Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you cannot understand the concept of lack of belief perhaps it's time to drop the PhD from your name.
A positive belief is I believe in extraterrestrials.
A negative belief is I don't believe in extraterrestrials
A lack of belief is I don't have enough evidence to decide if I believe in extraterrestrials or not.
Stomping your feet and yelling insults does not change the fact that the three above are three different
Yup. The prefix <a> in atheism is negative of the concept of theism put forward. If atheism is positive in the sense of believing in it, then would the math work out to build a word such as this <aatheism>, negative negative thiesm?
I was told two negatives make a positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Atheism is a subset of rationalism. Rationalism is based on the logical assessment of evidence to evaluate claims. Atheism is related just to the god -claim and (so atheists say - by atheist definition), "The evidence does not make the god -claim credible". We are all atheists if one doesn't believe in a god. One is a theist if they believe in one. Very simple
What one does about it is varied and complicated. They can do nothing, they can be activist. They can be god -believers who don't sign up to any religion (that's what they put on the paper - 'Nones'), They tell us what their motives are, we don't tell them. Some non -believers battle atheism like a lot of latter -day crusaders, using arguments that would embarrass the bananaman. I agree that they ought to be the ones to define what they are and what they do and why, but I have got to say that I have seen their reasons (slipping out every now and again) and know why, while the reasons they give are crummy logic, lying accusations about (activist) atheists and persistent Twittertweet slanderising.
By their rotten fruits shall ye know them, and open -minded rationalist fruit it ain't.
Here, at the end, you have tried to define anti-fill-in-the-blank by what they are not. That is the denotation of definition (boundary, limit) and not the endless list of characteristics and motives.
Garbage. Or rather, a very crafty use of equivocation. having/ not having belief, is two different things - in the context.
Having a belief -position of pretty much everything. One either believes, or not
But that applied to a proposition or claim, if one does not believe in the claim one has no belief in that claim, even if they necessarily have a belief -position as regards that claim.
Now that everyone (with the wit or integrity to see what you tried to pull there) has seen though your false argument, the question only remains, were you too dim to see the false argument, or crafty enough to hope that nobody else would?
If you were an atheist pretending to be an anti - atheist in order to look the Rest of atheism look good, you couldn't be worth more divisions to us.
Yes, I am better than that - because that daft exchange between the 'theist' and you has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
What a pity. Especially that you seem to think that Arach speaks for atheism, even if he lifts a few atheist phrases that are in fact valid, though he then adds on some final remark that it debunks atheism (or at least the atheists he has issue with) in some way.
Yeah, I guess not. And when I speak to theist it has nothing to do with atheism.
You are totally misrepresenting me trans. I never speak for atheism or against atheism. You seem to think that because I challenge some types/chapters atheism and question militant atheism that I am against the whole group.
I question binary thinkers and with us or against type thinkers. You try and use for atheism. and atheism has no cause.
If you cannot understand the concept of lack of belief perhaps it's time to drop the PhD from your name.
A positive belief is I believe in extraterrestrials.
A negative belief is I don't believe in extraterrestrials
A lack of belief is I don't have enough evidence to decide if I believe in extraterrestrials or not.
Stomping your feet and yelling insults does not change the fact that the three above are three different
You define "lack of belief" as not enough evidence to know? I thought that was I don't know?
But what they are saying makes sense. What I see them saying is that when we think about something for as long as some of us have, its really not lack of belief. Like for me, I don't lack belief in bible god, I say they are wrong.
Back 150 years ago I would have fit the definition better. I would be say "I just don't see it."
You seem completely unaware that we do not even know what consciousness or intelligence IS or how to measure it directly so we can assess whether or not it is present or absent. Indirect measurement is no measurement at all of its ontological essence. The fact that our indirect measurement of it requires communication with a brain in no way limits its existence to brains.
We can explain this in the science section. Here is for the definition of atheism.
True. Scholarly academic atheists would never define atheism as “simply a lack of belief.” They see that definition as unsophisticated, and an embarrassing portrayal of atheism, perpetrated mainly by New Atheists.
Example: “Michael Ruse has engaged in heated exchanges with new atheists. ... '" Ruse said new atheists do the side of science a "grave disservice", a "disservice to scholarship", and that "Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course", and that The God Delusion makes him "ashamed to be an atheist".
If atheism is not simply a lack of belief in gods, then what else is there?
Yes...it is a common trait of "fundies" of all types (even Atheist) to throw shade on "others" that believe differently than they do.
That's what defines them...and why I note that "Lack of Belief" is not a reasonably accurate definition of Atheism.
"Mere NonBelief" does not bash the Spiritual ideas others hold and endeavor to "show how irrational they are".
This serves to illustrate how bogus this "Mere NonBelief/Lack of Belief" definition of "Atheism" is.
Atheism -> goal post moving -> 'why I do not believe your claims' -> more goal post moving -> active atheism. More word games from you and your fellow theists.
How many times do we need to explain this to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You did not spot the fallacy? So much for you being a philosophical genius.
I think you misunderstood the shorthand reference to "merely a lack of belief." It was referring to mere disbelief in God or gods and it is legitimately lacking in philosophical sophistication.
Yes, one does not need any philosophical training to reject extraordinary claims. Perhaps if you read our posts where we have explained this ...
If we are going down that path that only an atheist gets to say what an atheist is or a theist gets to say what a god is, then the same can be said for the new labels.
It is not that non-atheists can not define atheism, it is why they need to redefine it as something it is not, and why they need to play games.
Yes they are and I clarified them for you by stating them in their BELIEF forms.
OK if that is what it takes. You did change the meaning of the third one to include agnostic.
I do not believe in Gods existing or not existing makes it both more awkward and less explanatory. But if you are satisfied with that, we should request both the forum owners and dictionaries to change the definition. You do realize on the downside of using your preferred definition is it will require an additional question of why don't we believe in either it existing or not?
But as long as these definitions are MysticPhD approved we should use them.
You define "lack of belief" as not enough evidence to know? I thought that was I don't know?
But what they are saying makes sense. What I see them saying is that when we think about something for as long as some of us have, its really not lack of belief. Like for me, I don't lack belief in bible god, I say they are wrong.
Back 150 years ago I would have fit the definition better. I would be say "I just don't see it."
For me the I don't know is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or rather, a very crafty use of equivocation. having/ not having belief, is two different things - in the context.
What a pity. Especially that you seem to think that Arach speaks for atheism, even if he lifts a few atheist phrases that are in fact valid, though he then adds on some final remark that it debunks atheism (or at least the atheists he has issue with) in some way.
