Welcome to Gaia! ::

Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Agnosticsm concerns itself with knowledge, atheism with the existence of a divine being.
Seeing as the notions of theism and atheism form a dichotomy (as one is the opposite of the other), it is not possible for a third alternative- agnosticsm.
Agnosticsm is used to specify what type of theist or atheist one is.

Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist.
Atheism, then, being the opposite, is NOT "believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" Modifying the inner function of the statement to "believing that NO (G/g)od[s] exist" is wrong, as that is not the opposite statement, which the prefix "a" on "atheist" indicates.
Hmmmm . . . . that's interesting. But wouldn't an agnostic have no dispositions about God either way. To put it another way, wouldn't they say that neither the claims of atheism and theism are valid due to the lack of insufficient evidence?


That's just the point; Atheism makes no claims. It rejects theistic claims. My post was there to show you that your statements and attitude towards what atheism means were wrong.
Did I not phrase myself very well?
But now theism must be redefined to accommodate this new definition.


No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist.

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, as the "a" in the prefix -without- implies.

So, the opposite of "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist."
The original statement must still be there for it be a viable opposite. Which Atheism is to Theism. So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
Fermionic
Derek Gibson
Fermionic
So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".


Can I save this? This is gold. True gold.

You just said the same thing twice. And genuinely believe it's saying two different things.

"I do not believe in a unicorn" vs. "I believe no unicorns exist".

True. Gold.


Those are different things. One asserts that one has a firm belief that no unicorns can exist. The other leaves space for accepted that unicorns could exists, but rejects the claim.
Can you not see that?
No, I don't, you know why? Because it doesn't. As a matter of fact if that's the case what you said about atheism and agnosticism being different doesn't work because you just used your agnostic viewpoint to define atheism. But they are different and separable! Make up your mind.

Either "I do not believe in a unicorn" is a statement of disbelief or it's a knowledge claim ( and here's a hint: it is not a knowledge claim ).

I do know what your brain is doing and that's why this makes sense to you; you're not reading what you're writing at face value you are reading it from a vantage point of implied information. When you say "I do not believe in a _____ " your brain is already attaching "a" to "possibility" meaning that it's the phrasing that works in your head not the actual truth.

I mean saying it for anything else under the sun and voila you have the same problem:

I do not believe in a talking orange.

I do not believe in a Ford Pinto.

I do not believe in a wall.

It doesn't matter what you say it's rejection. It's just justified by popular demand but nothing else.
Let me explain one quick mental tick that humans tend to have. "I don't believe" in general use instantly implies in quite a few languages [but I don't know] however this is a session of logic thus general language does not make sense. An example would be "I do not believe that my brother killed his best friend". If someone asked you the separate question "Are you sure?" it mentally seems like a redundancy where you say "I just said I am not". You didn't, but you are socially trained to believe you did since much language relies in implications versus logical prepositions. The difference between "He did not kill him" and "I don't think he did" is a social one that deals with your training.

This is the hardest part of taking logic as a course: You have to undo this training.
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic


That's just the point; Atheism makes no claims. It rejects theistic claims. My post was there to show you that your statements and attitude towards what atheism means were wrong.
Did I not phrase myself very well?
But now theism must be redefined to accommodate this new definition.


No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist.

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, as the "a" in the prefix -without- implies.

So, the opposite of "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist."
The original statement must still be there for it be a viable opposite. Which Atheism is to Theism. So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic


That's just the point; Atheism makes no claims. It rejects theistic claims. My post was there to show you that your statements and attitude towards what atheism means were wrong.
Did I not phrase myself very well?
But now theism must be redefined to accommodate this new definition.


No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist.

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, as the "a" in the prefix -without- implies.

So, the opposite of "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist."
The original statement must still be there for it be a viable opposite. Which Atheism is to Theism. So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


Unfairness is not a part of it.
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
However what he said makes sense. Atheism can criticize theism. If atheism is this simply untouchable state it is not really open to criticism.

Let me reiterate. Theism can be criticized because it can be defined. Atheism cannot because it eludes definition morphing to fit the required criteria.
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
However what he said makes sense. Atheism can criticize theism. If atheism is this simply untouchable state it is not really open to criticism.


