Oh, and yes you were correct in this ol' video. Identifying a word by the people who use it to identify themselves most probably won't be objective. Indeed, it is majority rules.
More than half a year ago I posted a comment on one of these videos speaking of the definition and literal meaning of atheism. Now I am sure that it must be a lack of a belief. Wherever the prefix "A" is it notes a lack thereof.
In summation, atheism is not supposed to say anything about oneself. It certainly doesn't have to. Neither does theism . . . much.
Non-Atheists? Hopefully you've dropped this since 2008. That is the most superfluous shit I've ever heard. They're theists.
You are arguing for the meaning of the word. Knock yourself out as words can mean whatever people want them to mean. What is really important is what the entity that atheism is, and saying that it is a lack of belief in god only says what it isn't. That being said, you make a fundamental error by assuming that 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing the word theism. Not the case as the word 'atheism' appears in language before the word 'theism'.
@mungbeanman Funny thing is I learned of it's origins in the video on your sidebar "Why Atheism is a belief, not a mere, not a mere lack of belief", just before you responded. I am quite the fool of irony.
"Hopefully you've dropped this since 2008. That is the most superfluous shit I've ever heard. They're theists."
Sorry, but has set theory changed since 2008? Have rocks and babies, who are clearly not atheists i.e. non-atheists, taken up believing in god since 2008?
You come here, not with the intention of debating, but looking for a fight with this air of undeserved arrogance that you have about you. Shame that you got knocked out in round 1 then.
@mungbeanman Not exactly. I just find that Non-Atheist crap to be shit. I've actually done some more research on the word theist and that is where the possible error lies. That is that an "ism" isn't just a belief but a stance on one. Although, theism is defined as a belief it isn't literally. That is why I argued that atheism is a lack thereof. cont. . . .
@NeverAloneForever You are right. Beliefs themselves can't be proven to exist. To attempt to use set theory to prove atheism is very naive. You could only attempt it on what people claim they believe, which then raises the question of honesty.
@mungbeanman cont. . . . I've changed my thoughts actually. I'm not sure what I am but an Ignostic I might be. I dunno. I could be called an "atheos" person.
So I know now that if theism's definition changes than so would Atheism's. So it could mean disbelieving in a god. Not a lack.
P.S. Sorry to come off as a dick. Stop it with the Non-atheism though. No antidisestablishmentarianism either.
@NeverAloneForever Yes I prefer 'Ignostic'. The word 'god' just hasn't been defined to be able to make a posititve belief on whether it exists or doesn't or even if it is an 'it'.
THE EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED UNIVERSE REQUIRES AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER and I know who He is. I am available daily on ATHEISM IS A GIGANTIC FAIRY TALE to talk about these things of importance to you if you like. Be sure to bring evidence with you if you have any.
An agnostic is simply described through his doubts about a belief. Now a agnostic might be a theist, who has doubts about his belief or an atheist, who does not belief, because he has doubts. However, they are definately not part of both groups. They cannot by definition be part of 2 each other excluding groups. You also cant be a meat eating vegeterian. Atheism depends on the projected theism - while the term might be older, the context is important. The context is about a certain belief.
"An agnostic is simply described through his doubts about a belief"
Agnostics maintain man cannot know that a god exists.
"a agnostic might be a theist, who has doubts about his belief"
All beliefs are doubted by the believer. All beliefs are possibly false or they are not beliefs.
"or an atheist, who does not belief"
It is true that atheists dont believe in a god, but it is not true about the atheist. It is true about what the atheist is not. No "because" can follow.
No-one else did that. Not me, not Mung, not anyone.
Sometimes that is how it gets done. Sheer willpower, sheer force, brutal yes..... recommended no. But sometimes it works. For Don here it did. While being verbally abused he stuck with it. Ultimately he forced the argument to resolve for NO.
No, he didn't solve it.... but he did prod enough that he forced it to be explained.
Previous to this, I see no explanation for NO, until Don forced one.
"People have also often said I'm like a pitbull with a bone..."
Ok look....
I wrote the book on those qualities. I don't mind them, I encourage them. There is however a line between getting the info you need (asking, prodding) and making claims like below that are not founded with an argument as to why. You said "Atheist' is a label that also points to those who have no belief in a god" without any reason why.
"You said "Atheist' is a label that also points to those who have no belief in a god" without any reason why."
Exactly that. I was tired of being corrected by rhetoric. Though I do have to have some admiration for someone who has more patience and a thicker skin than me. Fair play for forcing the 'no' thing as well (although it did spring from a misunderstanding on his part).
"Exactly that. I was tired of being corrected by rhetoric."
Nonetheless, your input (this video and comments to it) including the rhetorical, led to another brick in the wall with "having no bananas". If you had taken my advice, he'd be gone long ago. Your patience, your video... otherwise?
Oh ya, well maybe it would've been covered sometime, maybe. But here... it was.
Lesson learned then. I am taking it a bit hard that I have been so harsh with people. I am embarassed.
OK, first things, I didn't mean it to sound like a claim (I realize it does look like that), It was supposed to be an open ended comment I wanted an opinion on.
If 'atheist' is a label without meaning, that points to something, can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth about the atheist.
eg:
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes.
"OK, first things, I didn't mean it to sound like a claim (I realize it does look like that), It was supposed to be an open ended comment I wanted an opinion on."
Wow. See this is where the divide lies then. When you say it as you did, you project a firm stance that flies in the face of the reasons why not that have been already provided. But lets go through those steps so they are clear instead of haggling over what is an open ended comment and what is a declaration.
Neither do I. I was raised on it. I was not schooled on it. I am not now. At ease on the formal training stuff.
A large part of what I do is to bring these formal understandings into natural language. I am very big on the principle that symbolic logic is superflous pomp and elitist pap smacked snotness. ie: I dislike it.
I am big on saying that we can present all of those formal arguments in informal language.
When we talk about groups of things we are using set theory. Set theory is just the formalized way of presenting those ideas. There is not just 1 "set theory" either, but it any set theory the kind of thing we are doing is basic.
All believers in god are a set of people. We identify that set with the label "theists". For everyone else we can say they do not have that belief. NON identifies the COMPLEMENT (not compliment) set. Label: Nontheists.
"complement set include everything in the universe that is not a theist, or just everyone?"
The complement set is dependent on the original set. If the set is "the set of people who believe in a god" then the complement has to be people. If the set is "the set of those things that believe in a god", then the complement set are all of those things that dont believe
I use people because I think it is inherent to the discussion that we are talking about what people are or arent
@DonLeVisi, "those with no belief" refers to people with something, a set of religious beliefs that are empty.
Either the set is empty (nontheist) or there is at least 1 belief statement they think is true about a proposed god (theist). This covers all the possibilities for everyone. There is no other possibility. Everyone either believes in a god or not. By referring to these people as atheists leaves atheism without meaning; all we know about a nontheist is that they exist.
There is a real problem in qualifying any members to the set of theists or nontheists.... proof. As you have written, we can't prove what someone believes or not... so we can' prove anyone is a theist or a nontheist.
We assume they are telling us the truth this way and it's a safe bet in most instances that they are.... I assume. But that is what is needed to say anyone is a theist or nontheist. That's a problem really for those sets, we can' prove anyone is a member of either.
"But is this enough. What about people who claim they are theists, but are telling lies:
eg. Fear of reprisal from family, community, etc."
Exactly. Think it's bad in Kansas? Try Kabul. This great atheist revolution has a long way to go in Indonesia. And even if that all happened have we rid the world of poor logic when people say they are what they are not?
Will every politician be honest and ever advertisment say the whole story if we wipe out the poor logic of theism?
gklr: "we can' prove anyone is a member of either (set)."
Don: "How do we get round this problem"
We can't. It's a fatal end. We can't prove anyone is a theist, nontheist, atheist or nonatheist until we can read minds via ESP or a mind reading machine. We cannot prove we believe anything or not. Thus we are dealing with beliefs by catagorizing anyone as any of the above. We can't even prove to ourselves that we are any of those catagories or we could prove it to others.
"Could we label the set: "What we believe to be theists", or, "People we believe are theists" ?"
Ha. I am arguing that this is what we are doing whether we like to see it that way or not. I am happy to reduce it to "theists", but with recognition that by "theist" I refer to those people I believe are theists.
Sure we can. We simply have the sets themselves by definition, whether or not we can prove anyone is a member of them. The set of people who believe I created the universe is empty (I believe), but the set exists with some members or with no members.
@gklr "The set of people who believe I created the universe is empty (I believe), but the set exists with some members or with no members."
Ha. no members I would hope.
So it is determining who is a member of any given set.
In the case of this discussion: 'atheist' and 'theist'.
Would I then be right in saying, that although members (if any) of either set can't be proven, and therefore the sets may not be accurate, set theory can still be useful for the terms of this discussion ?
"if any) of either set can't be proven, and therefore the sets may not be accurate, set theory can still be useful for the terms of this discussion ?"
Yes as we are dealing with groups of people even if we can't prove who is in what group. We believe people when they say they are a theist or an atheist and place them into a group. If we believe they are lying we add a NON and we're done. But that they are either is beyond provability.
"If 'atheist' is a label without meaning, that points to something, can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth about the atheist.
eg:
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes."
I am an atheist and so are others, so they are different somethings.
"'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints.... anything" (or other artistic works)
"'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes."
An atheist is very specific like "theist" is.
The set of people that include artists is much broader. The set of people who are painters is much thinner. The set of people who paint landscapes is even thinner. Each is getting more specific.
The set of people who are atheists is quite specific, relative to artists.
@gklr "An atheist is very specific like "theist" is.
The set of people that include artists is much broader. The set of people who are painters is much thinner. The set of people who paint landscapes is even thinner. Each is getting more specific."
Sorry I missed this.
Ok.
Labels, that point to things, can range from very specific to very broad.
So the label 'artist' points to people like musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, etc.
So the set: 'artists' includes the above as its members ?
"If 'atheist' is a label ... can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth...)"
No. A truth about something doesn't define it. eg: All atheists have bones.
