|
The Belgian posted:No, other anwers are often possible for so-called binary questions. 'I don't know' is an especially common example. The fact that I gave a valid third answer proves that the question is not binary. It's not a valid answer, though. At best it's a non-answer, which doesn't give a positive position to god belief and thus still makes you an atheist. Again, you really need to stop mistaking not having a belief with actively having a belief against. Those are two separate (albeit related) positions.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
I take issue with that definition of atheism too. I'd consider anyone who has not given thought to the possibility of the divine or were otherwise utterly undecided agnostic. Agnostic means not taking a side, whether for faith or disbelief. Atheists on the other hand come down on the side of disbelief, whether they claim specific knowledge or no. To claim that the atheist catagory includes agnostics is an abuse of language, a twisting of the common definition of these terms that goes beyond the normal elasticity of the relationship between concepts and the words we use to describe them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
How doesWho What Now posted:still makes you an atheist. quote:doesn't give a positive position to god belief Even from your incorrect definition of atheism? I haven't given a negative position. The Belgian fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I take issue with that definition of atheism too. I'd consider anyone who has not given thought to the possibility of the divine or were otherwise utterly undecided agnostic. Agnostic means not taking a side, whether for faith or disbelief. Atheists on the other hand come down on the side of disbelief, whether they claim specific knowledge or no. To claim that the atheist catagory includes agnostics is an abuse of language, a twisting of the common definition of these terms that goes beyond the normal elasticity of the relationship between concepts and the words we use to describe them. Gnostic meaning to know, theism meaning to have belief, and the prefix "a-" meaning "without". These are all standard definitions and have been used for decades. Your ignorance of what words mean doesn't change them. EDIT: The Belgian posted:How does Are you aware that words can have multiple meanings? Even multiple common ones at the same time? Like that's a real thing that happens, it's why dictionaries have multiple entries for the same word. But anyway, you're still conflating not having an active belief for with having an active belief against. If you can't say you believe in God, how can you claim to be a theist? And if you can't claim to be a theist, logically you are not a theist. A non-theist or "atheist" if you will. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Gnostic meaning to know, theism meaning to have belief, and the prefix "a-" meaning "without". These are all standard definitions and have been used for decades. Your ignorance of what words mean doesn't change hem. Gnosis doesn't just mean to know, it refers to a specific, often context-dependant type of knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Gnosis doesn't just mean to know, it refers to a specific, often context-dependant type of knowledge. Oh, now words don't have just one meaning? How utterly convenient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh, now words don't have just one meaning? How utterly convenient. Words have always had multiple meanings?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:How do you not see that I don't know if I believe is different from I have no belief in thing? That's just elementary logic. I suppose you could describe yourself as generally agnostic if you prefer. Though then you of course have to differentiate between weak and strong agnosticism, merely professing a lack of certainty or a certainty of irreparable ignorance. But broadly belief in a thing is either yes or no, even if you aren't sure you have to be either one or the other, there's no third option between a thing, to your mind, either existing or not existing, because existence is sort of a binary thing. You don't need to lump yourself in with anyone else because your position shares a word in common but you will have to deal with people using words they are familiar with to describe you sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Words have always had multiple meanings? So what's your issue with the meanings I provided other than "I, The Belgian, personally don't like it for no discernible reason"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Gnostic meaning to know, theism meaning to have belief, and the prefix "a-" meaning "without". These are all standard definitions and have been used for decades. Your ignorance of what words mean doesn't change them. There is no need to delve into root word connotations we have perfectly good modern definitions that are a consensus reality right now. Think I'm ignorant for refusing to allow you to pervert perfectly straightfoward language? Fine biyatch, definition war: ON. Google posted:ag·nos·tic Google posted:a·the·ist Seems utterly clear to me. Agnostics are on the fence whereas atheists come down on a specific side of it. There's some wiggle room and it's a given that all words are mere symbology, not utterly fixed referents to the ideas they represent, but still: claiming all agnostics are by definition atheists is a clear perversion of the intent behind these two words. At the end of the day words do mean specific things. We agree to what they mean at a cultural level. In this case, atheist represents the idea of "someone who does not believe in the divine". Because this is the commonly accepted definition of this word, I gain knowledge when it is communicated to me. I can expect someone who has been described as an atheist to answer no when asked if they believe in god, and similarly can expect an agnostic to say "I don't know" or "Maybe." If I take your twisted definition as fact, the terms aren't descriptive in the same way. Not only is this simply made up (I've literally never heard anyone else argue that anything other than a solid gnostic is by definition atheist), the change destroys part of the communicative power of the terms. No. Let's please agree that gnostic/agnostic/atheist are the proper words to use for someone who would say yes/maybe or dunno/no to the god question. It's reasonable and descriptive. There is a somewhat decent historical precedent. No one is just making it up on the fly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:There is no need to delve into root word connotations we have perfectly good modern definitions that are a consensus reality right now. Think I'm ignorant for refusing to allow you to pervert perfectly straightfoward language? Fine biyatch, definition war: ON. So did you not read the words "or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" or are you being deliberately stupid? EDIT: quote:(I've literally never heard anyone else argue that anything other than a solid gnostic is by definition atheist), Oh, well poo poo, if Nathilus hasn't personally heard of something then obviously it doesn't count! Who What Now fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
How can there still bea discussion about this? There is no God, and atheism is cool and good and ought to be taught to every child in the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
String up each and every theophile to a lamppost
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:String up each and every theophile to a lamppost Calm down Darwin. Remember the lesson of the betrayal of Jesus when Brutus sliced off her head with PURE Hanzō STEEL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I take issue with that definition of atheism too. I'd consider anyone who has not given thought to the possibility of the divine or were otherwise utterly undecided agnostic. Agnostic means not taking a side, whether for faith or disbelief. Atheists on the other hand come down on the side of disbelief, whether they claim specific knowledge or no. To claim that the atheist catagory includes agnostics is an abuse of language, a twisting of the common definition of these terms that goes beyond the normal elasticity of the relationship between concepts and the words we use to describe them. "atheist" just means someone without religion. Unless you consider yourself a member of a religion (even if its just your own special personal religion) you are an atheist
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Again, if you literally take atheist to be (a)+(theist) then it would also include deists, pantheists,.. But that's not what it actually means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Again, if you literally take atheist to be (a)+(theist) then it would also include deists, pantheists,.. But that's not what it actually means. Except deism and pantheism both God concepts, just not intercessory and anthropomorphic ones. I'm beginning to suspect you really don't have the understanding of words that you think you do. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Again, if you literally take atheist to be (a)+(theist) then it would also include deists, pantheists,.. But that's not what it actually means. Atheism means you lack a belief in any god, period. Maybe in Sunday school they taught you that it means you line up and step on a picture of Jesus or something, but that is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Atheism means you lack a belief in any god, period. Maybe in Sunday school they taught you that it means you line up and step on a picture of Jesus or something, but that is incorrect. You're agreeing with. It's waith now who's been claiming otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You're agreeing with. It's waith now who's been claiming otherwise. No I haven't. I've been saying this whole time that a lack of a positive belief in a god concept makes you an atheist. Are you even reading anything I'm writing, or do you just see words and start screeching as an uncontrollable reaction? Edit: Is "waith now" an autocorrect typo or a very confused attempt at a burn?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I think for a lot of people "atheist" is a very loaded term. Although technically a newborn baby is an atheist as are people who "don't' know" or "don't' care", but many really don't like the label. It's a bit like people who will go on about how they 100% believe in the equality of women and support every single major feminist issue but "oh gross no I'd NOT call my self a feminist!" because those people say all sex is rape or what ever baggage they've added in their minds to the term. "Atheist" should technically be a very neutral very simple binary that covers every answer other than "yes" to the question "do you believe in god(s)" but to many people it comes loaded with a ton of other stuff. Hell I know some "SJW types" that don't like the label anymore because so many atheist groups tend to be dominated by white men with lovely views on race, class, and gender and to them saying you're an atheist could infer you are standing with Dawkins rambling on about muslims and women in elevators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
What is atheism? We just don't know *a question mark appears over stock footage of a hideous slug man furiously waving around the god delusion*
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
