivalent in synonymous with the non-existence of a believing in god.

QED. Straight from the Hill! <(;D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:03:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They idea of Bop on the Non-existence of something is completely irrational.
Because non-existence is in fact non-existent.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 10:03:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
They idea of Bop on the Non-existence of something is completely irrational.
Because non-existence is in fact non-existent.

....?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It means BoP can only be on the existence of something never the non-existence
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:10:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am a gnostic atheist when it comes to certain Gods (like 7 day creation) and agnostic about others (deism).

That makes for a lot of variations of God. Name a God, and I'll tell you whether I believe there is no god or do not believe there is a good.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

A baby that was just born lacks belief in a God, however it doesn't believe that no God exists, it would have no belief systems at that time, the simple lack of belief would be Atheism in an inclusive sense. I define my Atheism in the broad sense, which means the rejection of the belief in God. That means, that I have been exposed to the idea of the existence of God and do not find the supported reasoning sufficient for belief, so since it's not logical to believe something exists without solid reasoning, I don't believe in God. A baby being born could not do this, so the distinction between the words "lack" and "rejection" just be made to distinguish between the inclusive sense of Atheism and a more broader sense. Strong (or narrow) Atheism is the assertion of knowledge that God does not exist.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:57:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Belief necessariliy addresses one claim.

There are two claims, here.

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

There are two options regarding each claim.

1. a) I believe the claim that "God exists"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God exists"
2. a) I believe the claim that "God does not exist"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God does not exist"

You can choose option B) for BOTH claims. Both are claims that require evidence and arguments to support them. They are individual claims, and therefore your stance on believing them, can also be individual.

You are, however, an atheist, AS LONG as you choose option B) for the first claim, i.e. "I do not believe the claim that "God exists"". That is all it takes to be an atheist.

You do NOT have to accept option a) for the second claim.

This is the difference.

It is not a shifting of the burden of proof. The burden of proof will always lie on the person making the claim, whether it be that God exists, or God does not exist.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:27:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 9:49:19 PM, Contradiction wrote:
It's just an attempt to avoid the burden of proof.

Bingo.

That's all it is, folks. The statement "I lack belief in God" is nothing but an unwarranted personal biographical statement. Even then, lacking belief in God is mere agnosticism. This attempted redefinition of atheism is nothing but a cowardly attempt by New Atheists to remove the enormous burden of proof of providing either evidence or arguments against the existence of God.

So what's the typical internet atheist to say at this point? "Dude, you can't prove a universal negative! Duh! Like, everyone knows that!"

At which point you must simply show that you can, in fact, prove a universal negative. You can prove, for example, that there are currently no black female Justices in the United States, or that there are no living T-Rexes alive today, or that there are no married bachelors, etc.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:02:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

Atheism has been redefined in the past century. Atheists used to make intellectual arguments to try and disprove God (or at least show that the existence of God is improbable). The Problem of Evil is a perfect example of an intellectual argument designed to show that God is improbable.

The New Atheism movement has gotten more intellectual lazy, instead proclaiming that atheism is "lack of belief in God," not "believing there is no God." The reality is that God can neither be empirically proven nor disproven, so Atheism and Theism are both beliefs. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Theists and afford them an automatic win.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:11:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:27:17 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2012 9:49:19 PM, Contradiction wrote:
It's just an attempt to avoid the burden of proof.

Bingo.

That's all it is, folks. The statement "I lack belief in God" is nothing but an unwarranted personal biographical statement. Even then, lacking belief in God is mere agnosticism. This attempted redefinition of atheism is nothing but a cowardly attempt by New Atheists to remove the enormous burden of proof of providing either evidence or arguments against the existence of God.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, i am an agnostic atheist. Why? Because agnosticism/gnosticism go to what you KNOW, and atheism/theism go to what you BELIEVE. They address different things.

So what's the typical internet atheist to say at this point? "Dude, you can't prove a universal negative! Duh! Like, everyone knows that!"

At which point you must simply show that you can, in fact, prove a universal negative. You can prove, for example, that there are currently no black female Justices in the United States, or that there are no living T-Rexes alive today, or that there are no married bachelors, etc.

No one is saying you cant prove a universal negative. But atheists, like me, arent claiming that we know or believe that God does not exist. Its not a shift of the burden of proof, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

You make the claim that a God exists, youve got the burden of proof.