We distinguish one set from another set by showing a difference. Describing atheists as the set of people who believe there is no god, is quite seperate from the set of people who have no belief in a god (nontheists, including babies). We've described a new set with it's own complement.
@gklr "No. A truth about something doesn't define it. eg: All atheists have bones."
I understand.
Even though 'atheist', 'theist', 'artist' are labels with no meaning that point to things. It seems we determine information from recognizing the label, although this may not be necessary when interacting with the thing that is pointed to.
Saying the present King of France doesn't have no money.... says "the present King of France does not have an empty set".
The present King of France does not have anything, including any empty sets.
One negative is on the present King of France, the second negative is on the money.
So.... the present King of France does not have no bananas, is true and does not say the present King of France has bananas. It says the present King of France does not have an empty set of bananas.
Don....did actually offer this discussion something this time, even if he missed the point at the time.
It was to resolve how NO works in this context, and it is seperate from NON or NOT. No money, no hands etc...
Significant because we can't say "the present King of France has no money" as it would require the present King of France to have an empty set. We can say "the present King of France does not have no money", which doesn't say he has money. It is not a double negative.
"You can prove that it is probable or not - very few things (if anything) can be completely proven."
Then if you can't prove it is true or false it is a belief to say you or anyone is a theist or an atheist.
You require belief to say you are a nontheist (doesn't believe) or a theist (believes god(s) exist) or an atheist (believes no god exists) or a nonatheist(doesn't believe no god exists).
You come across as a nontheist and nonatheist. (and notter).
"2. When it "does not exist" is not pertinent, what matters are it's aspects when it DOES exist"
Whether it exists or not is irrelevent. The logical form is identical. "X is not Y" does not say what X is, whether X exists or not. It says what X is not, not what X is. Not Y is never anything.
X does not have Y is what X lacks Y says. Those are equal. X does not have Y, says what is not the case, what is not real. Saying what is not real and declaring it is REAL, is false.
"1. Of course there is such a thing as a lack of belief"
Then prove it. Hard to do when it's proven to not exist. So now you have a burden of proof. Prove a lack of belief exists. I'll make it easier.... prove a lack of anything exists.
The proof that a lack of belief does not exist is that it is a logical contradiction to say it does as it says "what is not the case (about X), is what is the case", and at the same time. POOF goes a lack of belief.
@gklr "Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof. If you can prove belief for me then I'll show you the proof of unbelief. But since you can't why not just admit that the claim to belief is no more valid than the claim to unbelief? O right, you have some sort of mental problem. I'll be gone for a while... probably won't bother coming back to this. Hopefully you'll someday reexamine your thoughts on this.
""Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof."
I included it in the same message. What is not the case, is what is the case, is contradictory and what you are saying. What is not real, is what is real.
"If you can prove belief for me then I'll show you the proof of unbelief."
Mathematics is not theism and is not atheism.
Theism lacks belief in a god and is not an atheist. Also, although it is true that theism lacks belief in a god, saying so says nothing about what theism is.... and saying atheists lack belief in a god, while true, says nothing about what an atheist is.
""Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof. "
A lack of belief is "what x does not have".
I do not have a 32nd head or a 23 millionth head. Saying so says nothing about what I have, it states what is not the case about me, what I do not have, what is not real about me.
To say what is not real about atheists is what is real about atheists is contradictory.
"Again you revert to an argument about semantics instead of addressing reality."
Your semantics state what is not real is what is real and it screams out for attention. Your semantics, and all arguments are semantical.... violate formal logic. You misuse and incorrectly apply a logical operator, NOT.
Not cannot be applied to loaded, beliefs, theism, theists.... or anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. "Not theism" doesn't exist. No such banana.
"it is assumed (due to CONTEXT) that there is a gun that exists. Get real."
The statement does not talk about the gun whether or not the gun exists. The logical form is identical and each time states what is not the case, what is not real. What is not real about the gun is not real.
You confuse saying what is not real about something to be saying what is real. Then you say I have a reality fail. Consider for a moment your plight.
"you refuse to acknowledge the obvious aspects of context and reality."
No that is the argument already made to you about what you are doing. You are saying what is not real, is what is real. What is not true about atheists is what is true about atheists.
Saying "atheists lack belief in a god" says what is not the case about atheists, not what is the case about atheists.
I lack a 32nd head does not say a thing about me at all. I lack a 3 millionth head too.
@gklr Nope, not saying what is not true, I'm saying what is true. It is true that they do not believe in god(s). But you know, you're so good at telling me what I'm saying just keep on changing what it is I say to coincide with how you want to reply.
"It is you who redefines words to suit your specific purpose in order to maintain a superior and arrogant position"
Nah. I help out by correcting the logical errors in your writing. It is easy to do. If that is arrogant then ok I am as arrogant as fuck. But your assessment is rather like a psychic reading and frankly what you base it on can't be on what I wrote to you.... you reversed what I said completely in one instance.
I think we are dealing with the 3 stooges here, and that's Pandonodrim, Spectre11B, and Don. Every last single one of them has demonstrated their clear dishonesty. If you've been reading the comments, Spectre claims that atheism being defined as belief that no god(s) exist doesn't make sense because god isn't properly defined. Well, I gave him a clear definition of god, then he preceded to ask me to define terms like divine and supernatural.
I'm thinking "Is this guy for real?" What he attempted to do is avoid dealing with the definition of god I gave him, then he preceded to obfuscate the discussion by asking me to define the attributes about god, such as supernatural and divine. I get real sick and tired of attempting to educate so called atheists on the basics of the god discussion. He has no business saying god isn't properly defined if he isn't even aware of the basics of the god discussion to begin with. Good grief. SMH
The problem they have is utterly one of logic, so you will get the strangest replies and almost unimaginable logic. If the topic was mathematics, well we'd get some strange looking mathematics too. Ummm, we did actually today! Today I was told 1+1=2 only in 10 base systems, when HEX and many other systems would use it as well. Hard to believe someone is accusing topics of propositional logic to be "semantics", when they can' get past mere symbols.
"Ummm, we did actually today! Today I was told 1+1=2 only in 10 base systems, when HEX and many other systems would use it as well. Hard to believe someone is accusing topics of propositional logic to be "semantics", when they can' get past mere symbols."
I saw that comment by that guy, all I could do is laugh. The ignorance of these guys astounds me. LOL. :-)
If god was defined as they ask, it would be proven to exist. They are asking you to prove a god exists. It's a strawman argument because the issue is not proving a god exists.
Both of you erred on names and labels. God is a name/label that allegedly points to something. We know there are many proposed gods, alleged gods and those are what we talk about when discussing atheism. "Proposed to exist gods". "God" in the context of atheism can only mean proposed to exist gods.
At one point you said "god can be defined" or if not then some other label/name.
Words mean what they do and outside their meanings they mean nothing. Labels and names are the only words that mean nothing. Labels and names merely refer to things. "God" is not defined, anymore than "tree" is defined. You and Spectre11B were haggling on that. He had it right at one point and then reverted. lol. Anyway.... names have no definition or meaning. Labels too. They refer instead.
Well, I have no problem with that. Then all I would have to tell Spectre is that he's establishing a fallacious criteria when he says that atheists cannot believe there is no god because god isn't defined. Atheists most certainly believe there is no god, but not based off god being defined, but based off of certain proposed ideas of god that the atheist find problematic. Does that make sense, or am I still missing something? Let me know. :-)
"eists most certainly believe there is no god, but not based off god being defined, but based off of certain proposed ideas of god that the atheist find problematic. Does that make sense, or am I still missing something? Let me know. :-)"
"What do you mean? Was there something I said that I missed the point on?"
It was a small point. Labels and names aren't defined, "God" is a label/name.
Define god? Hmmm. Nope.
Define "tree". Nope.
Define "car". Nope.
Words like tree, car, god etc... refer to things... in the case of "god" it claims to refer and that it refers or not is the issue of atheism. They'd be better off asking "what does "god" refer to? And in the context of this topic: "any proposed god"
I was answering from below and had intended on addressing the point on labels and names with you both, it just so happened you started to post here 1st.
I am driving my own replies off the page which is my cue to stop and do something else. lol.
Enjoy the weirdoes. TMZ looks good at this time of night. ciao
"God is a name/label that allegedly points to something. We know there are many proposed gods, alleged gods and those are what we talk about when discussing atheism."
Right. I was simply attempting to give IMO the most common definition of what is usually meant by a particular god, a supreme personal being that controls part or all of the universe, usually divine and supernatural in nature, and usually worshiped in light of the power such a being has. Spectre rejected this definition.
@gklr Not what I said, but yes - "not loaded" is what the gun is, if it is not loaded. Never mind reality though - your mind games must keep you awfully entertained.
I guess if we had a duel I could give you a "not loaded" gun and take a loaded one and you'd be fine with that - since "not loaded" is in no way describing the gun.
@gklr "Not loaded" does not equal "not anything," it equals "not loaded." If a gun is not loaded it does not mean it is also not an eggplant. It means it is not loaded. It only corresponds directly to the issue of whether or not the gun has bullets in it.
I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old with a college professor's vocabulary. A very strange experience.
@gklr "There is no such object or thing that is the thing "not loaded"."
Yes there is. It is the gun. I understand your philosophical reason for not admitting this, but reality is there is a gun, and if it is not loaded then that gun is not loaded. You can deny this truth all you want, but it won't change reality. It is a completely illogical statement to say that there is no such thing as "Not X." You have not proven a single of my examples wrong on this point.
"There is no such object or thing that is the thing "not loaded"."
Yes there is. It is the gun
Saying the gun is not loaded, says what the gun is not. It does not say what the gun is. It says (the gun is not) (loaded). It says what is not real about the gun. Not what is real about the gun. The proof is that the gun is not loaded is true when the gun does not exist. It does not say (the gun is) (not loaded).
Loaded is not a proposition or propositional function.
"When someone says a gun is "not loaded" it is assumed (due to CONTEXT) that there is a gun that exists. Get real"
I am. Saying what is not real about the gun does not say anything about the gun even when the gun exists. What the gun is not not is not what the gun is.
You misunderstand X is not Y to be saying what X is. It does not say (X is) (not Y). It says (X is not) (Y).