The basic problem is that Atheism is not well defined. It's ostensibly "not believing in God", but that requires assumptions inherent to that. If you believe in the God of Jesus and Christianity, but not the God of Islam, are you an Atheist? Maybe then you can expand it to "not believing in any Gods", but that still requires default assumptions. Is a God that is omnipotent equivalent to many Gods of varying powers? Most people would say no. Maybe you can then expand Atheism into "not believing in supernatural entities", but then you get into the question of defining a supernatural entity. Is it anything that uses magic? Is it anything that's just unproven? Is someone who believes in aliens but not Jesus an atheist? Is someone who believes in Bigfoot but not aliens or Jesus an atheist? If you try to go the definition route to explain how everyone's an atheist at birth, you end up stretching the term to uselessness. Everyone (including Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) is some variety of atheist, under a certain definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Leonard: So sheldon, are you a glass half empty or half full kind of guy *sheldon huddles in a corner under a blanket, a crazed stare in his eyes. He hasn't showered for weeks, and Hitchens novels are scattered about the floor* sheldon: ACtually, the concepts of "empty" and "half" are a myth. If you knew even a tiny bit about greek etymology, you swine, you brainwashed oval office, you would know the proper term is a-full. Bazinga. Leonard: You're an a-full guy, alright *laugh track* Control Volume fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:What is atheism? We just don't know *a question mark appears over stock footage of a hideous slug man furiously waving around the god delusion* 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The basic problem is that Atheism is not well defined. It's ostensibly "not believing in God", but that requires assumptions inherent to that. A/Theism doesn't ask which God-concept you hold, just whether or not you hold one at all. So a Christian who doesn't believe in Zeus isn't an atheist because they still hold a belief in a god concept, although they could be a non-Zeusian. The definition of what constitutes a god-concept isn't well defined, it's true, but I'm comfortable leaving it up to the individual to decide for themselves what is or is not a god to them personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No I haven't. I've been saying this whole time that a lack of a positive belief in a god concept makes you an atheist. Are you even reading anything I'm writing, or do you just see words and start screeching as an uncontrollable reaction? Who What Now posted:Is "waith now" an autocorrect typo or a very confused attempt at a burn?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:If you don't know if you believe in god, that doesn't mean you lack a belief in god. Ok, which god concept do you have a positive belief in, in that case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:If you don't know if you believe in god, that doesn't mean you lack a belief in god. It... sort of does? I mean you can argue that it isn't possible for you to answer whether or not you do or don't believe in god but you either do or you don't, as I said, there is no third option between a thing existing or not existing. I would suggest if you're so unsure you can't answer that sort of constitutes a significant lack of belief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, which god concept do you have a positive belief in, in that case? Well, you don't know yet, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Well, you don't know yet, clearly. So one could say that they don't yet have any positive beliefs in a god, correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So one could say that they don't yet have any positive beliefs in a god, correct? No. They might have a positive belief, but they do not know yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Atheism is a man screaming at another man who is aggressively shrugging his shoulders
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:No. They might have a positive belief, but they do not know yet. In what sense do they have a positive belief?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Get the pre-crime unit to check if this guy might develop a positive belief in a god in the future. Can't go labeling him an atheist when we haven't devined possible future belief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In what sense do they have a positive belief? In the sense I just stated. Would you consider someone in a crisis of faith atheist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:In the sense I just stated. Would you consider someone in a crisis of faith atheist? Having never had one I don't know, but I would suggest that if they stop believing in god then yes, they're atheist, if they don't, they're not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Having never had one I don't know, but I would suggest that if they stop believing in god then yes, they're atheist, if they don't, they're not. But when they're in the crisis of faith, they haven't stopped believing, they don't know if they believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:But when they're in the crisis of faith, they haven't stopped believing, they don't know if they believe. Whether you know what you believe or not does not affect what you do believe. A lack of self awareness does not prohibit someone from holding a belief, and as I said, there's no third option between a thing existing or not existing, so it follows that so long as you understand the concept of existence as it pertains to the object in question, you can't believe something other than it either does or doesn't exist. I mean if you prefer to use a different label for yourself that's your business but if someone else is trying to describe you they will use the words they're most familiar with and it isn't particularly odd to describe someone who cannot affirm a belief in god as atheist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
The Belgian posted:In the sense I just stated. Would you consider someone in a crisis of faith atheist? It depends on whether or not they would still say that yes, they do still have a positive belief in God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:47
|
|