No-one said lacking belief in anything is beyond criticism.
Lucky~9~Lives
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
However what he said makes sense. Atheism can criticize theism. If atheism is this simply untouchable state it is not really open to criticism.


No-one said lacking belief in anything is beyond criticism.
No one has to. It is. You cannot critically assess what has no form. It's part of why it is incredibly difficult to create a truly strong criticism against quirks and harmless morals.
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
You know that's never the case. That's ultimately what the "agnostic atheists" tend to argue by. All belief is irrational and since atheism isn't a belief it is by default rational.
Derek Gibson
Fermionic
Derek Gibson
Fermionic
So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".


Can I save this? This is gold. True gold.

You just said the same thing twice. And genuinely believe it's saying two different things.

"I do not believe in a unicorn" vs. "I believe no unicorns exist".

True. Gold.


Those are different things. One asserts that one has a firm belief that no unicorns can exist. The other leaves space for accepted that unicorns could exists, but rejects the claim.
Can you not see that?
No, I don't, you know why? Because it doesn't. As a matter of fact if that's the case what you said about atheism and agnosticism being different doesn't work because you just used your agnostic viewpoint to define atheism. But they are different and separable! Make up your mind.

Either "I do not believe in a unicorn" is a statement of disbelief or it's a knowledge claim ( and here's a hint: it is not a knowledge claim ).

I do know what your brain is doing and that's why this makes sense to you; you're not reading what you're writing at face value you are reading it from a vantage point of implied information. When you say "I do not believe in a _____ " your brain is already attaching "a" to "possibility" meaning that it's the phrasing that works in your head not the actual truth.

I mean saying it for anything else under the sun and voila you have the same problem:

I do not believe in a talking orange.

I do not believe in a Ford Pinto.

I do not believe in a wall.

It doesn't matter what you say it's rejection. It's just justified by popular demand but nothing else.


I would disagree and say that the language used in the statement does answer a question of both knowledge and belief. That is the way the language has developed up to now, and that is the way that people use it. And really, language only means how people intend it to mean when it is used.
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
However what he said makes sense. Atheism can criticize theism. If atheism is this simply untouchable state it is not really open to criticism.


No-one said lacking belief in anything is beyond criticism.
No one has to. It is. You cannot critically assess what has no form.


I can and will critically asses you for lacking belief that you are reading my posts.
Fermionic

I would disagree and say that the language used in the statement does answer a question of both knowledge and belief. That is the way the language has developed up to now, and that is the way that people use it. And really, language only means how people intend it to mean when it is used.

I explained why you cannot use social language in arguments of logical / philosophy up above. What you are saying relies in implications and has nothing to do with what you are saying explicitly.

There is more than one way to talk and not all methods of talking are appropriate from certain angles. Consider what you are doing now as "Cursing" in relation to this discussion.
Lucky~9~Lives
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Derek Gibson
Lucky~9~Lives
Lukyo
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


No-one said belief in anything is foolish.
However what he said makes sense. Atheism can criticize theism. If atheism is this simply untouchable state it is not really open to criticism.


No-one said lacking belief in anything is beyond criticism.
No one has to. It is. You cannot critically assess what has no form.


I can and will critically asses you for lacking belief that you are reading my posts.
That has form. Try again.
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic


No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist.

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, as the "a" in the prefix -without- implies.

So, the opposite of "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist."
The original statement must still be there for it be a viable opposite. Which Atheism is to Theism. So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od[s] exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od[s] exist".
eek OOOOOOOh. I see what you are getting at. You think that "believing" is part of the definition of being a theist. I'm arguing that "God(s) exist" is the changing part of the belief and that the a- in atheism inverts the "exist" part into "doesn't exist."


Obviously I disagree.
But don't you see how one sided that is?

Theism is a belief in something while atheism has no belief in something and can criticize the belief because belief in anything is foolish?


Unfairness is not a part of it.
It's all about being unfair, especially when the "atheist" are changing the rules of conversation. But then again it is my supposition that they are deliberately being unfair because if it was fair they couldn't maintain their position.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games