Not Y is never something that exists no matter what Y is. No thing is "not Y"
"You are claiming there is some fundamentally vital difference between saying a gun is unloaded and saying it is not loaded"
Correct. The gun is unloaded requires the gun exists, it uses primary predication and the subject of proposition that uses primary predication (says what it is) must exist. The subject of a proposition that uses secondary predication (says what it is not) need not exist and the proposition is valid. When the gun did not exist, it was not loaded.
"See, you are an absolutist, and you must be right."
So I must agree with "only in a base 10 system is that true" is true, or I am an absolutist? Do you have any idea what "absolute truth" even is? Obviously not. How is anything true when no languages existed? They can't be, as no propositions exist and only propositions are true or false.... and I am an absolutist?
You use words that you have no clue as to their meaning, often.
@gklr No, you just don't understand basic concepts. You are constantly speaking from an absolutist standpoint of this "nothing can ever be described by what it is not" philosophy. While your statements are, in themselves, true - they do not hold up when placed in reality and when context gives you understanding and comparison to understand a negative qualifying statement.
But yeah, keep belittling me since you have no real excuse for denying all this.
@gklr Nope, agian not what I said. Until you actually read and comprehend what I write I'm no longer going to waste my time replying to you. I have never said that what is not real equals what is real. That is what you have claimed I have said. Reply again and address what I actually said or else we're done.
Saying atheists lack belief in a god says what atheists do not have. That is true about what is not the case about atheists. What is not real about atheists is what you've said is real about atheists.
That is your error. You confusing secondary predicates for a primary predicate and it demonstrates you have no clue as to what atheism is and say it is what is not real about atheists.
@gklr No, it's true about what is the case about atheists. I have not said that what is not real about atheists is real about atheists. I've said that what is real about them (that they don't believe in god - this is real, not not real) is what is the case about them. Try to get it straight.
It is your inability to comprehend this simple concept that is the problem here. You're nonsensical claim to "logic" that the absence of something must make it automatically unreal. Nonsense.
"No, it's true about what is the case about atheists"
False. "atheists do not have (lack) belief in a god" says what atheists do not have, what is not the case.... it says nothing about atheists at all. The proof of that is that it is true when no atheists exists. The same exact statement is true when no atheists exist. No truths exist for things that do not exist.
"I have not said that what is not real about atheists is real about atheists."
Yes you have. You are saying atheists lack belief in a god (secondary predications) is talking about atheists (primary predication. You cannot violate logic more than that.
@gklr Nope, lacking something is not the same as it not being real. That's completely false. I'm tired of your continued, erroneous protestations. Nothing you say leads to a reasonable or rational conclusion.
"Nope, lacking something is not the same as it not being real. "
Saying I lack a 32nd head says what is not real about me.
Your logic leads to a lot of contradictory nonsense. See a truth about an object proves that the object exists. We can't have truths for things that do not exist.
If "atheists do not believe in god" was about atheists then "god does not exist" would be about god... and prove a god exists.
And theism lacks belief in a god. Theism is atheism?
"I've said that what is real about them (that they don't believe in god - this is real, not not real) is what is the case about them. Try to get it straight."
Well there is your problem in logic. You are treating, as I've said all along, secondary predicates (what something is not) as primary predicates (what something is).
Not not real is real, and I have not come close to using "not not real" in place of "real" even though they are equal. You write oddly.
False. 1+1=2 in Hex as well for example. Again you speak out of line and say things that have no basis in reality. While you laugh at how stupid I am, here you are stating falsehoods and calling them truths.
This is the quality of logical background I expect of anyone saying atheism is a lack of belief, or that a lack of belief or a lack of anything.... IS something. Does it get more clownish? No.
"You have set yourself up as absolute truth - therefore your opinion and your argument is untouchable."
Proven truths are not opinions. Opinions are only 1 kind of subjective belief and subjective beliefs are 1 of 3 belief types. Assumptions are myths are objective. It is a tautologous truth that "atheism is not a lack of belief", because "a lack of belief" is not anything. There is no such thing. Ironic ce pas?
"Lol, you're pathetic. You can't even be honest about what you are doing here."
What part of what I say do you find dishonest?
"You have set yourself up as absolute truth - therefore your opinion and your argument is untouchable. "
"atheism isnt a lack of belief" is true, but wasnt true before mind or language existed, and nothing was, so no absolutes are possible. All truths require proof, "atheism is not a lack of belief" is proven true, therefore its not absolute.
"The venn diagram in Mung's vid, shows nontheists are the same set as atheists, and nonatheists are the same set as theists."
He'd be wrong. All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. Babies do not believe in a god and are nontheists. Babies do not believe there is no god and are nonatheists. The present King of France does not believe in a god and is not a theist and is not a nontheist, is not an atheist and is not a nonatheist.
An entity that is absent of atheism, a lack of atheism.
Presupposing that theism exists, and theism can only be theism, it logically follows that it's not atheism. So it's an absence of it.
Using your reasoning, I've just shown you with context that theism is an absence of specifically atheism. Disagree? If so, then your reasoning is wrong since it uses the exact same logic. :-)
What I find best is to analyze the definition as it stands on its own. In each case where you attempted to contradict my definition, you were using your definition as the standard. Obviously, there is going to be contention.
This is why I am testing your definition as it stand alone. Are you willing to support your definition by answering my question?
I said I was willing to hear your explanation of why you say atheism isn't a belief that there is no God. I'm waiting to hear your explanation. If you've explained it already, then I must have missed it in the midst of all these comments that have appeared on this page.
With that definition, probably not. That definition seems insufficient because it can refer to any monotheistic god. It's more rational IMO that atheism is the belief that no particular god deity or deities exists. In this way, I don't have to define the god the atheist believes doesn't exist because the definition isn't about defining whether the atheist believes one particular god doesn't exist, but about defining the fact the atheist believes that no god or gods exist at all.
@Tonloc1986 You can't state any particular god when you haven't established what any god is in the first place. You need to define what that "thing" is before you can state whether you believe it exists or not.
It's tantamount to saying that you believe that null value doesn't exist. Which is nothing more than gibberish.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever for this discussion isn't even possible if there isn't an understanding of what god(s) are said to be to begin with. Obviously, you are participating in this discussion, so you must have a basic understanding of the god concept, namely what's being referred to when god is mentioned, usually an entity of a higher state of being than humans who has power well beyond our own. This is common knowledge.
A god or god(s) can also be referred to as supreme supernatural personal beings who are worshiped as the controller of some or all parts of the universe with authority and divine nature. An example of a god that would fit the description is the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or other said to be monotheistic gods. In this context, this is the concept of god(s) that many atheists go around saying they lack belief such entities exist. This is basic stuff you should be aware of.
@Tonloc1986 What is supernatural and divine? These need to be defined.
You can't just say, it's just basic stuff you need to be aware of. How is someone supposed to know if they believe in something if they don't know what that something is?
Oh, I most certainly can. That what discussions like this are for. If you don't understand the meaning of the discussion or even bother to find out the meaning, then you have no business talking about it to begin with. You keep asking questions in order to detract the discussion. Your twisted logic is just like saying that a person is a citizen of Africa, and you say "No, you cannot say a person is a citizen of Africa if you don't define what a citizen is." Absolutely ridiculous.
I gave you a standard idea of what god(s) are that is usually accepted by many people who participate in the discussion. I think that's sufficient enough, and such an idea is usually accepted by theists and atheists, and even agnostic as well.
@Tonloc1986 This may not be his answer, but the "belief that there is no God" is anti-theism, not atheism (more accurately anti-theism is the hope that there is no god, not the belief that there is no god). Atheism does not require belief in anything, certainly not in believing that there is no god. Many atheists don't claim to believe that there is no god, they just acknowledge that they do not believe in any of the theistic traditions that currently exist.
Wrong. Anti-theism is the outright rejection of theism, NOT the belief that there is no god. There are some people who claim to KNOW there is no god. People claiming to know there is no god necessarily would not have a belief there is no god(if they can prove what they claim to know). You cannot prove that you lack belief in anything, thus that's a belief itself. Any unknowable and/or unprovable proposition is a belief by necessity. Prove that you lack belief in god. You can't. :-)
@Tonloc1986 The lack of a belief is not a belief. That is nonsense. That would mean that not collecting stamps is a hobby. And you don't need to prove beliefs, all you have to do is claim them. "Prove your beliefs." What a nonsensical statement...
When did I say a lack of a belief is a belief? I did NOT. I'm saying that you cannot prove you lack belief in anything, thus, it's NOT a lack of belief in the first place. It's a belief, since you cannot prove the proposition that you lack belief in something. Where did I say anything about proving beliefs? :-)
@Tonloc1986 "You cannot prove that you lack belief in anything, thus that's a belief itself." Simply claiming it is not a lack of a belief (because you seem to think it is unprovable) does not make it so. Reality does not operate a certain way just because that's the way you want it to.
So you're a little different from the others on here? You are claiming a lack in a belief is unprovable but a belief is provable? I don't see how one is and the other isn't.
Where did I EVER say a belief is provable? I did NOT. It seems you aren't paying attention. If you cannot prove you lack belief in the god proposition, you have a belief by nature. As I said before, ANY unprovable and/or unknowable proposition is a belief. If you propose that you lack belief in god(s), then prove it. If you can't, it's by necessity a belief.
@Tonloc1986 Stop being an ass, stop being obtuse and talk straight then. "Where did I say anything about proving beliefs?" This insinuated to me (due to context) that perhaps you believed beliefs were provable - so now I'm asking if you think they are provable or not.
There is no proposition to atheism, that is your problem here. There is no proposition to know or prove, there is simply the lack of a belief put forth by others. This should not be this hard to understand.
Stop assuming I'm being obtuse and listen to what I'm actually saying. I never once said that beliefs were provable, and to answer your question, I believe that beliefs are not provable. Do you even know what a proposition is? A proposition is a statement. Example, you could say to yourself "I lack belief in god(s)." That very statement is a proposition. Are you saying that you don't make such a proposition? If not, then you're not even claiming to lack belief in the first place.