You make the claim that a God does not exist, youve got the burden of proof.

I would say to a buddhist who claims that No gods exist, and ask them to prove their case. Just like id look at a christian like you, and ask you to prove your case to me.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:18:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 12:02:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

Atheism has been redefined in the past century. Atheists used to make intellectual arguments to try and disprove God (or at least show that the existence of God is improbable). The Problem of Evil is a perfect example of an intellectual argument designed to show that God is improbable.
Atheists have been redifined in the past millenium too. It used to be that Christians were called atheists by the Romans.

However, it isnt up to the atheists to disprove God, and it works both ways. You dont have to disprove Hinduism or Buddhism either. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The New Atheism movement has gotten more intellectual lazy, instead proclaiming that atheism is "lack of belief in God," not "believing there is no God." The reality is that God can neither be empirically proven nor disproven, so Atheism and Theism are both beliefs. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Theists and afford them an automatic win.

No no, its not intellectual laziness, its logic and reason.

I will copy-paste this section from my reply to Suburbia.

Belief necessariliy addresses one claim.

There are two claims, here.

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

There are two options regarding each claim.

1. a) I believe the claim that "God exists"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God exists"
2. a) I believe the claim that "God does not exist"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God does not exist"

You can choose option B) for BOTH claims. Both are claims that require evidence and arguments to support them. They are individual claims, and therefore your stance on believing them, can also be individual.

You are, however, an atheist, AS LONG as you choose option B) for the first claim, i.e. "I do not believe the claim that "God exists"". That is all it takes to be an atheist.

You do NOT have to accept option a) for the second claim.

If an atheist claims there is no God, i agree, the burden of proof rests on them. There are plenty of athiests, such as Buddhists, Taoists, who would claim this. But if youre going to make a claim that a God exists, you have the burden of proof.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's all it is, folks. The statement "I lack belief in God" is nothing but an unwarranted personal biographical statement.

The Fool: What is you justification for that distinction. I just gave a logical Proof, what is your proof? You are confusing the Bibles definition of Athiesm with the Reality of Athiesm. A definition is a set of words assigned to one particular word. They may or may not match reality. And that one doesn't match.

Even then, lacking belief in God is mere agnosticism.

The Fool: I agree I could prove that they are logically equivilant.

This attempted redefinition of atheism

The Fool: how could you attempt to refidefine. We can't be wrong about what we do or not believe. its irrefutable.

This nothing but a cowardly attempt by New Atheists

The Fool: There is no such thing as New Atheist, that is a theologin definition only. What is your justification for you assertion, it should help clear things up?

to remove the enormous burden of proof of providing either evidence or arguments against the existence of God.

The Fool: As I mention earlier it, it is complety irrational to proof the non-existence of somehing. By the taughtology of the fact its non-existence.lol There never was Burdon of Proof, that is a theologian interpretation.

So what's the typical internet atheist to say at this point? "Dude, you can't prove a universal negative! Duh! Like, everyone knows that!"

At which point you must simply show that you can, in fact, prove a universal negative.

You can prove, for example, that there are currently no black female Justices in the United States, or that there are no living T-Rexes alive today, or that there are no married bachelors, etc.

The Fool:There is no negative of absolutes. They don't exist. Only relative notions have negatives. The relative negative of God would be The Devil.

The examples you are giving are limited relative empirical contexts. As in I can proof that there is not Jam in my fridge, within the empirical limit of my fridge. I cannot logicall proof that all fridges in the universe have no jam.

Oh yeah can you prove the cowardly part ? Its only fair . Proof for proof. eh.
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:31:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is correct. However some atheists do believe there is no God, as set part from just not believing that there is. These are called "Strong-Atheists" or "Anti-Theists". Atheists who are not Strong-Atheists are Agnostics.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 8:31:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 12:18:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/6/2012 12:02:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

Atheism has been redefined in the past century. Atheists used to make intellectual arguments to try and disprove God (or at least show that the existence of God is improbable). The Problem of Evil is a perfect example of an intellectual argument designed to show that God is improbable.
Atheists have been redifined in the past millenium too. It used to be that Christians were called atheists by the Romans.

However, it isnt up to the atheists to disprove God, and it works both ways. You dont have to disprove Hinduism or Buddhism either. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The New Atheism movement has gotten more intellectual lazy, instead proclaiming that atheism is "lack of belief in God," not "believing there is no God." The reality is that God can neither be empirically proven nor disproven, so Atheism and Theism are both beliefs. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Theists and afford them an automatic win.

