Atheism-belief that there is no God. What's wrong with that?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

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.

So does lacking belief in god - unless god is ill-defined, in which case theism has no form either.

[Jorgunmandr]

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

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.

So does lacking belief in god - unless god is ill-defined, in which case theism has no form either.

No, actually, because you proposed that it isn't a claim. Let me express what "Form" is simply for you. Form is a subject/verb that can be assessed. States of Being ( which you said Atheism was ) are formless. So you can say "Believe in a deity is silly!" because the verb is believing, however if atheism is a state and not a claim ( since the verb is inherent to the type of claim ) it cannot be assessed. In accordance you defined atheism as not adhering to theism which literally makes it beyond "Opposite of Theist" and makes it "Not Theist".

Logically this plays out as follows: "Atheism is the opposite of Theism" vs. "All people that are not Theist are Atheist". The second is a state of being. In relation to something real-world "Criminals are people who disobey social rules. Non-criminals are people who have not disobeyed social rules." The first is an active state. The second is not. Why is the second not? Because it is actually just a state of neutrality; it does not suggest that you actually uphold the system just that you have not broken it's rules.

This is imperative to understand because it is the literal problem with the modern definition.

E: I need to go. Excuse me.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

Lucky~9~Lives

Derek Gibson

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.

So does lacking belief in god - unless god is ill-defined, in which case theism has no form either.

No, actually, because you proposed that it isn't a claim. Let me express what "Form" is simply for you. Form is a subject/verb that can be assessed. States of Being ( which you said Atheism was ) are formless.

Where did I say atheism is a State of Being? I said atheism is a lack of belief in the claim of theism, that is, lacking belief in the existence of god - "belief in the existence of god" being a subject; "lacking" being a verb.

[Fermionic]

Derek Gibson

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.

Philosophy and logic is language. Everything we have is language. And how people associate words with meaning is everything. What it says explicitly is based upon the meanings attatched to certain words in context. A lot of people, myself included, have ingratiated both ideas into that sentence in that context. You, obviously, have not. Okay. That's fine. You, however, are in no position to say that that is wrong. No one owns language, no one can dictate how it must be used. It is far too fluid for that.

[Fermionic]

Lukyo

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od 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 exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od 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 exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od 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.

Next you'll be asking for a bedtime story.

[Lukyo]

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

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.

Next you'll be asking for a bedtime story.

stare . . . Easy for you to say. I'm actually interested in universal truth and consistency.

[Defenestrate Windows]

Lucky~9~Lives

Lukyo

Why did I insist that he/she wasn't an atheist? Because he/she basically defined an atheist as a person who has not accepted the claims of theism because there is not sufficient evidence.

I pointed out that this is actually what an agnostic is but that didn't help the conversation.

Anyone who does not accepted the claim (singular) of theism is an atheist.

I am rather glad someone agrees with how I define atheism.

[Fermionic]

Lukyo

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

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.

Next you'll be asking for a bedtime story.

stare . . . Easy for you to say. I'm actually interested in universal truth and consistency.

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

[Lukyo]

Fermionic

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

rolleyes No silly. This Gaia Online. You can only victimize people who tie their lives here.

"Atheists" so called are dishonestly changing the rules of engagement since they know can't win in honest consistent criticism of their beliefs. Just ask the person who's comment is just above this one (the one above yours).

[Lukyo]

Defenestrate Windows

Lucky~9~Lives

Lukyo

Why did I insist that he/she wasn't an atheist? Because he/she basically defined an atheist as a person who has not accepted the claims of theism because there is not sufficient evidence.

I pointed out that this is actually what an agnostic is but that didn't help the conversation.

Anyone who does not accepted the claim (singular) of theism is an atheist.

I am rather glad someone agrees with how I define atheism.

Thank you for not reading his last posts.

[Fermionic]

Lukyo

Fermionic

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

rolleyes No silly. This Gaia Online. You can only victimize people who tie their lives here.

"Atheists" so called are dishonestly changing the rules of engagement since they know can't win in honest consistent criticism of their beliefs. Just ask the person who's comment is just above this one (the one above yours).

No, they aren't.

[Defenestrate Windows]

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

rolleyes No silly. This Gaia Online. You can only victimize people who tie their lives here.

"Atheists" so called are dishonestly changing the rules of engagement since they know can't win in honest consistent criticism of their beliefs. Just ask the person who's comment is just above this one (the one above yours).

No, they aren't.

One thing I can say if you want to be so conservative with words definitions is that some words, especially ones that have to do with a stance, are always changing. Democrats did not always have the same stance they do today. They actually use to more resemble republicans of today. Not that it isn't a perfect example. Another way to look at the idea of language is that it evolves over time constantly changing slowly. Though I am sure there are people who will claim that Merriam Webster Created all the words we have today and that they are unchangeable. cool

Sorry for the red herring. Don't worry. I smell it too.

[Fermionic]

Defenestrate Windows

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

rolleyes No silly. This Gaia Online. You can only victimize people who tie their lives here.

"Atheists" so called are dishonestly changing the rules of engagement since they know can't win in honest consistent criticism of their beliefs. Just ask the person who's comment is just above this one (the one above yours).

No, they aren't.

One thing I can say if you want to be so conservative with words definitions is that some words, especially ones that have to do with a stance, are always changing. Democrats did not always have the same stance they do today. They actually use to more resemble republicans of today. Not that it isn't a perfect example. Another way to look at the idea of language is that it evolves over time constantly changing slowly. Though I am sure there are people who will claim that Merriam Webster Created all the words we have today and that they are unchangeable. cool

Sorry for the red herring. Don't worry. I smell it too.

I'm not sure I understand why you said this to me?

[Defenestrate Windows]

Fermionic

Defenestrate Windows

Fermionic

Lukyo

Fermionic

How dare you. So; because you want to find a way to make yourself feel better because some atheists may make you feel uncomfortable in your position, you decide to say that we are all just lying to victimise you, and that that is all we care about?
That's pathetic, to be frank.

rolleyes No silly. This Gaia Online. You can only victimize people who tie their lives here.

"Atheists" so called are dishonestly changing the rules of engagement since they know can't win in honest consistent criticism of their beliefs. Just ask the person who's comment is just above this one (the one above yours).

No, they aren't.

One thing I can say if you want to be so conservative with words definitions is that some words, especially ones that have to do with a stance, are always changing. Democrats did not always have the same stance they do today. They actually use to more resemble republicans of today. Not that it isn't a perfect example. Another way to look at the idea of language is that it evolves over time constantly changing slowly. Though I am sure there are people who will claim that Merriam Webster Created all the words we have today and that they are unchangeable. cool

Sorry for the red herring. Don't worry. I smell it too.

I'm not sure I understand why you said this to me?

I am not arguing with you. Sorry. It came out as though you had that view. Also there not being a true plural for you is annoying. If I am just wrong and there is a word for you plural, other than you, let me know. Not attacking you. I am on your side from what I have read.

[Xiam]

The Catfish Blues

Atheism deals with belief, gnosticism deals with knowledge. Agnostic atheists simply lack a belief in a god.

You are defining your terms wrong.

I've never seen anyone but atheists point this out.

Switching topics for a moment, I'd like to cite a few dictionaries on the matter. Yes, dictionaries.

Dictionary.com

a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Merriam-Webster

athe·ism
noun ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Google

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Wiktionary

atheism (plural atheisms)

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs).
(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
(loosely, rare) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

I don't see why people ever argue between "Atheism is a belief in no god" and "atheism is no belief in a god." It's [******** both, people need to stop arguing semantics.