@Tonloc1986 I don't know why you went here. I haven't said anything to suggest this. All I was doing was trying to get more specifics about what you had been saying about proving beliefs or proving lack of belief. You've finally, partially, answered that.
The reason I went here is to illustrate to you that atheists do make propositions regarding what they claim atheism is. You the one who said that there's no proposition to atheism, and that simply incorrect given the fact in your view, atheism is a lack of belief, and you do claim to lack belief in god(s), and since you cannot prove this proposition, you hold a belief by necessity. As I've said before, any unprovable and/or unknowable proposition is a belief, PERIOD.
@Tonloc1986 I don't ever recall saying there are no attributable propositions to atheism. But unbelief is not a belief. If that is not a clear, logical fallacy for you then I don't know what else to say. Atheists can have beliefs, they can have beliefs that are in some way related to the theism/atheism relationship. But simply being an atheist does not include any kind of belief. It is unbelief.
Prove that you lack a belief in god(s). If you don't have a belief, then you should have no problem proving it. Until you do, you will remain with a belief, like it or not. All unknowable and/or unprovable propositions are beliefs, and if you propose you lack belief in god(s) and cannot prove such a proposition, then you have a belief, PERIOD. Unless you can prove you lack belief, you have no grounds to stand on. :-)
@Tonloc1986 Your premise that you need to prove that someone doesn't believe something but yet not prove that they do have a belief is completely illogical. It is a non sequitur. You don't have to prove unbelief and you don't have to prove belief. Either you believe something or you don't - and people just have to accept what you tell them.
If someone tells me they believe in god I don't ask them to prove that they believe - I ask them to prove that god is real.
I didn't say ANYTHING ABOUT NEEDING TO PROVE LACK OF BELIEF. Pay better attention. A person may very well lack belief, but if that person claims "I lack belief in god(s)," and they cannot prove it, such a statement is a belief. I cannot prove that I believe in God, so I have a belief. Saying that one lacks belief is NOT the same as saying that one cannot prove they lack belief. How hard is this to understand? :-)
@Tonloc1986 O, I understand what you're trying to do perfectly - what I'm trying to get you to see is how stupid it is. For one, I never said saying one lacked belief was the same as saying it cannot be proven they lack belief. But you most certainly said something about needing to prove lack of belief: "simply prove your unbelief. That's all you have to do."
"I cannot prove that I believe in God, so I have a belief." This suggests that not being able to prove unbelief makes unbelief a belief.
The only reason I said for you to prove your lack of belief is because you were claiming that you don't have a belief. Yes, you do. You've already admitted the statement "I don't believe there IS a God" would be a belief, which is what I've been saying all along. Therefore, if asked if you believed there is a god or gods that exist, and there were only two possible answers, what would be your answer?
@Tonloc1986 I will say that the statement "I don't believe there IS a God" would be a belief - since it remarks on the question of existence of something unknowable/unprovable. But not-believing in a god is not a belief, it is the absence of one.
@Tonloc1986 There you go again. If this nonsense is all you have left to keep going back to then we are done. "Prove your unbelief... I didn't say prove your unbelief... now prove your unbelief."
Either you're being purposefully dishonest because you have nothing of substance left to put forth or else you are just utterly and completely stupid.
Wrong. I said one doesn't need to prove their lack of belief, but if they claim they do not have a belief, that's a claim they must prove. If you never claimed you lacked belief, you wouldn't have to prove it. But since you did, you DO have to prove it. Frustration isn't an argument. :-)
@Tonloc1986 Frustration isn't my argument, stop being a condescending ass. You have proven in no way that a claim to unbelief requires proof when a claim to belief requires none. No one can prove they believe in something - they can just protest that they do. The same is true for unbelief. Unless you have something to refute this then I see no reason why I would need to prove unbelief to you. Even if I wanted to and even if it would mean anything.
A belief requires no proof because beliefs by their very definition CANNOT be proven. If they could, they would be TRUTHS, not beliefs. When you make a propositional statement such as "I lack belief in god(s)," you're saying something about what you are not that cannot be proven. When you say something that can't be proven to be true, by necessity it's a belief, like it or not. TRUTHS are proven statements about reality. Anything else outside of that is belief. YOUR PROBLEM. :-)
@Tonloc1986 You didn't address the point. If a belief cannot be proven then how can an unbelief be proven? Your suggestion that anything that is not proven truth is a belief is ludicrous. What about speculation, theory or anything else - just because people think things up that aren't provable doesn't mean they BELIEVE in them. I can't prove that unicorns do or do not exist, but that doesn't mean I believe in them either way. You can't prove unbelief because you can't prove belief.
I didn't say unbelief could be proven, did I? In fact, I've said and still say quite the opposite. There a difference between saying that unbelief cannot be proven and you saying 'I have no belief as an atheist, I simply lack belief that god(s) exist." When you say that you don't have any beliefs, you have to prove that statement. If you can't, then that statement is a belief. THAT is the point. You cannot prove your statement is true, thus it's a belief. Pay better attention. :-)
It can't be proven, that's the point. So don't go around saying things you cannot prove, such as "I have no belief as an atheist." It can't be proven, but you were one who made the statement to begin with. You have to prove it if you make the statement, PERIOD. Since it can't be done, it shows that you're saying things you cannot hope to prove. It's just l
Oh, and yes you were correct in this ol' video. Identifying a word by the people who use it to identify themselves most probably won't be objective. Indeed, it is majority rules.
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
More than half a year ago I posted a comment on one of these videos speaking of the definition and literal meaning of atheism. Now I am sure that it must be a lack of a belief. Wherever the prefix "A" is it notes a lack thereof.
In summation, atheism is not supposed to say anything about oneself. It certainly doesn't have to. Neither does theism . . . much.
Non-Atheists? Hopefully you've dropped this since 2008. That is the most superfluous shit I've ever heard. They're theists.
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
@NeverAloneForever
You are arguing for the meaning of the word. Knock yourself out as words can mean whatever people want them to mean. What is really important is what the entity that atheism is, and saying that it is a lack of belief in god only says what it isn't. That being said, you make a fundamental error by assuming that 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing the word theism. Not the case as the word 'atheism' appears in language before the word 'theism'.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman Funny thing is I learned of it's origins in the video on your sidebar "Why Atheism is a belief, not a mere, not a mere lack of belief", just before you responded. I am quite the fool of irony.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
@NeverAloneForever
"Hopefully you've dropped this since 2008. That is the most superfluous shit I've ever heard. They're theists."
Sorry, but has set theory changed since 2008? Have rocks and babies, who are clearly not atheists i.e. non-atheists, taken up believing in god since 2008?
You come here, not with the intention of debating, but looking for a fight with this air of undeserved arrogance that you have about you. Shame that you got knocked out in round 1 then.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman Not exactly. I just find that Non-Atheist crap to be shit. I've actually done some more research on the word theist and that is where the possible error lies. That is that an "ism" isn't just a belief but a stance on one. Although, theism is defined as a belief it isn't literally. That is why I argued that atheism is a lack thereof. cont. . . .
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
@NeverAloneForever You are right. Beliefs themselves can't be proven to exist. To attempt to use set theory to prove atheism is very naive. You could only attempt it on what people claim they believe, which then raises the question of honesty.
DonLeVisi 4 weeks ago
@mungbeanman cont. . . . I've changed my thoughts actually. I'm not sure what I am but an Ignostic I might be. I dunno. I could be called an "atheos" person.
So I know now that if theism's definition changes than so would Atheism's. So it could mean disbelieving in a god. Not a lack.
P.S. Sorry to come off as a dick. Stop it with the Non-atheism though. No antidisestablishmentarianism either.
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
@NeverAloneForever Yes I prefer 'Ignostic'. The word 'god' just hasn't been defined to be able to make a posititve belief on whether it exists or doesn't or even if it is an 'it'.
For me, the word 'god' is meaningless
DonLeVisi 4 weeks ago
@DonLeVisi Hmm . . . I guess that would make 'god' a mcguffin.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
@NeverAloneForever Quite possibly...
DonLeVisi 3 weeks ago
@DonLeVisi Well, then that's not a mcguffin.
NeverAloneForever 3 weeks ago
THE EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED UNIVERSE REQUIRES AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER and I know who He is. I am available daily on ATHEISM IS A GIGANTIC FAIRY TALE to talk about these things of importance to you if you like. Be sure to bring evidence with you if you have any.
MegaSage007 8 months ago
An agnostic is simply described through his doubts about a belief. Now a agnostic might be a theist, who has doubts about his belief or an atheist, who does not belief, because he has doubts. However, they are definately not part of both groups. They cannot by definition be part of 2 each other excluding groups. You also cant be a meat eating vegeterian. Atheism depends on the projected theism - while the term might be older, the context is important. The context is about a certain belief.
Canafly 9 months ago
@Canafly,
"An agnostic is simply described through his doubts about a belief"
Agnostics maintain man cannot know that a god exists.
"a agnostic might be a theist, who has doubts about his belief"
All beliefs are doubted by the believer. All beliefs are possibly false or they are not beliefs.
"or an atheist, who does not belief"
It is true that atheists dont believe in a god, but it is not true about the atheist. It is true about what the atheist is not. No "because" can follow.
gklr 8 months ago
@Canafly,
"They cannot by definition be part of 2 each other excluding groups"
Correct. All atheists are nontheists. All theists are nonatheists. There are 4 groups we talk about, not 2.
Theists are those who believe there is a god.
Nontheists are those who do not believe there is a god.
Atheists are those who believe there is a god.
Nonatheists are those who do not believe there is no god.
Atheists are not the complement set to theists, nontheists are.
gklr 8 months ago
Don forced this argument to adopt NO.
No-one else did that. Not me, not Mung, not anyone.
Sometimes that is how it gets done. Sheer willpower, sheer force, brutal yes..... recommended no. But sometimes it works. For Don here it did. While being verbally abused he stuck with it. Ultimately he forced the argument to resolve for NO.
No, he didn't solve it.... but he did prod enough that he forced it to be explained.
Previous to this, I see no explanation for NO, until Don forced one.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "brutal yes..... recommended no."
Well, I do have a very thick skin. People have often told me I have the patience of a saint (although I dislike the comparison).