No no, its not intellectual laziness, its logic and reason.

I will copy-paste this section from my reply to Suburbia.

Belief necessariliy addresses one claim.

There are two claims, here.

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

There are two options regarding each claim.

1. a) I believe the claim that "God exists"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God exists"
2. a) I believe the claim that "God does not exist"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God does not exist"

You can choose option B) for BOTH claims. Both are claims that require evidence and arguments to support them. They are individual claims, and therefore your stance on believing them, can also be individual.

You are, however, an atheist, AS LONG as you choose option B) for the first claim, i.e. "I do not believe the claim that "God exists"". That is all it takes to be an atheist.

You do NOT have to accept option a) for the second claim.

If an atheist claims there is no God, i agree, the burden of proof rests on them. There are plenty of athiests, such as Buddhists, Taoists, who would claim this. But if youre going to make a claim that a God exists, you have the burden of proof.

The problem is, this is Atheist double-speak. If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God. For every negative statement, there is a positive one. There's really no way to escape that Atheism requires belief as well. Unless you can tell me that you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that there is no God, then you can't tell me that holding to Atheism is not a belief.

If an Atheist tells me there is no God, then yes, it's up to him/her to prove it to me. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. If I were to tell a Hindu that their god is not the right one and mine is, or if I were to tell a Buddhist that there is no Nirvana, there is Heaven, then yes, it would be up to me to prove it. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof. Just like if I made the claim to the Atheist that there is a God, I would bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is held by the one making the claim.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 8:42:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 8:31:15 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 12:18:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/6/2012 12:02:58 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

Atheism has been redefined in the past century. Atheists used to make intellectual arguments to try and disprove God (or at least show that the existence of God is improbable). The Problem of Evil is a perfect example of an intellectual argument designed to show that God is improbable.
Atheists have been redifined in the past millenium too. It used to be that Christians were called atheists by the Romans.

However, it isnt up to the atheists to disprove God, and it works both ways. You dont have to disprove Hinduism or Buddhism either. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The New Atheism movement has gotten more intellectual lazy, instead proclaiming that atheism is "lack of belief in God," not "believing there is no God." The reality is that God can neither be empirically proven nor disproven, so Atheism and Theism are both beliefs. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Theists and afford them an automatic win.

No no, its not intellectual laziness, its logic and reason.

I will copy-paste this section from my reply to Suburbia.

Belief necessariliy addresses one claim.

There are two claims, here.

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

There are two options regarding each claim.

1. a) I believe the claim that "God exists"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God exists"
2. a) I believe the claim that "God does not exist"
b) I do not believe the claim that "God does not exist"

You can choose option B) for BOTH claims. Both are claims that require evidence and arguments to support them. They are individual claims, and therefore your stance on believing them, can also be individual.

You are, however, an atheist, AS LONG as you choose option B) for the first claim, i.e. "I do not believe the claim that "God exists"". That is all it takes to be an atheist.

You do NOT have to accept option a) for the second claim.

If an atheist claims there is no God, i agree, the burden of proof rests on them. There are plenty of athiests, such as Buddhists, Taoists, who would claim this. But if youre going to make a claim that a God exists, you have the burden of proof.

The problem is, this is Atheist double-speak. If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God. For every negative statement, there is a positive one. There's really no way to escape that Atheism requires belief as well. Unless you can tell me that you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that there is no God, then you can't tell me that holding to Atheism is not a belief.

If an Atheist tells me there is no God, then yes, it's up to him/her to prove it to me. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. If I were to tell a Hindu that their god is not the right one and mine is, or if I were to tell a Buddhist that there is no Nirvana, there is Heaven, then yes, it would be up to me to prove it. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof. Just like if I made the claim to the Atheist that there is a God, I would bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is held by the one making the claim.

"The problem is, this is Atheist double-speak. If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God."

Wrong. A baby that was just born doesn't believe in God when it is born, yet it's impossible for it to believe there is no God because he doesn't even know what a God is at that point. So your claim that the two mean the exact same thing is not true.

"There's really no way to escape that Atheism requires belief as well."

Yes there is, there is different types of Atheism.

"If an Atheist tells me there is no God, then yes, it's up to him/her to prove it to me"

As an Atheist, I don't say there is no God. I say the reasons for God existing are not sufficient for belief. There is a difference.

"Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy"

Exactly, so why are you doing it?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 9:46:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 1:31:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
... However some atheists do believe there is no God, as set part from just not believing that there is. These are called "Strong-Atheists"

I'm with you this far.

or "Anti-Theists".

Being a strong atheist isn't the same as being an anti-theist.

I'm a strong atheist because I believe there are no gods.

I'm an anti-theist because I think religion is bad. I think we'd be better off if religion went away.

Atheists who are not Strong-Atheists are Agnostics.

Now you're mixing nomenclatures. In the new nomenclature, atheists who aren't strong atheists are weak atheists, and agnosticism is a different thing altogether.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:09:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 8:31:15 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The problem is, this is Atheist double-speak. If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God.

That doesn't make sense. There are people who don't believe either way.

Let's have an example that doesn't have to do with religion: Do you believe that I have an odd number of coins in my pocket? Presumably not. But you also don't believe that I have an even number of coins in my pocket, do you? So it's possible to not have either belief.

For every negative statement, there is a positive one.

True, but that doesn't mean you have to believe either the negative or the positive.

There's really no way to escape that Atheism requires belief as well.

Depends how you define it. If "atheism" refers to the belief that there is no god, then you are of course correct. But if it refers---as is increasingly the case---to all nontheism, then you don't need a belief to be an atheist.

Babies, noncognitivists, ignostics, people in transition from theism to strong atheism, people in transition the other way, people who haven't made up their minds, and people who have made up their minds to remain undecided, these are all examples of weak atheists (people who don't believe gods exist, but who also don't believe that gods don't exist).

Unless you can tell me that you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that there is no God, then you can't tell me that holding to Atheism is not a belief.

That doesn't make any sense. "Not even wrong." It's like you stuck in a paragraph from some other argument.

If an Atheist tells me there is no God, then yes, it's up to him/her to prove it to me.

Right. That would be a strong atheist. A weak atheist would say something more like, "Gee, I don't know."

Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

True.

If I were to tell a Hindu that their god is not the right one and mine is, or if I were to tell a Buddhist that there is no Nirvana, there is Heaven, then yes, it would be up to me to prove it.

Right.

The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.

Yes, but the weak atheist's only claim is that he doesn't know whether gods exist.

Just like if I made the claim to the Atheist that there is a God, I would bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is held by the one making the claim.

Right.

But now suppose you're in conversation with a Buddhist:

Buddhist: "Are you a Buddhist?"
You: "No."
Buddhist: "Ha! Now you must prove that Buddhism is false."

When we say we're atheists, all we're saying is that we aren't theists. Not-being-a-theist doesn't come with a burden of proof.

Many atheists are happy to go further than saying we don't believe in gods. We'll tell you that gods don't exist. And then we have a burden of proof. But we haven't said that merely by owning to the label "atheist."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:25:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 9:36:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
For some reason, I've noticed that atheists are very adamant about atheism being defined as "The lack of belief in God" rather then "believing there is no God".

If you lack belief in God, isn't that the same thing as believing there is no God? And if you don't believe there is no God, doesn't that technically make you an agnostic?

I always define atheism as a rejection of theism. Burden of rejoinder always lies on the one who rejects. Therefore, atheists have the burden of rejoinder. If one has the burden of rejoinder, one cannot have the burden of proof.

Atheism means without theism.
Agnosticism means without gnosticism.

One can be a gnostic theist (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), an agnostic theist (Vardy, Sufist, Kierkegaard), an agnostic atheist (almost all atheists, Dawkins, etc.) or a gnostic atheist. You don't get many gnostic atheists because atheism usually results in the acceptance to the rebuttals of theistic arguments, rather than the success of atheist argument, and the inability of a definition of a supreme deity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:25:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I always define atheism as a rejection of theism.

And yet there are atheists who have not rejected theism. Imagine someone who is first getting the "good news." She says, "Really? Tell me more." She has not rejected theism, but she is not yet a theist.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:29:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:46:23 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:25:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I always define atheism as a rejection of theism.

And yet there are atheists who have not rejected theism. Imagine someone who is first getting the "good news." She says, "Really? Tell me more." She has not rejected theism, but she is not yet a theist.