People have also often said I'm like a pitbull with a bone; I don't let things go (a better comparison, maybe)
Although sometimes to the point of being anally retentive (not so good)
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"I don't let things go"
"People have also often said I'm like a pitbull with a bone..."
Ok look....
I wrote the book on those qualities. I don't mind them, I encourage them. There is however a line between getting the info you need (asking, prodding) and making claims like below that are not founded with an argument as to why. You said "Atheist' is a label that also points to those who have no belief in a god" without any reason why.
Square 1? Why?
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
"You said "Atheist' is a label that also points to those who have no belief in a god" without any reason why."
Exactly that. I was tired of being corrected by rhetoric. Though I do have to have some admiration for someone who has more patience and a thicker skin than me. Fair play for forcing the 'no' thing as well (although it did spring from a misunderstanding on his part).
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman "(although it did spring from a misunderstanding on his part)."
Isn't it the case, that a lot of ideas and inventions happen this way?
If we understood everything, we would have nothing left to question.
I had actually considered for a while what gklr said: "I want no...."
I considered the present participle: "Are you kicking a ball?" -> "I am kicking no ball" etc.
I considered added adverbs: "Are you singing the song loudly?" -> "I am singing no song loudly" etc.
cont... 1/3
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@mungbeanman ...cont. 2/3
I decided, although they sound unnatural, they are probably correct in logic terms.
I certainly didn't realize it in terms of an empty set. And I hadn't applied it to "have". Until recently.
But to be fair, I hadn't disputed the logic. (I had said, logic wasn't the main principle in conveying meaning in communication.)
I never claimed: "I don't want any...." was correct in logic, only that the meaning was understood.
cont...
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@mungbeanman ...cont. 3/3
If someone says: "I ain't got no money" I realize they mean "I have no money"
If someone says: "I ain't never got no money" I realize they mean "I always have no money"
Even when stated incorrectly, the meaning is understood. (that was the point I was making previously)
To mung: I know I said I wouldn't reply to you unless you had replied to me.
But as you quoted and mentioned me, I've made an exception.
Hope I haven't stepped out of line.
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@mungbeanman,
"Exactly that. I was tired of being corrected by rhetoric."
Nonetheless, your input (this video and comments to it) including the rhetorical, led to another brick in the wall with "having no bananas". If you had taken my advice, he'd be gone long ago. Your patience, your video... otherwise?
Oh ya, well maybe it would've been covered sometime, maybe. But here... it was.
Lesson learned then. I am taking it a bit hard that I have been so harsh with people. I am embarassed.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "Square 1? Why?"
OK, first things, I didn't mean it to sound like a claim (I realize it does look like that), It was supposed to be an open ended comment I wanted an opinion on.
If 'atheist' is a label without meaning, that points to something, can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth about the atheist.
eg:
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes.
(not claims)
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"OK, first things, I didn't mean it to sound like a claim (I realize it does look like that), It was supposed to be an open ended comment I wanted an opinion on."
Wow. See this is where the divide lies then. When you say it as you did, you project a firm stance that flies in the face of the reasons why not that have been already provided. But lets go through those steps so they are clear instead of haggling over what is an open ended comment and what is a declaration.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "Wow. See this is where the divide lies then."
I agree, and I admit my use of terminology is often incorrect (I have no formal background in this subject, only life experiences)
I am also aware that some points I try to make, may be unclear (I mentioned this to mung very early on)
I have a mild form of dyslexia, that although doesn't affect my reading, does affect how I put into words what I am thinking.
So I realize even though I may not be the best equipped, I am certainly keen.
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"I have no formal background in this subject"
Neither do I. I was raised on it. I was not schooled on it. I am not now. At ease on the formal training stuff.
A large part of what I do is to bring these formal understandings into natural language. I am very big on the principle that symbolic logic is superflous pomp and elitist pap smacked snotness. ie: I dislike it.
I am big on saying that we can present all of those formal arguments in informal language.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
When we talk about groups of things we are using set theory. Set theory is just the formalized way of presenting those ideas. There is not just 1 "set theory" either, but it any set theory the kind of thing we are doing is basic.
All believers in god are a set of people. We identify that set with the label "theists". For everyone else we can say they do not have that belief. NON identifies the COMPLEMENT (not compliment) set. Label: Nontheists.
That is what you identified.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "For everyone else we can say they do not have that belief."
OK.
Does this complement set include everything in the universe that is not a theist, or just everyone?
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"complement set include everything in the universe that is not a theist, or just everyone?"
The complement set is dependent on the original set. If the set is "the set of people who believe in a god" then the complement has to be people. If the set is "the set of those things that believe in a god", then the complement set are all of those things that dont believe
I use people because I think it is inherent to the discussion that we are talking about what people are or arent
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi, "those with no belief" refers to people with something, a set of religious beliefs that are empty.
Either the set is empty (nontheist) or there is at least 1 belief statement they think is true about a proposed god (theist). This covers all the possibilities for everyone. There is no other possibility. Everyone either believes in a god or not. By referring to these people as atheists leaves atheism without meaning; all we know about a nontheist is that they exist.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "the set is empty (nontheist)"
I read recently that an empty set is always a subset. If this is the case, would that mean the set: nontheists is a complement set and a subset?
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
I can't think of why every empty set is a subset other than that they are members of the set of all sets. In that case yes, it is a set and a subset.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
There is a real problem in qualifying any members to the set of theists or nontheists.... proof. As you have written, we can't prove what someone believes or not... so we can' prove anyone is a theist or a nontheist.
We assume they are telling us the truth this way and it's a safe bet in most instances that they are.... I assume. But that is what is needed to say anyone is a theist or nontheist. That's a problem really for those sets, we can' prove anyone is a member of either.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "That's a problem really for those sets, we can' prove anyone is a member of either."
Interesting
Yes, in most cases, I agree we can assume they are telling the truth.
But is this enough. What about people who claim they are theists, but are telling lies:
eg.
Fear of reprisal from family, community, etc.
Can we rule out people who dishonestly claim to be a theist for other reasons, agenda, integration, etc.
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonLeVisi,
"But is this enough. What about people who claim they are theists, but are telling lies:
eg. Fear of reprisal from family, community, etc."
Exactly. Think it's bad in Kansas? Try Kabul. This great atheist revolution has a long way to go in Indonesia. And even if that all happened have we rid the world of poor logic when people say they are what they are not?
Will every politician be honest and ever advertisment say the whole story if we wipe out the poor logic of theism?
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr "we can' prove anyone is a member of either."
How do we get round this problem.
Could we label the set: "What we believe to be theists", or, "People we believe are theists" ?
Can we even have sets of things we can't prove ?
Taking this into consideration.
Would it be better if the words 'theist' and 'atheist' were rendered obsolete ?
We have no words like 'loch-ness monsterist', 'unicornist', I know of no words for other beliefs of proposed beings ?
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
gklr: "we can' prove anyone is a member of either (set)."
Don: "How do we get round this problem"
We can't. It's a fatal end. We can't prove anyone is a theist, nontheist, atheist or nonatheist until we can read minds via ESP or a mind reading machine. We cannot prove we believe anything or not. Thus we are dealing with beliefs by catagorizing anyone as any of the above. We can't even prove to ourselves that we are any of those catagories or we could prove it to others.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"Could we label the set: "What we believe to be theists", or, "People we believe are theists" ?"
Ha. I am arguing that this is what we are doing whether we like to see it that way or not. I am happy to reduce it to "theists", but with recognition that by "theist" I refer to those people I believe are theists.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"Can we even have sets of things we can't prove?"
Sure we can. We simply have the sets themselves by definition, whether or not we can prove anyone is a member of them. The set of people who believe I created the universe is empty (I believe), but the set exists with some members or with no members.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr "The set of people who believe I created the universe is empty (I believe), but the set exists with some members or with no members."
Ha. no members I would hope.
So it is determining who is a member of any given set.
In the case of this discussion: 'atheist' and 'theist'.
Would I then be right in saying, that although members (if any) of either set can't be proven, and therefore the sets may not be accurate, set theory can still be useful for the terms of this discussion ?
DonLeVisi 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"if any) of either set can't be proven, and therefore the sets may not be accurate, set theory can still be useful for the terms of this discussion ?"
Yes as we are dealing with groups of people even if we can't prove who is in what group. We believe people when they say they are a theist or an atheist and place them into a group. If we believe they are lying we add a NON and we're done. But that they are either is beyond provability.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"If 'atheist' is a label without meaning, that points to something, can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth about the atheist.
eg:
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes."
I am an atheist and so are others, so they are different somethings.
"'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints.... anything" (or other artistic works)
gklr 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr ""'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints.... anything" (or other artistic works)"
Would you say a person who paints a wall (ie. Painter and decorator) is an artist ?
What about a sculptor ?, a musician ? etc. This is what I meant by "different somethings" I realize all people are different somethings.
Maybe, 'artist' is a label that points to a person who creates art. (even though art is very subjective)
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"Would you say a person who paints a wall (ie. Painter and decorator) is an artist ?
What about a sculptor ?, a musician ? etc"
All artists.
gklr 8 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints portraits.
'artist' is a label that points to a person who paints landscapes."
An atheist is very specific like "theist" is.
The set of people that include artists is much broader. The set of people who are painters is much thinner. The set of people who paint landscapes is even thinner. Each is getting more specific.
The set of people who are atheists is quite specific, relative to artists.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "An atheist is very specific like "theist" is.
The set of people that include artists is much broader. The set of people who are painters is much thinner. The set of people who paint landscapes is even thinner. Each is getting more specific."
Sorry I missed this.
Ok.
Labels, that point to things, can range from very specific to very broad.
So the label 'artist' points to people like musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, etc.
So the set: 'artists' includes the above as its members ?
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"If 'atheist' is a label ... can it point to different somethings (as long as the something has a truth...)"
No. A truth about something doesn't define it. eg: All atheists have bones.
We distinguish one set from another set by showing a difference. Describing atheists as the set of people who believe there is no god, is quite seperate from the set of people who have no belief in a god (nontheists, including babies). We've described a new set with it's own complement.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "No. A truth about something doesn't define it. eg: All atheists have bones."
I understand.
Even though 'atheist', 'theist', 'artist' are labels with no meaning that point to things. It seems we determine information from recognizing the label, although this may not be necessary when interacting with the thing that is pointed to.
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@mungbeanman "Your world view IS a belief system and is made up of single beliefs such as whether you believe there is a god or not."
A world view is not a belief sytem.
A world view is your complete outlook. This includes beliefs, belief systems, and what you know to be true.
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@gklr "if we are to believe anyone believes anything"
I think we can believe any person believes anything.
But we can't know if anyone believes anything
DonLeVisi 9 months ago
@DonLeVisi,
"I think we can believe any person believes anything.
But we can't know if anyone believes anything"
Quite right. Which is one reason atheism is a belief.
Declaring that you believe a god exists, or don't believe it... are belief statements.
Declaring you believe no god exists, or don't believe no god exists, are beliefs too.
Anyone saying they are any of "theist, nontheist, atheist, nonatheist" is itself a belief.
gklr 9 months ago
"why does that logic fly out the window..."
subbed, because your 1 in a thousand honest people on you tube and im a theist
niinja2 9 months ago
@niinja2
Thanks.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
It is not the case that the present King of France has money, is true.
It is not the case that the present King of France has no money, is true.
Money = no money? Nope.
It is not the case that the present King of France is or has anything. "has no money" means to have an empty set.
The first says the present King of France doesn't have a set of money with members.
The second says the present King of France doesn't have a set of money with no members.
gklr 9 months ago
Saying the present King of France doesn't have no money.... says "the present King of France does not have an empty set".
The present King of France does not have anything, including any empty sets.
One negative is on the present King of France, the second negative is on the money.
So.... the present King of France does not have no bananas, is true and does not say the present King of France has bananas. It says the present King of France does not have an empty set of bananas.
gklr 9 months ago
Don....did actually offer this discussion something this time, even if he missed the point at the time.
It was to resolve how NO works in this context, and it is seperate from NON or NOT. No money, no hands etc...
Significant because we can't say "the present King of France has no money" as it would require the present King of France to have an empty set. We can say "the present King of France does not have no money", which doesn't say he has money. It is not a double negative.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"You can prove that it is probable or not - very few things (if anything) can be completely proven."
Then if you can't prove it is true or false it is a belief to say you or anyone is a theist or an atheist.
You require belief to say you are a nontheist (doesn't believe) or a theist (believes god(s) exist) or an atheist (believes no god exists) or a nonatheist(doesn't believe no god exists).
You come across as a nontheist and nonatheist. (and notter).
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"2. When it "does not exist" is not pertinent, what matters are it's aspects when it DOES exist"
Whether it exists or not is irrelevent. The logical form is identical. "X is not Y" does not say what X is, whether X exists or not. It says what X is not, not what X is. Not Y is never anything.
X does not have Y is what X lacks Y says. Those are equal. X does not have Y, says what is not the case, what is not real. Saying what is not real and declaring it is REAL, is false.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr I didn't say what is not real. Again you refuse to abandon this faulty thinking and misrepresentation of what I've said. So long.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"I didn't say what is not real.... abandon this faulty thinking and misrepresentation of what I've said. So long."
Saying atheists lack belief in a god, says what is not real about the atheist. It states what is not the case about the atheist, not what is the case.
It's your faulty reasoning coming to the forefront and you simply don't want to deal with it, which is ok by me.
There is no such thing as a lack of belief. You call atheism something that does not exist.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"1. Of course there is such a thing as a lack of belief"
Then prove it. Hard to do when it's proven to not exist. So now you have a burden of proof. Prove a lack of belief exists. I'll make it easier.... prove a lack of anything exists.
The proof that a lack of belief does not exist is that it is a logical contradiction to say it does as it says "what is not the case (about X), is what is the case", and at the same time. POOF goes a lack of belief.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof. If you can prove belief for me then I'll show you the proof of unbelief. But since you can't why not just admit that the claim to belief is no more valid than the claim to unbelief? O right, you have some sort of mental problem. I'll be gone for a while... probably won't bother coming back to this. Hopefully you'll someday reexamine your thoughts on this.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
""Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof."
I included it in the same message. What is not the case, is what is the case, is contradictory and what you are saying. What is not real, is what is real.
Dopey logic but good luck with it.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"If you can prove belief for me then I'll show you the proof of unbelief."
Mathematics is not theism and is not atheism.
Theism lacks belief in a god and is not an atheist. Also, although it is true that theism lacks belief in a god, saying so says nothing about what theism is.... and saying atheists lack belief in a god, while true, says nothing about what an atheist is.
Like it or not.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr That's nonsense. In fact it's stupid. I'm not going to continue this torture. Go read a book on rationality or something.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
""Hard to do when it's proven to not exist." Yeah, still waiting on that proof. "
A lack of belief is "what x does not have".
I do not have a 32nd head or a 23 millionth head. Saying so says nothing about what I have, it states what is not the case about me, what I do not have, what is not real about me.
To say what is not real about atheists is what is real about atheists is contradictory.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Again you revert to an argument about semantics instead of addressing reality."
Your semantics state what is not real is what is real and it screams out for attention. Your semantics, and all arguments are semantical.... violate formal logic. You misuse and incorrectly apply a logical operator, NOT.
Not cannot be applied to loaded, beliefs, theism, theists.... or anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. "Not theism" doesn't exist. No such banana.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"it is assumed (due to CONTEXT) that there is a gun that exists. Get real."
The statement does not talk about the gun whether or not the gun exists. The logical form is identical and each time states what is not the case, what is not real. What is not real about the gun is not real.
You confuse saying what is not real about something to be saying what is real. Then you say I have a reality fail. Consider for a moment your plight.
What is not real is real? Really?
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Nope, you are confusing truth and reality with stating a characteristic. I guess you're just incapable of grasping this concept.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"you refuse to acknowledge the obvious aspects of context and reality."
No that is the argument already made to you about what you are doing. You are saying what is not real, is what is real. What is not true about atheists is what is true about atheists.
Saying "atheists lack belief in a god" says what is not the case about atheists, not what is the case about atheists.
I lack a 32nd head does not say a thing about me at all. I lack a 3 millionth head too.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Nope, not saying what is not true, I'm saying what is true. It is true that they do not believe in god(s). But you know, you're so good at telling me what I'm saying just keep on changing what it is I say to coincide with how you want to reply.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"It is you who redefines words to suit your specific purpose in order to maintain a superior and arrogant position"
Nah. I help out by correcting the logical errors in your writing. It is easy to do. If that is arrogant then ok I am as arrogant as fuck. But your assessment is rather like a psychic reading and frankly what you base it on can't be on what I wrote to you.... you reversed what I said completely in one instance.
Hard sale on the psychic show.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"They... mean... same thing"
False. One speaks to what the gun is. One speaks to what teh gun is not.
"Is" does not equate "is not". A fundamental error.
The "both" are "the gun is unloaded" and "the gun is not loaded" to refresh you.
"Not loaded" is never what the gun is.
Where X is any thing, not X is not any thing.
There is no such thing as "Not X" no matter what X is.
Not can only be applied to propositions and propositional functions, not to "loaded".
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
I think we are dealing with the 3 stooges here, and that's Pandonodrim, Spectre11B, and Don. Every last single one of them has demonstrated their clear dishonesty. If you've been reading the comments, Spectre claims that atheism being defined as belief that no god(s) exist doesn't make sense because god isn't properly defined. Well, I gave him a clear definition of god, then he preceded to ask me to define terms like divine and supernatural.
Continued...
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@gklr
I'm thinking "Is this guy for real?" What he attempted to do is avoid dealing with the definition of god I gave him, then he preceded to obfuscate the discussion by asking me to define the attributes about god, such as supernatural and divine. I get real sick and tired of attempting to educate so called atheists on the basics of the god discussion. He has no business saying god isn't properly defined if he isn't even aware of the basics of the god discussion to begin with. Good grief. SMH
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
"Is this guy for real?"
The problem they have is utterly one of logic, so you will get the strangest replies and almost unimaginable logic. If the topic was mathematics, well we'd get some strange looking mathematics too. Ummm, we did actually today! Today I was told 1+1=2 only in 10 base systems, when HEX and many other systems would use it as well. Hard to believe someone is accusing topics of propositional logic to be "semantics", when they can' get past mere symbols.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
"Ummm, we did actually today! Today I was told 1+1=2 only in 10 base systems, when HEX and many other systems would use it as well. Hard to believe someone is accusing topics of propositional logic to be "semantics", when they can' get past mere symbols."
I saw that comment by that guy, all I could do is laugh. The ignorance of these guys astounds me. LOL. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
If god was defined as they ask, it would be proven to exist. They are asking you to prove a god exists. It's a strawman argument because the issue is not proving a god exists.
Both of you erred on names and labels. God is a name/label that allegedly points to something. We know there are many proposed gods, alleged gods and those are what we talk about when discussing atheism. "Proposed to exist gods". "God" in the context of atheism can only mean proposed to exist gods.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
What do you mean? Was there something I said that I missed the point on?
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
At one point you said "god can be defined" or if not then some other label/name.
Words mean what they do and outside their meanings they mean nothing. Labels and names are the only words that mean nothing. Labels and names merely refer to things. "God" is not defined, anymore than "tree" is defined. You and Spectre11B were haggling on that. He had it right at one point and then reverted. lol. Anyway.... names have no definition or meaning. Labels too. They refer instead.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
Well, I have no problem with that. Then all I would have to tell Spectre is that he's establishing a fallacious criteria when he says that atheists cannot believe there is no god because god isn't defined. Atheists most certainly believe there is no god, but not based off god being defined, but based off of certain proposed ideas of god that the atheist find problematic. Does that make sense, or am I still missing something? Let me know. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
"eists most certainly believe there is no god, but not based off god being defined, but based off of certain proposed ideas of god that the atheist find problematic. Does that make sense, or am I still missing something? Let me know. :-)"
Bingo.
gklr 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
"What do you mean? Was there something I said that I missed the point on?"
It was a small point. Labels and names aren't defined, "God" is a label/name.