The Fool: The source of major confusion between the definition is between the Bibles definition of athiesm and the definition of actual athiest. In the Bible and in Theologic term base from the bible. An athiest is someone who reject the Holy spirit. That is the bible make the presumption that God has actually been reveal to everybody and Athiest have rejected the truth of God. That is why Theist think here is this new definition or that a redinition has taken place.

But this is not how atheist define themselves so we have to becarefull on who is defining who here. Things like New Athiest are theologian definitions. Not the actual definition that atheist take as true.

But the athiest could never be wrond about how they define then selves because only each individual has exclusive access to whether they believe or not, or whether its believe in Not-God. Remember the defnition=/=reality.

I find a lot of people trying to define things into existence, which is a Semantive fallacy. I can define a superunicorn to be infront of me by defining it as a unicorn which is right here besides me which is visible. But the truth of the matter is illrelevant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:30:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is God. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God."

Atheism: God does not exist
Agnosticism: It is not known or cannot be known whether God exists
Theism: God exists

WLC:

"Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it really is hopeless as a definition. For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God. As such, atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists! But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mother?

Brooke: 'Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!'
Julie: 'Yes, thank you! But, you know, it's so sad...'
Brooke: 'What is?'
Julie: 'Well, they're both atheists!'

On this redefinition even our cat Muff, who I'm sure has never even thought about the question, turns out to be an atheist!"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:31:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe that Newcastle will win the trophy =/= I know Newcastle will not win the trophy.
I don't believe that God exists =/= I know that God does not exist.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:36:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:30:58 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is God. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God."

Atheism: God does not exist
Agnosticism: It is not known or cannot be known whether God exists
Theism: God exists

WLC:

"Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it really is hopeless as a definition. For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God. As such, atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists! But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mother?

Brooke: 'Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!'
Julie: 'Yes, thank you! But, you know, it's so sad...'
Brooke: 'What is?'
Julie: 'Well, they're both atheists!'

On this redefinition even our cat Muff, who I'm sure has never even thought about the question, turns out to be an atheist!"

The definition are made of language, aka and organized set phyiscal symbols, which are meant to describe reality but it can actualy put something into realiy. Language could fail to represent reality. A believe is a expecation that X is true. That expectation is a subjective inclination to lean toward the truth of something. Only the speaker has direct access to thier mind, to know whether they believe or not. If the definition doesn't match the reality of somebody inclination the definition is a fail, because it failed to reprent the actuallity of reality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:41:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it really is hopeless as a definition. For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God. As such, atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists! But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mother?

The Fool: Exacly!!! The perception of a psychological state is a view point. Only the individual has access to this. No body else. All subjective feeling are true. All Ideas are true. This consciousness not being true or false this is a positived notion. If it could be false that means you don't exist. That is nonsense, consiousness is the self evidence or your existence.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:48:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The definition are made of language, aka and organized set phyiscal symbols, which are meant to describe reality but it can't actualy put something into realiy. Language could fail to represent reality. A believe is a expecation that X is true. That expectation is a subjective inclination to lean toward the truth of something. Only the speaker has direct access to thier mind, to know whether they believe or not. If the definition doesn't match the reality of somebodies inclination the definition is a fail, because it failed to represent the actuallity of reality. You could never appeal to authority what somebody is feeling by a definition. That is you cant define into existence somebody elses subjective perpspective you could only inductivly attempt to describe. A definition is simply assigning a set of word to refer to Single particular word, in this case it athiesm. If people dont fit the description then its mean that people have been wronfully called atheist and you will have to make up another word to describle. I would prefer simply non-religious. Thank you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:59:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:30:58 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is God. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God."

The encyclopedia of philosophy ought to do better than that. They know that maintaining is not the issue. When I was young, back when Madalyn Murray was the only other atheist that I'd heard of, I pretended to be a Christian. Everyone around me was Christian, and they hated atheists. So I didn't "maintain" that there is no god, but I was still an atheist.

Atheism: God does not exist
Agnosticism: It is not known or cannot be known whether God exists

That's "hard agnosticism." Many agnostics just don't happen to know whether god exists, but they don't insist that you don't know either. Thomas Henry Huxley, who invented the term, offered conflicting definitions of it. According to one famous version, to be an agnostic, you not only had to believe that it was impossible to know whether god existed, but you had to spend the rest of your life trying to find out whether god existed. Pretty pointless.

These days, the word generally just means that you don't know whether gods exist. Or, the other common usage, it means you don't believe either that god exists or that god does not exist. In other words, it can be a synonym for "weak atheist."