Define god? Hmmm. Nope.
Define "tree". Nope.
Define "car". Nope.
Words like tree, car, god etc... refer to things... in the case of "god" it claims to refer and that it refers or not is the issue of atheism. They'd be better off asking "what does "god" refer to? And in the context of this topic: "any proposed god"
gklr 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986,
I was answering from below and had intended on addressing the point on labels and names with you both, it just so happened you started to post here 1st.
I am driving my own replies off the page which is my cue to stop and do something else. lol.
Enjoy the weirdoes. TMZ looks good at this time of night. ciao
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
Good night. Talk later dude. Thanks for the good input as always. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@gklr
"God is a name/label that allegedly points to something. We know there are many proposed gods, alleged gods and those are what we talk about when discussing atheism."
Right. I was simply attempting to give IMO the most common definition of what is usually meant by a particular god, a supreme personal being that controls part or all of the universe, usually divine and supernatural in nature, and usually worshiped in light of the power such a being has. Spectre rejected this definition.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@gklr Not what I said, but yes - "not loaded" is what the gun is, if it is not loaded. Never mind reality though - your mind games must keep you awfully entertained.
I guess if we had a duel I could give you a "not loaded" gun and take a loaded one and you'd be fine with that - since "not loaded" is in no way describing the gun.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Not what I said, but yes - "not loaded" is what the gun is"
Not X, where X is any thing, is not any thing.
Not loaded is not anything. Sorry.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "Not loaded" does not equal "not anything," it equals "not loaded." If a gun is not loaded it does not mean it is also not an eggplant. It means it is not loaded. It only corresponds directly to the issue of whether or not the gun has bullets in it.
I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old with a college professor's vocabulary. A very strange experience.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
""Not loaded" does not equal "not anything," it equals "not loaded."
There is no such object or thing that is the thing "not loaded".
Where X is any thing, including "loaded", not X is not any thing (including loaded).
There is no such thing as Not X, no matter what X is. Sorry to tell ya this way but...
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr "There is no such object or thing that is the thing "not loaded"."
Yes there is. It is the gun. I understand your philosophical reason for not admitting this, but reality is there is a gun, and if it is not loaded then that gun is not loaded. You can deny this truth all you want, but it won't change reality. It is a completely illogical statement to say that there is no such thing as "Not X." You have not proven a single of my examples wrong on this point.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"There is no such object or thing that is the thing "not loaded"."
Yes there is. It is the gun
Saying the gun is not loaded, says what the gun is not. It does not say what the gun is. It says (the gun is not) (loaded). It says what is not real about the gun. Not what is real about the gun. The proof is that the gun is not loaded is true when the gun does not exist. It does not say (the gun is) (not loaded).
Loaded is not a proposition or propositional function.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Not loaded" does not equal "not anything,"
Yes it does and I proved why and you have no reply at all on it.
Where X is any thing, not X is not any thing.
Not X, no matter what X is, is not anything.
Prove "where X is any thing, not X is not anything" is false. Good luck.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"When someone says a gun is "not loaded" it is assumed (due to CONTEXT) that there is a gun that exists. Get real"
I am. Saying what is not real about the gun does not say anything about the gun even when the gun exists. What the gun is not not is not what the gun is.
You misunderstand X is not Y to be saying what X is. It does not say (X is) (not Y). It says (X is not) (Y).
Not Y is never something that exists no matter what Y is. No thing is "not Y"
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"You are claiming there is some fundamentally vital difference between saying a gun is unloaded and saying it is not loaded"
Correct. The gun is unloaded requires the gun exists, it uses primary predication and the subject of proposition that uses primary predication (says what it is) must exist. The subject of a proposition that uses secondary predication (says what it is not) need not exist and the proposition is valid. When the gun did not exist, it was not loaded.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"And a label is a word, you continue to make no sense"
I said labels are words. Your objection makes no sense. Labels and names are the only words with no meaning, they refer to things.
I said dictinctly to you that labels are words. You object and claim I say labels are not words? Really?
lol. Cute.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"See, you are an absolutist, and you must be right."
So I must agree with "only in a base 10 system is that true" is true, or I am an absolutist? Do you have any idea what "absolute truth" even is? Obviously not. How is anything true when no languages existed? They can't be, as no propositions exist and only propositions are true or false.... and I am an absolutist?
You use words that you have no clue as to their meaning, often.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr No, you just don't understand basic concepts. You are constantly speaking from an absolutist standpoint of this "nothing can ever be described by what it is not" philosophy. While your statements are, in themselves, true - they do not hold up when placed in reality and when context gives you understanding and comparison to understand a negative qualifying statement.
But yeah, keep belittling me since you have no real excuse for denying all this.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
Learn how to use NOT and get back to me. You have no possible argument.
No thing is, what it is not. It is contradictory. Violate logic much?
Is = is not? Otherwise I am an absolutist?
Funny, but hardly rational.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Nope, agian not what I said. Until you actually read and comprehend what I write I'm no longer going to waste my time replying to you. I have never said that what is not real equals what is real. That is what you have claimed I have said. Reply again and address what I actually said or else we're done.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
Saying atheists lack belief in a god says what atheists do not have. That is true about what is not the case about atheists. What is not real about atheists is what you've said is real about atheists.
That is your error. You confusing secondary predicates for a primary predicate and it demonstrates you have no clue as to what atheism is and say it is what is not real about atheists.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr No, it's true about what is the case about atheists. I have not said that what is not real about atheists is real about atheists. I've said that what is real about them (that they don't believe in god - this is real, not not real) is what is the case about them. Try to get it straight.
It is your inability to comprehend this simple concept that is the problem here. You're nonsensical claim to "logic" that the absence of something must make it automatically unreal. Nonsense.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"No, it's true about what is the case about atheists"
False. "atheists do not have (lack) belief in a god" says what atheists do not have, what is not the case.... it says nothing about atheists at all. The proof of that is that it is true when no atheists exists. The same exact statement is true when no atheists exist. No truths exist for things that do not exist.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"I have not said that what is not real about atheists is real about atheists."
Yes you have. You are saying atheists lack belief in a god (secondary predications) is talking about atheists (primary predication. You cannot violate logic more than that.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Nope, lacking something is not the same as it not being real. That's completely false. I'm tired of your continued, erroneous protestations. Nothing you say leads to a reasonable or rational conclusion.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Nope, lacking something is not the same as it not being real. "
Saying I lack a 32nd head says what is not real about me.
Your logic leads to a lot of contradictory nonsense. See a truth about an object proves that the object exists. We can't have truths for things that do not exist.
If "atheists do not believe in god" was about atheists then "god does not exist" would be about god... and prove a god exists.
And theism lacks belief in a god. Theism is atheism?
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"I've said that what is real about them (that they don't believe in god - this is real, not not real) is what is the case about them. Try to get it straight."
Well there is your problem in logic. You are treating, as I've said all along, secondary predicates (what something is not) as primary predicates (what something is).
Not not real is real, and I have not come close to using "not not real" in place of "real" even though they are equal. You write oddly.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Lol - only in a base 10 system is that true"
False. 1+1=2 in Hex as well for example. Again you speak out of line and say things that have no basis in reality. While you laugh at how stupid I am, here you are stating falsehoods and calling them truths.
This is the quality of logical background I expect of anyone saying atheism is a lack of belief, or that a lack of belief or a lack of anything.... IS something. Does it get more clownish? No.
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"You have set yourself up as absolute truth - therefore your opinion and your argument is untouchable."
Proven truths are not opinions. Opinions are only 1 kind of subjective belief and subjective beliefs are 1 of 3 belief types. Assumptions are myths are objective. It is a tautologous truth that "atheism is not a lack of belief", because "a lack of belief" is not anything. There is no such thing. Ironic ce pas?
gklr 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim,
"Lol, you're pathetic. You can't even be honest about what you are doing here."
What part of what I say do you find dishonest?
"You have set yourself up as absolute truth - therefore your opinion and your argument is untouchable. "
"atheism isnt a lack of belief" is true, but wasnt true before mind or language existed, and nothing was, so no absolutes are possible. All truths require proof, "atheism is not a lack of belief" is proven true, therefore its not absolute.
gklr 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonLeVisi,
"The venn diagram in Mung's vid, shows nontheists are the same set as atheists, and nonatheists are the same set as theists."
He'd be wrong. All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists. Babies do not believe in a god and are nontheists. Babies do not believe there is no god and are nonatheists. The present King of France does not believe in a god and is not a theist and is not a nontheist, is not an atheist and is not a nonatheist.
gklr 9 months ago
bald:
Having a scalp wholly or partly lacking hair
(of an animal) Not covered by the usual fur, hair, or feathers
- hedgehogs are born bald
(of a plant or an area of land) Not covered by the usual leaves, bark, or vegetation
- the bald trunks with their empty branches
(of a tire) Having the tread worn away
- my car had two bald tires
As you can see, every definition is specifically referencing something which is absent. So OF COURSE it presupposes.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Theism:
An entity that is absent of atheism, a lack of atheism.
Presupposing that theism exists, and theism can only be theism, it logically follows that it's not atheism. So it's an absence of it.
Using your reasoning, I've just shown you with context that theism is an absence of specifically atheism. Disagree? If so, then your reasoning is wrong since it uses the exact same logic. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Have you chosen not to respond?
What I find best is to analyze the definition as it stands on its own. In each case where you attempted to contradict my definition, you were using your definition as the standard. Obviously, there is going to be contention.
This is why I am testing your definition as it stand alone. Are you willing to support your definition by answering my question?
Spectre11B 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
I said I was willing to hear your explanation of why you say atheism isn't a belief that there is no God. I'm waiting to hear your explanation. If you've explained it already, then I must have missed it in the midst of all these comments that have appeared on this page.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 I'll just restate it.
"When you state Atheism is a belief in no God. Can you define the God that the Atheist believes doesn't exist?"
Spectre11B 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
With that definition, probably not. That definition seems insufficient because it can refer to any monotheistic god. It's more rational IMO that atheism is the belief that no particular god deity or deities exists. In this way, I don't have to define the god the atheist believes doesn't exist because the definition isn't about defining whether the atheist believes one particular god doesn't exist, but about defining the fact the atheist believes that no god or gods exist at all.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 You can't state any particular god when you haven't established what any god is in the first place. You need to define what that "thing" is before you can state whether you believe it exists or not.
It's tantamount to saying that you believe that null value doesn't exist. Which is nothing more than gibberish.
Spectre11B 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever for this discussion isn't even possible if there isn't an understanding of what god(s) are said to be to begin with. Obviously, you are participating in this discussion, so you must have a basic understanding of the god concept, namely what's being referred to when god is mentioned, usually an entity of a higher state of being than humans who has power well beyond our own. This is common knowledge.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
A god or god(s) can also be referred to as supreme supernatural personal beings who are worshiped as the controller of some or all parts of the universe with authority and divine nature. An example of a god that would fit the description is the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or other said to be monotheistic gods. In this context, this is the concept of god(s) that many atheists go around saying they lack belief such entities exist. This is basic stuff you should be aware of.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 What is supernatural and divine? These need to be defined.
You can't just say, it's just basic stuff you need to be aware of. How is someone supposed to know if they believe in something if they don't know what that something is?
Spectre11B 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
Oh, I most certainly can. That what discussions like this are for. If you don't understand the meaning of the discussion or even bother to find out the meaning, then you have no business talking about it to begin with. You keep asking questions in order to detract the discussion. Your twisted logic is just like saying that a person is a citizen of Africa, and you say "No, you cannot say a person is a citizen of Africa if you don't define what a citizen is." Absolutely ridiculous.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Fine, then give me the definition of god as you see fit. Not the title but exact what it is.
Remember only a theist claims to have this understanding, it makes no sense to assume that an Atheist would.
Spectre11B 9 months ago
@Spectre11B
I gave you a standard idea of what god(s) are that is usually accepted by many people who participate in the discussion. I think that's sufficient enough, and such an idea is usually accepted by theists and atheists, and even agnostic as well.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 This may not be his answer, but the "belief that there is no God" is anti-theism, not atheism (more accurately anti-theism is the hope that there is no god, not the belief that there is no god). Atheism does not require belief in anything, certainly not in believing that there is no god. Many atheists don't claim to believe that there is no god, they just acknowledge that they do not believe in any of the theistic traditions that currently exist.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Wrong. Anti-theism is the outright rejection of theism, NOT the belief that there is no god. There are some people who claim to KNOW there is no god. People claiming to know there is no god necessarily would not have a belief there is no god(if they can prove what they claim to know). You cannot prove that you lack belief in anything, thus that's a belief itself. Any unknowable and/or unprovable proposition is a belief by necessity. Prove that you lack belief in god. You can't. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 The lack of a belief is not a belief. That is nonsense. That would mean that not collecting stamps is a hobby. And you don't need to prove beliefs, all you have to do is claim them. "Prove your beliefs." What a nonsensical statement...
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
When did I say a lack of a belief is a belief? I did NOT. I'm saying that you cannot prove you lack belief in anything, thus, it's NOT a lack of belief in the first place. It's a belief, since you cannot prove the proposition that you lack belief in something. Where did I say anything about proving beliefs? :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 "You cannot prove that you lack belief in anything, thus that's a belief itself." Simply claiming it is not a lack of a belief (because you seem to think it is unprovable) does not make it so. Reality does not operate a certain way just because that's the way you want it to.
So you're a little different from the others on here? You are claiming a lack in a belief is unprovable but a belief is provable? I don't see how one is and the other isn't.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Where did I EVER say a belief is provable? I did NOT. It seems you aren't paying attention. If you cannot prove you lack belief in the god proposition, you have a belief by nature. As I said before, ANY unprovable and/or unknowable proposition is a belief. If you propose that you lack belief in god(s), then prove it. If you can't, it's by necessity a belief.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Stop being an ass, stop being obtuse and talk straight then. "Where did I say anything about proving beliefs?" This insinuated to me (due to context) that perhaps you believed beliefs were provable - so now I'm asking if you think they are provable or not.
There is no proposition to atheism, that is your problem here. There is no proposition to know or prove, there is simply the lack of a belief put forth by others. This should not be this hard to understand.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Stop assuming I'm being obtuse and listen to what I'm actually saying. I never once said that beliefs were provable, and to answer your question, I believe that beliefs are not provable. Do you even know what a proposition is? A proposition is a statement. Example, you could say to yourself "I lack belief in god(s)." That very statement is a proposition. Are you saying that you don't make such a proposition? If not, then you're not even claiming to lack belief in the first place.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 I don't know why you went here. I haven't said anything to suggest this. All I was doing was trying to get more specifics about what you had been saying about proving beliefs or proving lack of belief. You've finally, partially, answered that.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
The reason I went here is to illustrate to you that atheists do make propositions regarding what they claim atheism is. You the one who said that there's no proposition to atheism, and that simply incorrect given the fact in your view, atheism is a lack of belief, and you do claim to lack belief in god(s), and since you cannot prove this proposition, you hold a belief by necessity. As I've said before, any unprovable and/or unknowable proposition is a belief, PERIOD.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 I don't ever recall saying there are no attributable propositions to atheism. But unbelief is not a belief. If that is not a clear, logical fallacy for you then I don't know what else to say. Atheists can have beliefs, they can have beliefs that are in some way related to the theism/atheism relationship. But simply being an atheist does not include any kind of belief. It is unbelief.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Prove that you lack a belief in god(s). If you don't have a belief, then you should have no problem proving it. Until you do, you will remain with a belief, like it or not. All unknowable and/or unprovable propositions are beliefs, and if you propose you lack belief in god(s) and cannot prove such a proposition, then you have a belief, PERIOD. Unless you can prove you lack belief, you have no grounds to stand on. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Your premise that you need to prove that someone doesn't believe something but yet not prove that they do have a belief is completely illogical. It is a non sequitur. You don't have to prove unbelief and you don't have to prove belief. Either you believe something or you don't - and people just have to accept what you tell them.
If someone tells me they believe in god I don't ask them to prove that they believe - I ask them to prove that god is real.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
I didn't say ANYTHING ABOUT NEEDING TO PROVE LACK OF BELIEF. Pay better attention. A person may very well lack belief, but if that person claims "I lack belief in god(s)," and they cannot prove it, such a statement is a belief. I cannot prove that I believe in God, so I have a belief. Saying that one lacks belief is NOT the same as saying that one cannot prove they lack belief. How hard is this to understand? :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 O, I understand what you're trying to do perfectly - what I'm trying to get you to see is how stupid it is. For one, I never said saying one lacked belief was the same as saying it cannot be proven they lack belief. But you most certainly said something about needing to prove lack of belief: "simply prove your unbelief. That's all you have to do."
"I cannot prove that I believe in God, so I have a belief." This suggests that not being able to prove unbelief makes unbelief a belief.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
The only reason I said for you to prove your lack of belief is because you were claiming that you don't have a belief. Yes, you do. You've already admitted the statement "I don't believe there IS a God" would be a belief, which is what I've been saying all along. Therefore, if asked if you believed there is a god or gods that exist, and there were only two possible answers, what would be your answer?
1. I don't believe god(s) exists, or,
2. I believe god(s) don't exist
Which one?
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Which is just dumb.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 And a non-sequitur.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 I will say that the statement "I don't believe there IS a God" would be a belief - since it remarks on the question of existence of something unknowable/unprovable. But not-believing in a god is not a belief, it is the absence of one.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Again, attempting to claim that unbelief is belief is just about the most illogical thing I've ever heard.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
If it's so illogical, then simply prove your unbelief. That's all you have to do.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Non-sequitur.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Claiming it's a non-sequitur doesn't prove it. Stop stalling and prove your unbelief.
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 There you go again. If this nonsense is all you have left to keep going back to then we are done. "Prove your unbelief... I didn't say prove your unbelief... now prove your unbelief."
Either you're being purposefully dishonest because you have nothing of substance left to put forth or else you are just utterly and completely stupid.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Wrong. I said one doesn't need to prove their lack of belief, but if they claim they do not have a belief, that's a claim they must prove. If you never claimed you lacked belief, you wouldn't have to prove it. But since you did, you DO have to prove it. Frustration isn't an argument. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 Frustration isn't my argument, stop being a condescending ass. You have proven in no way that a claim to unbelief requires proof when a claim to belief requires none. No one can prove they believe in something - they can just protest that they do. The same is true for unbelief. Unless you have something to refute this then I see no reason why I would need to prove unbelief to you. Even if I wanted to and even if it would mean anything.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
A belief requires no proof because beliefs by their very definition CANNOT be proven. If they could, they would be TRUTHS, not beliefs. When you make a propositional statement such as "I lack belief in god(s)," you're saying something about what you are not that cannot be proven. When you say something that can't be proven to be true, by necessity it's a belief, like it or not. TRUTHS are proven statements about reality. Anything else outside of that is belief. YOUR PROBLEM. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 You didn't address the point. If a belief cannot be proven then how can an unbelief be proven? Your suggestion that anything that is not proven truth is a belief is ludicrous. What about speculation, theory or anything else - just because people think things up that aren't provable doesn't mean they BELIEVE in them. I can't prove that unicorns do or do not exist, but that doesn't mean I believe in them either way. You can't prove unbelief because you can't prove belief.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
I didn't say unbelief could be proven, did I? In fact, I've said and still say quite the opposite. There a difference between saying that unbelief cannot be proven and you saying 'I have no belief as an atheist, I simply lack belief that god(s) exist." When you say that you don't have any beliefs, you have to prove that statement. If you can't, then that statement is a belief. THAT is the point. You cannot prove your statement is true, thus it's a belief. Pay better attention. :-)
Tonloc1986 9 months ago
@Tonloc1986 So it can't be proven but I have to prove it. Right. Get lost.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
@Pandonodrim
It can't be proven, that's the point. So don't go around saying things you cannot prove, such as "I have no belief as an atheist." It can't be proven, but you were one who made the statement to begin with. You have to prove it if you make the statement, PERIOD. Since it can't be done, it shows that you're saying things you cannot hope to prove. It's just l