WLC:

A mountebank, a flamboyant charlatan.

"Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word,

True, but sometimes the meanings of words change. This is one of those times.

but it really is hopeless as a definition.

I bet he wouldn't say that of "non-theist," which means the same.

For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position.

Right. Like not-being-in-Kansas is not a viewpoint or position, so not-being-a-theist is not a viewpoint or position. But it's still a legitimate concept.

Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God.

Bingo!

As such, atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists!

Exactly.

But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mother?

Brooke: 'Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!'
Julie: 'Yes, thank you! But, you know, it's so sad...'
Brooke: 'What is?'
Julie: 'Well, they're both atheists!'

Julie's messed up.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WLC:

"Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it really is hopeless as a definition.

The Christan traditional definition, is what WLC is refering too. It is defined as rejecting, the truth of God, the purpose that definition is to justify hate towards athiest, and to make them look stupid because its claiming that they seen God and still rejected the truth. That is why he is saying you theist should reject that definition because then babies and even his cat muffy would EVIL athiest. . Oh nooo!!! not muffy. <(XD)

If it wasn't to assert athiest as evil there would be no problem saying babies are athiest. Ignorance in God is also the lack in belief of God. I have already should you a logical proof of that hey are logical equivilant. I mean if that doesn't proof it. Then you are simply willing to be rational about it. You havent been able to show my proof flawed. You can't appeal Craige because its a original proof. I specialize in philosophy with a lot of focus on logic.

Craige: For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God.

The Fool: All words refer to an idea, in our mind, it is the idea which refers to either feeling, or concepts, or to physical objects.

E.g. I may be refering to "the white House" right? but I am not looking at the white house. Therefore the proposition refers to my memory stored mental conception of the white house. aka an idea that refers to the phyiscal white house. But this is an idea in our mind. Not the actaul white house. If you reject that you are rejecting that your mind doesnt exist. You consciousness is the Proof that your existence is true. This not true or false thing comes From positivism where what is true is only perception of sense information. That that is extreme scientivism. That is the populare understanding. But as a contemperary philosophy in my own right. I am rejecting it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:21:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WLC:

"Defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it really is hopeless as a definition.

The Christan traditional definition, is what WLC is refering too. It is defined as rejecting, the truth of God, the purpose that definition is to justify hate towards athiest, and to make them look stupid because its claiming that they seen God and still rejected the truth. That is why he is saying you theist should reject that definition because then babies and even his cat muffy would EVIL athiest. . Oh nooo!!! not muffy. <(XD)

If it wasn't to assert athiest as evil there would be no problem saying babies are athiest. Ignorance in God is also the lack in belief of God. I have already showede you a logical proof of that hey are logical equivilant. I mean if that doesn't proof it. Then you are simply not willing to be rational about it. You havent been able to show my proof flawed. You can't appeal Craige because its a original proof. I specialize in philosophy with a lot of focus on logic.

Craige: For on this new definition, atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it's just a description of someone's psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God.

The Fool: All words refer to an idea, in our mind, it is the idea which refers to either feeling, or concepts, or to physical objects.

E.g. I may be refering to "the white House" right? but I am not looking at the white house. Therefore the proposition refers to my memory stored mental conception of the white house. aka an idea that refers to the phyiscal white house. But this is an idea in our mind. Not the actaul white house. If you reject that you are rejecting that your mind doesnt exist. You consciousness is the Proof that your existence is true. This not true or false thing comes From positivism where what is true is only perception of sense information. That that is extreme scientivism. That is the populare understanding. But as a contemperary philosophy in my own right. I am rejecting it.

Craig: But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mother?

Brooke: 'Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!'
Julie: 'Yes, thank you! But, you know, it's so sad...'
Brooke: 'What is?'
Julie: 'Well, they're both atheists!'

The Fool: notice how this has no logical value, its directed only at the converted, aka its and apeal to faith. There is nothing absurd about a baby being an athiest, to an atheist. Remember he is not really a philosopher. He is a theologin. His PHD in philosophy is appointed by a theolgin school. Theogins dont and never had liked philosopher, they are taking advantage of the low academic in America. These arguments hold no wait in the rest of the world. The consenses of philosopher world wide are completly against any notion of mixing logic with supernatural, and have always and still will continue to reject any proof of God by rationality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL