It seems like people like to use words however they want. It is my understanding that atheism is supposed to mean the lack of belief of any gods. That sounds like a default position to me.
I personally don't think we actually need the label atheist however. We don't call people non-smokers if they don't smoke, or non-rapists. So why give a label to the default position.
If that is what atheism is supposed to be then It sounds to me like it's the default position.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is why it is associated with higher levels of IQ for example. You haven't added anything to the position I am arguing against nor addressed the logical problems I raise in the video: are we atheists 1,000,000 years ago when we also lacked a belief in god?
"We don't call people non-smokers"
We quite often do, look in the personal ads. However that's how set theory works; the negated set of smokers are non-smokers.
@mungbeanman The problem lies in teh definition of the word. 80% of the definitions i've seen/heard for atheism are simply the lack of belief in god. If that's the case i most definitely am one. If the definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god then I am far from that. I don't lie, you may call me a non-liar if you want. I will never say "there is no god" because there's no good reason to believe that to be true.
No it doesn't, the problem lies with what atheism is and what it is not. What is atheism? and what does the word atheism mean? are two entirely different questions.
"80% of the definitions i've seen/heard for atheism are simply the lack of belief in god."
Might I recommend a dictionary?
"I will never say "there is no god""
Saying there IS no god is different from saying that you believe there is no god.
Really? Oh, okay. Well one statement is an attempt to express a truth (and comes with a burden of proof) while the other expresses an attitude toward a proposition. I can't put it more clearly than that.
"there's no good reason to believe that to be true."
Then you identify yourself as belonging to the excluded middle. Typically this is how the agnostics would describe themselves but there is some dispute regarding what this position is which I am not prepared to involve myself in.
"I personally take the default position which I had thought matched the definition of atheists."
Which is why I ask if you were an atheist one million years ago.
@mungbeanman I personally take the default position which I had thought matched the definition of atheists. If you're telling me I'm wrong there's not much i can do about that but say oops.
Most people don't like to be shown their error using logic that they are not familiar with or do not understand. It is a sad inevitability of a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
a) The "logic and the reason part" of an atheistic stance is how *you* arrived at your conclusion, but only after you had the idea of theism introduced to you. Newborn babies don't have (much?) logic or reasoning but it doesn't matter - they also haven't been introduced to theism so there's no concept to reject - they are innate atheists.
b) "A newborn baby has no IQ" - this is flat wrong. IQ is the relationship between intelligence & age. All humans have an IQ but regardless, it's irrelevant!
Atheism isn't an attribute but the lack of an attribute, it is simply the flaw of our language that the lack of an attribute may be given a term so that it's used in the same way as an attribute.
You haven't really said anything other than restate the logically faulty argument that I am disagreeing with. You haven't added any real hows or whys or added any contradictory counter logic. It can be difficult to argue against rhetoric.
I think the real reason why is seems so odd to define a baby or a non-born human (whatever that may mean) as an atheist is because the word "atheist" shouldn't even exist (e.g. no one says non-astrologer). The only reason why it doesn't sound odd to call an adult an atheist is because we're so used to the word that we forget that it's absurd to use it in the first place.
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
Incidentally, should you choose to reply, could I just ask you what term you use to describe someone who believes there is no god? Of course, being as you have stated that the word 'atheist' should not exist I will not be accepting any term that contains the word atheist: strong atheist, implicit atheist etc.
And you asking me to replace the word atheist with another would not solve the problem. The problem is that a non-property is defined as a property. Certainly in many situations it's very convenient to say the word "atheist," but the fact that it is convenient does not mean it is correct and the fact that it's incorrect doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.
To understand what I'm coming from think of mathematics' often abuse of notation.
Numerous problems exist here. If atheist and non-theist mean the same thing then rocks are atheists. 'A~' does not mean 'non' as 'non' is a logical operator which means 'that which is not', 'a~' is not a recognised logical operator. Besides, the word atheist wasn't created by prefixing theist as the word atheist appears before the word theist and you can't violate cause and effect.
If it's incorrect why are you creating arguments to support such an error?
If the "a" does mean not/without then surely you see that the order of creation doesn't matter. And if you're going to argue for past usage why not trace the etymology back?
"...it leaves no term for the subset of non-theists that believe there is no god." No, there is no difference between "someone who believes in no god" and "someone one who is not [someone who believes in a god]," i.e. the difference is only semantic.
Which I showed using reference to logic operations that it does not.
"surely you see that the order of creation doesn't matter"
Of course it does. Atheos (godless) + ~ism (doctrine, a principle upon which belief is built) = atheism (the doctrine that there is no god). You can't negate or prefix a term which does not exist without violating cause and effect.
English isn't Lojban; there is no flawless way of translating sentences' meaning into logic (I may add that I'm not entirely ignorant on this matter as I've taken two different mathematical logic courses and have translated at least 1,000 sentences).
It seems as if your "cause and effect" rantings make nearly the same claim as saying etymology trumps modern usage.
Indeed there are a-'s and -ism's with contrary to expected meanings.
Rantings? I hardly consider anything I've said a rant but there you go.
Cause and effect can be used to show that it is impossible to prefix or negate a term that does not yet exist. I can't see how this could be a stumbling block. It is very clear cut.
@mungbeanman Lojban is a language recently created so that there were no ambiguities present.
I said rantings simply because at the moment it was the best word I could think of that fit with everything I wanted to say lol.
If "theist" was created with the word "atheist" in mind then it's rather clear that there was a conscious decision made about the "a." Removing the "a" says just the same as appending it.
"Removing the "a" says just the same as appending it."
Which would then rely on the qualifiers for someone to be an atheist as originally intended by the creation of the term to change the minute the word theist was coined. However, I don't see that theism was formed by removing anything from atheism but rather in the same way that atheist was formed i.e. theos (gods) + '~ism'.
@mungbeanman Good point. For the sake of symmetry "theos" and "atheos" then perhaps should have their relationship preserved when jumping to "theist" and "atheist," but history doesn't work exactly like that and I was wrong to use that as justification.
"And if you're going to argue for past usage why not trace the etymology back?"
Sure, atheist was first coined as an insult to describe those who reject god. A rejection (or any attitude for that matter) toward an unknown proposition is one of belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
"the difference is only semantic."
A person who has no concept of god does not believe in god but also does not believe that god doesn't exist i.e. a baby.
There is a problem because if according to you atheist and non-theist are the same it leaves no term for the subset of non-theists that believe there is no god. I am simply asking you to address this problem of your creation because that subset needs a term to help differentiate it from the negated set to which it belongs.
@mungbeanman By your definitions Atheist and non-theist are identical concepts so long as we're dealing with able humans. That means that for nearly all intents and purposes either are usable. My choosing to use "that which is not a theist" is as good as your choice, but my preference exists because of the prefix's meaning, the fact that atheism is a less active belief than theism (so I choose to avoid "belief").
"By your definitions Atheist and non-theist are identical concepts so long as we're dealing with able humans."
False. Imagine an isolated tribe of people who have no god concepts (or people who existed before god concepts) who are perfectly capable of belief and understanding god concepts. These people do not believe there is a god but they also do not believe that there is no god. You cannot have an attitude toward an unproposed proposition.
@mungbeanman The real point is not that either of us are right or wrong, but that anyone may create definitions at will, mine just happens to diverge with your definition when dealing with non-sufficiently-intelligent "things."
Probably the biggest reason why I like my definition is that if someone was intelligent, had never heard of a god, and didn't believe in a god, then they'd be called an atheist.
"my definition is that if someone was intelligent, had never heard of a god, and didn't believe in a god, then they'd be called an atheist."
Or they could hold the belief that the likelihood of any god existing is equiprobable to any god not existing and therefore hold no belief either way and be neither atheist nor theist - which is why you need to define their attitude toward the propostion of god in order to make the distinction.
@mungbeanman My definition does not rely on the fact that a person has heard of and is actively refusing to believe, but instead relies on the actual ontology of his belief.
I don't disagree because the nature of belief is that any rejection of an unknown or unknowable proposition is a position of belief.
There are two types of proposition; those that ARE true or false (facts, truths) and those that could be true or false (beliefs). We cannot know that there is no god so the propositions "there is no god" and "there is a god" are beliefs and our attitude toward them is demonstrative of that.
Very good and honest arguments. I was pleased to find out you are an atheist. I assumed by the title that you were a theist so your arguments carry even more weight since you are what I call a "hostile witness" for the theistic view that atheism is not the default position. Thank you for your honestly.
Very convincing. Of all the counters to this argument yours has the most weight. You've opened my eyes to my error with your thoroughness. How could I have been so stupid?
@mungbeanman No problem. I knew you would see sense.
A-theism.......without theism. There is no specification that this has to be a rejection of theism. It can be, but doesn't have to be. It's sad that the word even has to exist but unfortunately we live in a word full of theist . For someone to be a Non Stamp collector, do they have to Learn about and then reject the idea of collecting stamps. Your argument only works if you stick to your rigid definition of what constitutes an Atheist.
Actually, the word atheism predates the word theism. How would you go about explaining the apparent violation of cause and effect of prefixing a non-existent word in this instance for your argument to stand?
"For someone to be a Non Stamp collector, do they have to Learn about and then reject the idea of collecting stamps."
A non-stamp collector is that which belongs to the negated set of stamp collectors. No knowledge of stamps is required.
A very unconvincing argument indeed. A-theism *means* without-godbelief, and even if you argue about the derivation of the word that *is* what it means now to the great majority of self-described atheists. We can't prove there are no gods, so someone who "believes" there are no gods is committing a logical fallacy as bad as those who believe there are (well, maybe not quite as bad since there is a total lack of evidence for such things). So there!
Two errors you make the first being that 'atheism' isn't constructed by prefixing the word theism. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the word atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism (and that atheism is a thing, not just a word). Second error is that proof makes belief redundant. There are propositions that are true (facts) and propositions that could be true (beliefs) and nothing more. If something is a fact you don't need to believe it.
If you didn't want to play word games why emphasise the (mis)construction of the word? Besides, how does stating a fact in order to correct an error constitute obscurantism exactly?
If you agree with the final statement then do you agree that there is no logical fallacy comitted by those who think that the most likely universal scenario is that there are no gods? Or do you wish to demonstrate otherwise?
I don't care if you reject religion but I worry that with your lack of belief in God and Jesus Christ that you will end up in a place that has nothing but eternal suffering.
Don't worry about me. How can I fear the retribution of a god that can be logically shown not to exist? Also, the concept of a heaven and a hell are fundamentally flawed to their very core. However I don't expect you to even try to understand as you are approaching this from an entirely biased and illogical standpoint and no doubt have some unfalsifiable get out. Thanks anyway.
ok ... Tell that to them .. Ask them why they dnt believe in others gods ..... ? Atheist: one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in, the existence of a god or gods.
idk .. Ask them .. Atheist: one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in, the existence of a god or gods..... Theist are atheist to other gods also ..... I understand you .... You dnt have to call uself anything ..... That's kool .... Me ... I did believe b4... Now I'm born again atheist ... AS IN BORN RITE THE 1st time ....
A theist cannot simultaneously be an atheist. This creates a contradiction. If a person believes there is no god anywhere then they cannot at the same time believe that there is one god somewhere.
Only those who understand god concepts can be atheists. I am pretty secure in claiming that this excludes babies, animals, plants and rocks.
Wrong. A theist believes at least one god or more exists. An atheist believes that no gods exists at all. As Mr. Beanman rightly pointed out, calling a theist atheists to other gods presents an obvious contradiction. I guess all atheists are actually theists to all the gods that they lack belief do not exist, right? Theists just take that extra step by adding at least one more god than the atheists do, right? Such a common cliche'd fallacy. LOL.
Being without a belief in god is not what qualifies something to be an atheist. If babies are atheists are animals, plants and rocks atheists too? It is not a case of finding a term for being without a belief in god but making sure we use the term atheist in a logically consistent way. It is about describing what atheism is and not just what it is not.
@313kam So a real God would remove the ability for us to choose? You are born, you have perfect knowledge of my existence, and you will obey all of my commands. Sure, God could do that, if He were making robots.
The default form of atheism, 'weak atheism'/'negative atheism' simply means LACK of a positive belief in the existence of supernatural gods/God and therefore newborn babies DO fall under this label. Rocks do not since they are incapable of belief in any form, so calling a rock an "atheist" makes no more sense than calling a fish a creature which 'speaks gibberish'(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage).
The deefault form of atheism, 'weak atheism'/'negative atheism' simply means LACK of a positive belief in the existence of supernatural gods/God and therefore newborn babies DO fall under this label. Rocks do not since they are incapable of belief in any form, so calling a rock an "atheist" makes no more sense than calling a fish a creature which 'speaks gibberish'(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage).
"Weak" atheism when described as a lack of belief is of logical inconsequence. This is demonstrated when you try to apply "weak" to theism. Result: babies who are both weak atheists and simultaneously weak theists.
Where in the definition of your weak atheism is any qualifier that says that you have to be capable of belief in order to be an atheist?
I'm not really sure what to do with your fish analogy as 'not speaking' is not equatable to 'speaking gibberish'.
I agree with you, Athiesm's a choice, away from a person's natural disposition. This is what Muhammad peace be upon him taught. He said every child is born in the natural state, [i.e. an uncorrupted state of the belief in one God], and it's only the surroundings which change this.
No child is born believing in god. Belief is the position we adopt toward a proposition that could be true. Just how on earth could anyone create an argument that a baby has this propositional attitude?
You are not agreeing with me in the slightest, you are just hearing what you want to hear.
The reason you find it hard to 'believe' is because you feel God is merely a "belief". When Muslims talk of faith we actually mean conviction. God is a reality. He is The Truth, actually this is one of his attributes - Al Haq.
The Psychologist freud came up with the propositions you speak of when you say "How... could anyone... [say] a baby has this propositional attitude". Merely saying no child is born believing in God does not mean it's true. We know no better than the research
This is a belief statement (for you at least, not for me, it is a falsehood as the Abrahamic god can't exist. As all powerful as he is supposed to be he forgot to not violate the law of contradiction.Shucks). A truth is one that is established, demonstrably true, non-falsifiable. "God is a reality" whether you like it or not, and you do know this, has not shown to be a truth.
I'm just clearing up misconceptions. We're all here to learn. I find those who disbelieve in God, are actually disbelieving in the notions of God they have been indoctrinated with, or have been taught when they were small. The god they disbelieve in is probably disbelieved in by Muslims too. The first part of the Islamic testamony of faith/conviction is "There is NO god but God". Rejecting all false man-made deities except The Reality.
Forget what the psychologists say and go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and check the entry under belief. Then get back to me and tell me that a baby can qualify as a believer. It can't and you might learn something about how you do hold a belief about your god and not a truth.
I understand your position, and it's hard from where you are to be able to visualise what muslims may think of when they say God. When muslims say God, we do not mean giant santa sitting beyond the universe. In Islam God is an intellegent designer, nothing like humans, nor can humans comprehend him. You've got to understand the definition of God before being able to reject him. Chapter 112 in the Quran is only 4 verses long, check it out. Creation necessitates creator.
I understand that no matter how strongly you hold your convinction it does not change it from a belief into a truth. I also understand that a god that claims he can do anything should be able to have a son if he wants to or in fact can't do anything (39:4 claims he could have a son if he wanted to; 6:101 rejects it as logically impossible without a "consort". Therefore we have a contradiction, therefore we have a god who can't exist).
Every time I read your statements, or the statements of other Athiests for that matter, I get the following feeling, as though you know God exists, yet you don't want to believe in him due to your personal/emotional reasons. It's always "we have a God" and then "who can't exist" which is your disbelief regarding reality. The Quran has no contradictions, even 39:4 proves God is above having a partner or child; "The One, Absolute".
I have just shown that Allah can not exist so why would I think or know that he does? Trust me, some gods I know can't exist - such as Allah - and the rest I believe don't. Perhaps I should have phrased it "therefore we have a description of a god who can't exist".
"The Quran has no contradictions"
If Allah can do all things as it states in 39:4 then that would include having a son. If he can't have a son (6:101) then he can't do all things. Contradiction.
So Allah can't have a partner? Another thing he can't do despite claiming he can do all things! Can Allah die? Can he create a mathematical problem so complicated that he himself can't solve it? Can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Contradiction after contradiction.
What a waste of time and energy worshipping that which does not exist.
You're only refuting your manmade notions of what God can and can't do. God does Godly things. Muslims don't claim God does everything. I probably disbelieve in the god you disbelieve in.
God created the concept of death so it's not applicable to him. According to Islam God is unlike the creation, so to ask those questions shows your lack of understanding. It highlights the irrationality in your 'beliefs'. To ask questions like "Can an Everliving being die?" is illogical.
If I want to learn about what Allah is supposed to be able to do or not in order to best work out whether he is the one true god, the god that I should believe in, then I would look in the Quran, right? If the Quran is the best source of information about Allah but makes contradicting claims about what he can and can't do then I'm afraid I would have to look elswhere.
It's like evidence in court; if it contradicts itself, it's worthless.
Why does a person change topics when someone removes their misconceptions? Why not accept you were wrong in a particular area?
1400 years of scholarship has been unable to prove contradictions in the Quran, now an 'enlightened' individual on youtube is able to pick out contradictions? This is my final message. God clearly exists looking at his signs around us, including the Quran. When it'll be too late is in our graves. Let's see :) Peace.
The contradictions are glaring and have been discussed by many people, some even more enlightened and scholarly than me. You can ignore them if you want to but this doesn't mean they're not there.
And if you're seeing signs that god "clearly exists" then I'm afraid you're seeing what you want to see. A wise man would look for the answer in the evidence rather than try to fit the evidence to an answer.
I am absolutely not worried about going to my grave godless. Not in the slightest.
I stopped listening to you when you said atheism is not disbelief in god. That is the definition of atheism, you don't get to change definitions on a whim.
Atheism IS the disbelief in god, I never say otherwise. What I do say is that it is not the lack of belief in god so in fact I am not changing the definition on a whim, I am disagreeing with those who have changed the definition on a whim. Perhaps you should listen to the whole argument before bothering to offer your opinion in future.
@mungbeanman But, semantically, disbelief and lacking a belief are the same thing. Disbelief = no belief or without belief. If I don't believe in something, then I lack belief in that thing. It logically follows.
How is it semantically the case that disbelief is equal to no belief? Be warned I have already pre-empted your answer and formulated a response but I don't want to seem presumptuous by posting it just yet, I just want to be sure that's where you are coming from, especially being as you used 'semantically' and 'logically' in the same argument (two different things entirely, two different arguments).
@mungbeanman But, semantics and logic are not two different things. Semantics is in fact determining meaning through linguistics and logic. The use of the latin "dis" in front of "belief" has a negative or reversing force. Or you can go by the dictionary definition of disbelief which simply calls it the inability or refusal to believe. In the case of atheists, it's the former. It then logically follows that an inability to believe means you don't have a belief - c: disbelief = no belief.
We can look at the word semantically and the thing that is disbelief logically. Semantics only deals with language but logic can deal with what is. This is the difference we need to make.
So from a semantical point of view disbelief could mean that but that would mean that a word like 'disassemble' would mean 'not assemble' when we know it denotes an action and not an absence of an action or thing.
If I say to you 'submarine' you would most likely thing of a vessel capable of travelling underwater but from a semantical point of view it could denote anything that you might find underwater.
Logically of course it can be demonstrated that no entity can be denoted by describing only its lack of a property. Saying that disbelief is 'no belief' only says what it is not and is about as useful as me asking your name and your answer being 'not Mary'.
@mungbeanman 'not Mary' That is an improper analogy because a proper noun, such as a name cannot inherit a prefix that negates that word. You can't disMary for example, so it's not the same thing. The noun "belief" does inherit the prefix "dis" which, as I stated, is an effective negation or reversal (depending on the context) of the word it's attached to. The "Dis" prefix has a number of different applications which change in different contexts. In this case, it negates or reverses the word.
The analogy is fine because it is an example of trying to say what something is by only saying what it is not. Disbelief IS [not belief], my name IS [not Mary]. If you still can't make it fit then just refer to the 'disassemble' example I gave instead. As you should be able to appreciate this is discussing the the thing that is disbelief rather than the meaning of the word disbelief so the 'dis~' suffix is inconsequential (as you don't suffix entities, lol).
It also worries me that you say that one dictionary definition supports your claim but not the other. How can you demonstrate that this is in fact the case? Besides, if we are talking about following things through logically, if all that is required to be an atheist is an inability to believe in god then not only would babies be atheists but rocks and you 1,000,000 years ago.
@mungbeanman I didn't say anything about multiple definitions, so I don't know what you're talking about. If different dictionaries define it differently then there's no standard with which we can base it on. The definition I cited is the one I understood it to be before starting this conversation. If you wish to cite a different definition from a different source that counters my understood definition, then we're simply at a linguistic stalemate.
"I didn't say anything about multiple definitions"
I was referring to the part where you said that disbelief is either an inability OR refusal to believe and then said that the first definition applies to atheists.
"there's no standard with which we can base it on."
So it would be best to refer to the philosophical defintion of what belief (belief the entity, not belief the word, mind) is and apply that to disbelief. That way we don't end up in a stalemate.
Belief is any attitude we hold toward a proposition that we think to be true - if I press this button my computer will turn on, I will be alive in 5 years time, there is no god etc. - but do not know, or that can't be shown, to be true. Disbelief in this respect would then be any attitude we hold toward a proposition that we think to be false - if I press this button my computer will blow up, I will be dead in 5 years time, there is a god etc.
@mungbeanman Incidentally, I am an atheist and I, for one, completely disagree with the label of babies as atheists, but simply as a label. I understand "lack of belief" to be the default because as children, we all start at 0, but I personally don't feel that children should be labeled "atheist" anymore than they should be labeled "Christians" because they have no idea what they believe. If one wishes to be pedantic as all hell, yah, babies and rocks are atheists. But I say, let's be real.
If you disagree with babies being labelled as atheists why not adopt a logical definition of atheism that excludes them and rocks and leaves no doubt as to who are atheists and what aren't?
@mungbeanman I concur actually. I've never particularly liked the word Atheist much, and for the same reasons (because it says what we're not, rather than what we are) and would love it if a better word were presented that better did that. The unfortunate reality though is that the word Atheist isn't going anywhere, so rather than fight it I've embraced it, regardless of how many rules of language the word manages to break. But, it's up to us to not allow others to apply it's meaning for us.
@mungbeanman That's not to say though that you can't be defined by what you're not. It is a rare occurrence, but it does happen. "Homeless" for example, but that doesn't even accurately define what you're not, which is 'house less". But there's no controversy surrounding that word as most people understand what you mean when you say "homeless." "Atheist," however, is constantly being misrepresented to mean anything the theist wishes to suit their agenda or argument so it's up to us to insist....
Clearly not. Death is the be all and end all of your being anything. Being is a property of the living. Besides, you never know, we might find out that there is a god after we die in which case we couldn't be atheists in that regard either.
I wish no offence, but your argument doesn't make sense to me. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Infants have no inherent belief. How is that so hard to understand?
Well, I could say the same thing about my argument. Babies do not reject, deny or disbelieve there is a god nor do they hold a doctrine, theory or belief that there is no god so how can they be atheists? How is THAT so hard to understand? Besides, all you have done is restate what I disagree with without addressing any of the problems that describing babies as atheists raises.
A lack of belief is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing. It is like I have asked you what colour your car is and you replied 'not blue' and asserted that this is sufficient information to deduce its actual colour. You've told me what atheism isn't, how about telling me what it is.
Also, I don't often feel the need to refer people to the dictionary (as I'd rather talk about the entity that is atheism not the meaning of the word) but you might just want to check that.
@mungbeanman I did say what it is, it's a lack of belief. I'd check out QualiaSoup's video, "Lack of belief in gods". It defines the argument pretty solidly.
Lack uses the logical operator "not." What X is NOT is ONLY what X is not, not what X is. How do you say what atheism is by saying that atheism is not a belief in gods? Take a look at this:
"X is not a belief in gods."
Where did I what X is? I ONLY said what is NOT.
"X is not dog crap."
Substitute X for atheism. Atheism is also not dog crap, but does that say what atheism IS? No. Neither does lack of belief.
If a belief in god is a thing then a lack of belief in god is an absence of a thing so you have only said what it is not. Is not =/= is. It is like saying that an absence of bananas is still bananas or that zero is a positive integer.
Qualiasoup's video lacks any first order logic in its construction and relies simply on finding an argument to fit his opinion. His argument, defeated by logic, is not solid in the slightest.
"If someone believes something, they should have reasons to support that belief."
That's nothing more than your opinion. If a 4 year old girl believes her mom will give her a present for coming 5th birthday, does she need to give reasons to support that belief? If this girl has a friend who says their name and she believes what her friend told her about her name, does she need reasons to support that belief? Sure, a person can give reasons to support belief, but it isn't required.
A belief requires no burden of proof. A belief is not a truth claim that something does not exist. No beliefs can be proven, otherwise they stop being beliefs. They become truths, which aren't beliefs. A claim of truth requires the burden of proof, not one who simply claims a belief. People typically don't ask for proof of person's name. They simply believe them. Does that require a burden of proof? Nope. The term atheist is fine as is. It's certain people who are the problem.
No, that isn't the definition of theist, and such a definition does lead to problems. That's the point. It uses the same logic you used for atheism, thus, atheism suffers from the same problem if defined as not holding a belief there is a god. You didn't hold a belief in a god when you did not exist. Were you an atheist a billion years ago before you existed? The problem isn't with the word "atheist," but with the logic in which certain people attempt to employ behind it.
"A newborn baby fits the definition of atheist because that baby, presumably, does not hold a belief in a god. Thus, an atheist. Logic and reason are not necessary."
A newborn baby fits the definition of theist because that baby, presumably, does not hold a belief there is no god. Thus, a theist. Logic and reason are not necessary.
I'm sorry? So because I say that atheism is not the default position you conclude that I must therefore be arguing that theism is? It's tempting to call strawman but I think that you genuinely misunderstood me.
How can any living thing be anything before they were born? This guy claims he is intelligent. Not so sure about that one. I think there is a natural "fill in the blank" part of human nature. As child will ask why has my mother died? A farmer will ask why hasn't it rained? Something good happens and we ask why was I so lucky? Humans through history have sought scientific answers to these questions and they have also pulled answers out of their asses (gods).
You are an atheist until you have someone try to indoctinate you. Once you are indoctinated and accept whatever religion you are being indoctrinated in, you are that religion. When you realize there is no proof for this indoctrination is when you go back to atheism.
Either someone tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago or they did not. There is no reality where both situations can be true. Therefore if you are saying that it is not true that no one tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago then you are claiming that it is true that someone did try to do such a thing so in fact it is you who are claiming that I am older than 1,000,000 years. Checkmate, mate.
a) Where I in fact "claim to be 1,000,001 years old" and
b) A reality where the contradiction you failed to address can be reconciled.
Good luck, your lack of cognitive ability expressd as it is through questionable grammar leads me to believe that you can do no such thing.
If you have nothing better to do with your sad little life other than troll may I recommend doing it on someone who is less smart than you and more likely to bite.
So you can't? What a surprise. Well, all that is left to say good luck in your chosen career as a troll. You have my pity as I imagine you as a lonely and sad individual, possibly with mental health issues, who is angry at those who discuss matters beyond his comprehension. I hope one day you get yourself a life and hopefully some perspective in order to see how pathetic your behaviour is.
since you did not exist and could not be indoctrinated, you weren't. People are taught a religion. That is why Christianity is not prevalent everywhere automatically. It is introduced by missionaries. If a religion were the default position, that religion would be instinctual and would not need to be taught.
I don't accept because it defies logic and therefore cannot be a fact. If you don't want to try and wrap your head around the logic then so be it. I can't make people think that don't want to think. But thanks for the comment nonetheless.
Because it defies logic? I'm honestly quite confused with your position. You claim in your video series that "atheism is not the lack of belief in a god" which of course it IS the lack of belief in a god.
1. Lack uses the logical operator 'not', right? As in 'does NOT have'. So by saying "atheism is a lack of belief in god" you have only said what atheism is not which is about as useful as saying red is not blue or X is not Y. And whilst this may be true it says nothing of what red or X is.
2. If atheism is therefore not theism and nothing more then everything that is not theism is atheism. You, me, the sky etc.
1. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief therefore atheism="not believing in a god". It's like saying false is "not true". You can define something as the opposite of something else and it still makes sense. Red is not blue is a true statement, but red is of course not defined as "not blue", since red and blue are not opposites.
2, 3 and 4: Logically that is correct. It is just unintuitive because you are assigning properties to things where they are meaningless.
No it's not. True and false apply only to propositions but 'not true' could apply to all things that are not propositions therefore 'not true' =/= 'false'.
"You can define something as the opposite of something else and it still makes sense."
Again no. Take your computer for example - it can be on or off. If I throw your computer into the sun and destroy it it won't be on but that won't mean it's off. To be off it has to exist.
"It is just unintuitive because you are assigning properties to things where they are meaningless."
I'm not applying atheism to any of things! It IS meaningless because atheism is what it is and not what it isn't. If it is meaningless then it is not logically sound.
@mungbeanman: Your problem is that you are assuming that if something does not exist it has all negative properties. Like it is not blue and also not red and not yellow since it does not exist. The problem is that that in itself is not a meaningful statement at all if "it" does not exist. Therefore something that does not exist is nothing. You can not assign any property to it and "not blue" is a property.
"Your problem is that you are assuming that if something does not exist it has all negative properties."
I don't know what you mean by "negative properties". 'Not blue' is not a property of anything. If 'blue' is a property of something then 'not blue' is not a property. That's how predicate logic works.
If it can be demonstrated that something does not exist then neither do any of its properties, negative or otherwise.
It doesn't because that is not what I am saying. The problem is that you have added the qualifier 'everyone' to create a new argument. If I say that 'not blue' is not a property of something I haven't said that every colour that is not blue is not a colour. Forget the 'everyone' part and say if Peter is a person then not Peter is just that, not Peter and saying what is not does not say what is. Simple as that, really.
"Then why is "not blue" not a property of anything."
Because as I said before if 'blue' is a property of something then 'NOT blue' is NOT a property of something. The predication has to balance. You cannot argue that 'is not' = 'is'. In a mathematical sense it would be like arguing that 0 is a positive integer.
""not dead" seems rather meaningful for example."
Not dead means just that. Alive or dead is a classic example of a false dichotomy.
@mungbeanman: Something and it's negative can still have the same properties as for example.
log(x): x is a logical expression.
log(x)->-log(-x) is what you are saying, but that is certainly not correct. The negation of a logic expression is of course a logic expression as well.
So I do not see why the negation of a property can not be a property as well.
3. If atheism is a lack of belief in god then it applies to all things that aren't theists. Dogs and rocks would all be atheists.
4. If atheism is a lack of belief in god then to be an atheist you wouldn't even need to exist. You would have been an atheist 1,000,000 years ago. However all that is needed to prove something exists is one truth about it and it is true that you were an atheist 1,000,000 years ago then you have just proved you existed then. Quite the paradox.
It seems like people like to use words however they want. It is my understanding that atheism is supposed to mean the lack of belief of any gods. That sounds like a default position to me.
I personally don't think we actually need the label atheist however. We don't call people non-smokers if they don't smoke, or non-rapists. So why give a label to the default position.
If that is what atheism is supposed to be then It sounds to me like it's the default position.
i know this video is old
goaliedude32 3 weeks ago
@goaliedude32
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Which is why it is associated with higher levels of IQ for example. You haven't added anything to the position I am arguing against nor addressed the logical problems I raise in the video: are we atheists 1,000,000 years ago when we also lacked a belief in god?
"We don't call people non-smokers"
We quite often do, look in the personal ads. However that's how set theory works; the negated set of smokers are non-smokers.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman The problem lies in teh definition of the word. 80% of the definitions i've seen/heard for atheism are simply the lack of belief in god. If that's the case i most definitely am one. If the definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god then I am far from that. I don't lie, you may call me a non-liar if you want. I will never say "there is no god" because there's no good reason to believe that to be true.
goaliedude32 3 weeks ago
@goaliedude32
"The problem lies in teh definition of the word."
No it doesn't, the problem lies with what atheism is and what it is not. What is atheism? and what does the word atheism mean? are two entirely different questions.
"80% of the definitions i've seen/heard for atheism are simply the lack of belief in god."
Might I recommend a dictionary?
"I will never say "there is no god""
Saying there IS no god is different from saying that you believe there is no god.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman The only thing i'm going to respond to is "Saying there IS no god is different from saying that you believe there is no god."
I don't see the difference.
goaliedude32 3 weeks ago
@goaliedude32
"I don't see the difference."
Really? Oh, okay. Well one statement is an attempt to express a truth (and comes with a burden of proof) while the other expresses an attitude toward a proposition. I can't put it more clearly than that.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman That's sufficient.
goaliedude32 3 weeks ago
@goaliedude32
Anything else while we're here?
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@goaliedude32
"there's no good reason to believe that to be true."
Then you identify yourself as belonging to the excluded middle. Typically this is how the agnostics would describe themselves but there is some dispute regarding what this position is which I am not prepared to involve myself in.
"I personally take the default position which I had thought matched the definition of atheists."
Which is why I ask if you were an atheist one million years ago.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman I personally take the default position which I had thought matched the definition of atheists. If you're telling me I'm wrong there's not much i can do about that but say oops.
goaliedude32 3 weeks ago
Why so many dislikes? Did people even watch the video?
tontsa911 1 month ago
@tontsa911
Most people don't like to be shown their error using logic that they are not familiar with or do not understand. It is a sad inevitability of a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
a) The "logic and the reason part" of an atheistic stance is how *you* arrived at your conclusion, but only after you had the idea of theism introduced to you. Newborn babies don't have (much?) logic or reasoning but it doesn't matter - they also haven't been introduced to theism so there's no concept to reject - they are innate atheists.
b) "A newborn baby has no IQ" - this is flat wrong. IQ is the relationship between intelligence & age. All humans have an IQ but regardless, it's irrelevant!
ThinkPleaseFolks 1 month ago
@ThinkPleaseFolks
"they also haven't been introduced to theism so there's no concept to reject - they are innate atheists."
Then you would also be happy to say that they were atheists one million years ago. Which is why I would never accept your reasoning.
"All humans have an IQ but regardless, it's irrelevant!"
So what is a babies IQ, how would you go about testing it and, if irrelevant, how would you explain the correlation between IQ and religiosity?
mungbeanman 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 1 month ago
Atheism isn't an attribute but the lack of an attribute, it is simply the flaw of our language that the lack of an attribute may be given a term so that it's used in the same way as an attribute.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
You haven't really said anything other than restate the logically faulty argument that I am disagreeing with. You haven't added any real hows or whys or added any contradictory counter logic. It can be difficult to argue against rhetoric.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
I sincerely disagree.
I think the real reason why is seems so odd to define a baby or a non-born human (whatever that may mean) as an atheist is because the word "atheist" shouldn't even exist (e.g. no one says non-astrologer). The only reason why it doesn't sound odd to call an adult an atheist is because we're so used to the word that we forget that it's absurd to use it in the first place.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
The word should exist as it describes someone, such as myself, who believes there is no god. You shouldn't confuse non-theist with atheist as the two are different things - non-theist being the negated set of theists and includes all those things that are not theists. If you don't want to use it then that is fine but there are some of us who have perfectly logical reasons for doing so and will continue to do so.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
Incidentally, should you choose to reply, could I just ask you what term you use to describe someone who believes there is no god? Of course, being as you have stated that the word 'atheist' should not exist I will not be accepting any term that contains the word atheist: strong atheist, implicit atheist etc.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman The prefix "a" means "non."
And you asking me to replace the word atheist with another would not solve the problem. The problem is that a non-property is defined as a property. Certainly in many situations it's very convenient to say the word "atheist," but the fact that it is convenient does not mean it is correct and the fact that it's incorrect doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.
To understand what I'm coming from think of mathematics' often abuse of notation.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
Numerous problems exist here. If atheist and non-theist mean the same thing then rocks are atheists. 'A~' does not mean 'non' as 'non' is a logical operator which means 'that which is not', 'a~' is not a recognised logical operator. Besides, the word atheist wasn't created by prefixing theist as the word atheist appears before the word theist and you can't violate cause and effect.
If it's incorrect why are you creating arguments to support such an error?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Wikipedia:
an-/a- not, without
non- not
If the "a" does mean not/without then surely you see that the order of creation doesn't matter. And if you're going to argue for past usage why not trace the etymology back?
"...it leaves no term for the subset of non-theists that believe there is no god." No, there is no difference between "someone who believes in no god" and "someone one who is not [someone who believes in a god]," i.e. the difference is only semantic.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"If the "a" does mean not/without"
Which I showed using reference to logic operations that it does not.
"surely you see that the order of creation doesn't matter"
Of course it does. Atheos (godless) + ~ism (doctrine, a principle upon which belief is built) = atheism (the doctrine that there is no god). You can't negate or prefix a term which does not exist without violating cause and effect.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman
English isn't Lojban; there is no flawless way of translating sentences' meaning into logic (I may add that I'm not entirely ignorant on this matter as I've taken two different mathematical logic courses and have translated at least 1,000 sentences).
It seems as if your "cause and effect" rantings make nearly the same claim as saying etymology trumps modern usage.
Indeed there are a-'s and -ism's with contrary to expected meanings.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"English isn't Lojban"
Missing the point somewhat.
"It seems as if your "cause and effect" rantings"
Rantings? I hardly consider anything I've said a rant but there you go.
Cause and effect can be used to show that it is impossible to prefix or negate a term that does not yet exist. I can't see how this could be a stumbling block. It is very clear cut.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Lojban is a language recently created so that there were no ambiguities present.
I said rantings simply because at the moment it was the best word I could think of that fit with everything I wanted to say lol.
If "theist" was created with the word "atheist" in mind then it's rather clear that there was a conscious decision made about the "a." Removing the "a" says just the same as appending it.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"Removing the "a" says just the same as appending it."
Which would then rely on the qualifiers for someone to be an atheist as originally intended by the creation of the term to change the minute the word theist was coined. However, I don't see that theism was formed by removing anything from atheism but rather in the same way that atheist was formed i.e. theos (gods) + '~ism'.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Good point. For the sake of symmetry "theos" and "atheos" then perhaps should have their relationship preserved when jumping to "theist" and "atheist," but history doesn't work exactly like that and I was wrong to use that as justification.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"And if you're going to argue for past usage why not trace the etymology back?"
Sure, atheist was first coined as an insult to describe those who reject god. A rejection (or any attitude for that matter) toward an unknown proposition is one of belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
"the difference is only semantic."
A person who has no concept of god does not believe in god but also does not believe that god doesn't exist i.e. a baby.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
Theist - someone who believes in god.
Atheist - someone who believes in no god.
Non-theist - that which is not a theist.
There is a problem because if according to you atheist and non-theist are the same it leaves no term for the subset of non-theists that believe there is no god. I am simply asking you to address this problem of your creation because that subset needs a term to help differentiate it from the negated set to which it belongs.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman By your definitions Atheist and non-theist are identical concepts so long as we're dealing with able humans. That means that for nearly all intents and purposes either are usable. My choosing to use "that which is not a theist" is as good as your choice, but my preference exists because of the prefix's meaning, the fact that atheism is a less active belief than theism (so I choose to avoid "belief").
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"By your definitions Atheist and non-theist are identical concepts so long as we're dealing with able humans."
False. Imagine an isolated tribe of people who have no god concepts (or people who existed before god concepts) who are perfectly capable of belief and understanding god concepts. These people do not believe there is a god but they also do not believe that there is no god. You cannot have an attitude toward an unproposed proposition.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"My choosing to use "that which is not a theist" is as good as your choice"
"That which is not a theist" includes all things not theist; rocks, animals etc.
"my preference exists because of the prefix's meaning"
But the word atheist wasn't created by prefixing the word theist so I really don't understand why you would hold such a preference.
"the fact that atheism is a less active belief than theism"
Less active? The belief process is identical.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman The real point is not that either of us are right or wrong, but that anyone may create definitions at will, mine just happens to diverge with your definition when dealing with non-sufficiently-intelligent "things."
Probably the biggest reason why I like my definition is that if someone was intelligent, had never heard of a god, and didn't believe in a god, then they'd be called an atheist.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
"my definition is that if someone was intelligent, had never heard of a god, and didn't believe in a god, then they'd be called an atheist."
Or they could hold the belief that the likelihood of any god existing is equiprobable to any god not existing and therefore hold no belief either way and be neither atheist nor theist - which is why you need to define their attitude toward the propostion of god in order to make the distinction.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "you need to define their attitude toward the propostion of god in order to make the distinction."
Again, I suppose this is the true inherent disagreement between us. You think of atheism as an attitude and I think of it as an ontology.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
@mungbeanman My definition does not rely on the fact that a person has heard of and is actively refusing to believe, but instead relies on the actual ontology of his belief.
TwistedLemniscate 2 months ago
I think it is better to say that "an atheist is someone that rejects theist claims." Disagree?
capoman1 2 months ago
@capoman1
I don't disagree because the nature of belief is that any rejection of an unknown or unknowable proposition is a position of belief.
There are two types of proposition; those that ARE true or false (facts, truths) and those that could be true or false (beliefs). We cannot know that there is no god so the propositions "there is no god" and "there is a god" are beliefs and our attitude toward them is demonstrative of that.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
Very good and honest arguments. I was pleased to find out you are an atheist. I assumed by the title that you were a theist so your arguments carry even more weight since you are what I call a "hostile witness" for the theistic view that atheism is not the default position. Thank you for your honestly.
bestvalue 3 months ago
Bollox!
mylkTV 3 months ago
@mylkTV
Very convincing. Of all the counters to this argument yours has the most weight. You've opened my eyes to my error with your thoroughness. How could I have been so stupid?
mungbeanman 3 months ago
Comment removed
mylkTV 3 months ago
@mungbeanman No problem. I knew you would see sense.
A-theism.......without theism. There is no specification that this has to be a rejection of theism. It can be, but doesn't have to be. It's sad that the word even has to exist but unfortunately we live in a word full of theist . For someone to be a Non Stamp collector, do they have to Learn about and then reject the idea of collecting stamps. Your argument only works if you stick to your rigid definition of what constitutes an Atheist.
mylkTV 3 months ago
@mylkTV
"A-theism"
Actually, the word atheism predates the word theism. How would you go about explaining the apparent violation of cause and effect of prefixing a non-existent word in this instance for your argument to stand?
"For someone to be a Non Stamp collector, do they have to Learn about and then reject the idea of collecting stamps."
A non-stamp collector is that which belongs to the negated set of stamp collectors. No knowledge of stamps is required.
mungbeanman 3 months ago
@mylkTV
"It's sad that the word even has to exist but unfortunately we live in a word full of theist ."
Nonsense. It's a word that applies a logically relevant and inevitable position. If it is so sad why not adopt a better definition?
"Your argument only works if you stick to your rigid definition of what constitutes an Atheist."
How rigid is your definition of atheist?
mungbeanman 3 months ago
A very unconvincing argument indeed. A-theism *means* without-godbelief, and even if you argue about the derivation of the word that *is* what it means now to the great majority of self-described atheists. We can't prove there are no gods, so someone who "believes" there are no gods is committing a logical fallacy as bad as those who believe there are (well, maybe not quite as bad since there is a total lack of evidence for such things). So there!
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
Two errors you make the first being that 'atheism' isn't constructed by prefixing the word theism. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the word atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism (and that atheism is a thing, not just a word). Second error is that proof makes belief redundant. There are propositions that are true (facts) and propositions that could be true (beliefs) and nothing more. If something is a fact you don't need to believe it.
mungbeanman 3 months ago
@mungbeanman I agree with your last statement but the preceding is nothing but obscurantist word play. Play your games with someone else.
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
If you didn't want to play word games why emphasise the (mis)construction of the word? Besides, how does stating a fact in order to correct an error constitute obscurantism exactly?
If you agree with the final statement then do you agree that there is no logical fallacy comitted by those who think that the most likely universal scenario is that there are no gods? Or do you wish to demonstrate otherwise?
mungbeanman 3 months ago
I don't care if you reject religion but I worry that with your lack of belief in God and Jesus Christ that you will end up in a place that has nothing but eternal suffering.
arecuk1 4 months ago
@arecuk1
Don't worry about me. How can I fear the retribution of a god that can be logically shown not to exist? Also, the concept of a heaven and a hell are fundamentally flawed to their very core. However I don't expect you to even try to understand as you are approaching this from an entirely biased and illogical standpoint and no doubt have some unfalsifiable get out. Thanks anyway.
mungbeanman 4 months ago
ok ... Tell that to them .. Ask them why they dnt believe in others gods ..... ? Atheist: one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in, the existence of a god or gods.
313kam 5 months ago
@313kam
If I came up to you and said "hello, my name is not Mary" what information about me do you now possess?
mungbeanman 5 months ago
idk .. Ask them .. Atheist: one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in, the existence of a god or gods..... Theist are atheist to other gods also ..... I understand you .... You dnt have to call uself anything ..... That's kool .... Me ... I did believe b4... Now I'm born again atheist ... AS IN BORN RITE THE 1st time ....
313kam 5 months ago
@313kam
A theist cannot simultaneously be an atheist. This creates a contradiction. If a person believes there is no god anywhere then they cannot at the same time believe that there is one god somewhere.
Only those who understand god concepts can be atheists. I am pretty secure in claiming that this excludes babies, animals, plants and rocks.
mungbeanman 5 months ago
@313kam
"Theist are atheist to other gods also"
Wrong. A theist believes at least one god or more exists. An atheist believes that no gods exists at all. As Mr. Beanman rightly pointed out, calling a theist atheists to other gods presents an obvious contradiction. I guess all atheists are actually theists to all the gods that they lack belief do not exist, right? Theists just take that extra step by adding at least one more god than the atheists do, right? Such a common cliche'd fallacy. LOL.
Tonloc1986 4 months ago
that's what theist call us ....... A theist ... We all were born without a belief in god .... Call it whatever you want ...
313kam 5 months ago
@313kam
Being without a belief in god is not what qualifies something to be an atheist. If babies are atheists are animals, plants and rocks atheists too? It is not a case of finding a term for being without a belief in god but making sure we use the term atheist in a logically consistent way. It is about describing what atheism is and not just what it is not.
mungbeanman 5 months ago
If god was real we would not have been born atheist.. A real god would have instructions from birth .............. But it does not
313kam 5 months ago
@313kam
God isn't real and we aren't born atheist.
mungbeanman 5 months ago
@313kam So a real God would remove the ability for us to choose? You are born, you have perfect knowledge of my existence, and you will obey all of my commands. Sure, God could do that, if He were making robots.
Sickopath333 5 months ago
"(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage)."
Funny you would make this point but also claim babies are atheists.
Saying babies are atheists completely ignores all contextual variables when it comes to the idea of 'not believing something'
Sashajw12345 6 months ago
@Sashajw12345
Good point, sash, but you didn't post it as a direct reply to the good Doctor. Just so as you know.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman lol, oops
Sashajw12345 6 months ago
The default form of atheism, 'weak atheism'/'negative atheism' simply means LACK of a positive belief in the existence of supernatural gods/God and therefore newborn babies DO fall under this label. Rocks do not since they are incapable of belief in any form, so calling a rock an "atheist" makes no more sense than calling a fish a creature which 'speaks gibberish'(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage).
DoctorSkepticus 6 months ago
@DoctorSkepticus "(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage)."
Funny you would make this point but also claim babies are atheists.
Saying babies are atheists completely ignores all contextual variables when it comes to the idea of 'not believing something'
Sashajw12345 6 months ago
The deefault form of atheism, 'weak atheism'/'negative atheism' simply means LACK of a positive belief in the existence of supernatural gods/God and therefore newborn babies DO fall under this label. Rocks do not since they are incapable of belief in any form, so calling a rock an "atheist" makes no more sense than calling a fish a creature which 'speaks gibberish'(since fish do not "speak" at all and have no capacity for such activity, in this context/usage).
DoctorSkepticus 6 months ago
@DoctorSkepticus
"Weak" atheism when described as a lack of belief is of logical inconsequence. This is demonstrated when you try to apply "weak" to theism. Result: babies who are both weak atheists and simultaneously weak theists.
Where in the definition of your weak atheism is any qualifier that says that you have to be capable of belief in order to be an atheist?
I'm not really sure what to do with your fish analogy as 'not speaking' is not equatable to 'speaking gibberish'.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
I agree with you, Athiesm's a choice, away from a person's natural disposition. This is what Muhammad peace be upon him taught. He said every child is born in the natural state, [i.e. an uncorrupted state of the belief in one God], and it's only the surroundings which change this.
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
No child is born believing in god. Belief is the position we adopt toward a proposition that could be true. Just how on earth could anyone create an argument that a baby has this propositional attitude?
You are not agreeing with me in the slightest, you are just hearing what you want to hear.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
The reason you find it hard to 'believe' is because you feel God is merely a "belief". When Muslims talk of faith we actually mean conviction. God is a reality. He is The Truth, actually this is one of his attributes - Al Haq.
The Psychologist freud came up with the propositions you speak of when you say "How... could anyone... [say] a baby has this propositional attitude". Merely saying no child is born believing in God does not mean it's true. We know no better than the research
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
"God is a reality."
This is a belief statement (for you at least, not for me, it is a falsehood as the Abrahamic god can't exist. As all powerful as he is supposed to be he forgot to not violate the law of contradiction.Shucks). A truth is one that is established, demonstrably true, non-falsifiable. "God is a reality" whether you like it or not, and you do know this, has not shown to be a truth.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
I'm just clearing up misconceptions. We're all here to learn. I find those who disbelieve in God, are actually disbelieving in the notions of God they have been indoctrinated with, or have been taught when they were small. The god they disbelieve in is probably disbelieved in by Muslims too. The first part of the Islamic testamony of faith/conviction is "There is NO god but God". Rejecting all false man-made deities except The Reality.
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
"We know no better than the research"
Forget what the psychologists say and go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and check the entry under belief. Then get back to me and tell me that a baby can qualify as a believer. It can't and you might learn something about how you do hold a belief about your god and not a truth.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
I understand your position, and it's hard from where you are to be able to visualise what muslims may think of when they say God. When muslims say God, we do not mean giant santa sitting beyond the universe. In Islam God is an intellegent designer, nothing like humans, nor can humans comprehend him. You've got to understand the definition of God before being able to reject him. Chapter 112 in the Quran is only 4 verses long, check it out. Creation necessitates creator.
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
I understand that no matter how strongly you hold your convinction it does not change it from a belief into a truth. I also understand that a god that claims he can do anything should be able to have a son if he wants to or in fact can't do anything (39:4 claims he could have a son if he wanted to; 6:101 rejects it as logically impossible without a "consort". Therefore we have a contradiction, therefore we have a god who can't exist).
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
Every time I read your statements, or the statements of other Athiests for that matter, I get the following feeling, as though you know God exists, yet you don't want to believe in him due to your personal/emotional reasons. It's always "we have a God" and then "who can't exist" which is your disbelief regarding reality. The Quran has no contradictions, even 39:4 proves God is above having a partner or child; "The One, Absolute".
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
"you know God exists"
I have just shown that Allah can not exist so why would I think or know that he does? Trust me, some gods I know can't exist - such as Allah - and the rest I believe don't. Perhaps I should have phrased it "therefore we have a description of a god who can't exist".
"The Quran has no contradictions"
If Allah can do all things as it states in 39:4 then that would include having a son. If he can't have a son (6:101) then he can't do all things. Contradiction.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
"even 39:4 proves God is above having a partner"
So Allah can't have a partner? Another thing he can't do despite claiming he can do all things! Can Allah die? Can he create a mathematical problem so complicated that he himself can't solve it? Can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Contradiction after contradiction.
What a waste of time and energy worshipping that which does not exist.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
You're only refuting your manmade notions of what God can and can't do. God does Godly things. Muslims don't claim God does everything. I probably disbelieve in the god you disbelieve in.
God created the concept of death so it's not applicable to him. According to Islam God is unlike the creation, so to ask those questions shows your lack of understanding. It highlights the irrationality in your 'beliefs'. To ask questions like "Can an Everliving being die?" is illogical.
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
If I want to learn about what Allah is supposed to be able to do or not in order to best work out whether he is the one true god, the god that I should believe in, then I would look in the Quran, right? If the Quran is the best source of information about Allah but makes contradicting claims about what he can and can't do then I'm afraid I would have to look elswhere.
It's like evidence in court; if it contradicts itself, it's worthless.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
Why does a person change topics when someone removes their misconceptions? Why not accept you were wrong in a particular area?
1400 years of scholarship has been unable to prove contradictions in the Quran, now an 'enlightened' individual on youtube is able to pick out contradictions? This is my final message. God clearly exists looking at his signs around us, including the Quran. When it'll be too late is in our graves. Let's see :) Peace.
Oo786oO 6 months ago
@Oo786oO
The contradictions are glaring and have been discussed by many people, some even more enlightened and scholarly than me. You can ignore them if you want to but this doesn't mean they're not there.
And if you're seeing signs that god "clearly exists" then I'm afraid you're seeing what you want to see. A wise man would look for the answer in the evidence rather than try to fit the evidence to an answer.
I am absolutely not worried about going to my grave godless. Not in the slightest.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
I stopped listening to you when you said atheism is not disbelief in god. That is the definition of atheism, you don't get to change definitions on a whim.
Ni73sh4d3 7 months ago
@Ni73sh4d3
Atheism IS the disbelief in god, I never say otherwise. What I do say is that it is not the lack of belief in god so in fact I am not changing the definition on a whim, I am disagreeing with those who have changed the definition on a whim. Perhaps you should listen to the whole argument before bothering to offer your opinion in future.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman But, semantically, disbelief and lacking a belief are the same thing. Disbelief = no belief or without belief. If I don't believe in something, then I lack belief in that thing. It logically follows.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
How is it semantically the case that disbelief is equal to no belief? Be warned I have already pre-empted your answer and formulated a response but I don't want to seem presumptuous by posting it just yet, I just want to be sure that's where you are coming from, especially being as you used 'semantically' and 'logically' in the same argument (two different things entirely, two different arguments).
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman But, semantics and logic are not two different things. Semantics is in fact determining meaning through linguistics and logic. The use of the latin "dis" in front of "belief" has a negative or reversing force. Or you can go by the dictionary definition of disbelief which simply calls it the inability or refusal to believe. In the case of atheists, it's the former. It then logically follows that an inability to believe means you don't have a belief - c: disbelief = no belief.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
We can look at the word semantically and the thing that is disbelief logically. Semantics only deals with language but logic can deal with what is. This is the difference we need to make.
So from a semantical point of view disbelief could mean that but that would mean that a word like 'disassemble' would mean 'not assemble' when we know it denotes an action and not an absence of an action or thing.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
If I say to you 'submarine' you would most likely thing of a vessel capable of travelling underwater but from a semantical point of view it could denote anything that you might find underwater.
Logically of course it can be demonstrated that no entity can be denoted by describing only its lack of a property. Saying that disbelief is 'no belief' only says what it is not and is about as useful as me asking your name and your answer being 'not Mary'.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman 'not Mary' That is an improper analogy because a proper noun, such as a name cannot inherit a prefix that negates that word. You can't disMary for example, so it's not the same thing. The noun "belief" does inherit the prefix "dis" which, as I stated, is an effective negation or reversal (depending on the context) of the word it's attached to. The "Dis" prefix has a number of different applications which change in different contexts. In this case, it negates or reverses the word.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
The analogy is fine because it is an example of trying to say what something is by only saying what it is not. Disbelief IS [not belief], my name IS [not Mary]. If you still can't make it fit then just refer to the 'disassemble' example I gave instead. As you should be able to appreciate this is discussing the the thing that is disbelief rather than the meaning of the word disbelief so the 'dis~' suffix is inconsequential (as you don't suffix entities, lol).
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
It also worries me that you say that one dictionary definition supports your claim but not the other. How can you demonstrate that this is in fact the case? Besides, if we are talking about following things through logically, if all that is required to be an atheist is an inability to believe in god then not only would babies be atheists but rocks and you 1,000,000 years ago.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman I didn't say anything about multiple definitions, so I don't know what you're talking about. If different dictionaries define it differently then there's no standard with which we can base it on. The definition I cited is the one I understood it to be before starting this conversation. If you wish to cite a different definition from a different source that counters my understood definition, then we're simply at a linguistic stalemate.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
"I didn't say anything about multiple definitions"
I was referring to the part where you said that disbelief is either an inability OR refusal to believe and then said that the first definition applies to atheists.
"there's no standard with which we can base it on."
So it would be best to refer to the philosophical defintion of what belief (belief the entity, not belief the word, mind) is and apply that to disbelief. That way we don't end up in a stalemate.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
Belief is any attitude we hold toward a proposition that we think to be true - if I press this button my computer will turn on, I will be alive in 5 years time, there is no god etc. - but do not know, or that can't be shown, to be true. Disbelief in this respect would then be any attitude we hold toward a proposition that we think to be false - if I press this button my computer will blow up, I will be dead in 5 years time, there is a god etc.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman Incidentally, I am an atheist and I, for one, completely disagree with the label of babies as atheists, but simply as a label. I understand "lack of belief" to be the default because as children, we all start at 0, but I personally don't feel that children should be labeled "atheist" anymore than they should be labeled "Christians" because they have no idea what they believe. If one wishes to be pedantic as all hell, yah, babies and rocks are atheists. But I say, let's be real.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@BiggestOfDaddies
If you disagree with babies being labelled as atheists why not adopt a logical definition of atheism that excludes them and rocks and leaves no doubt as to who are atheists and what aren't?
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman I concur actually. I've never particularly liked the word Atheist much, and for the same reasons (because it says what we're not, rather than what we are) and would love it if a better word were presented that better did that. The unfortunate reality though is that the word Atheist isn't going anywhere, so rather than fight it I've embraced it, regardless of how many rules of language the word manages to break. But, it's up to us to not allow others to apply it's meaning for us.
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@mungbeanman That's not to say though that you can't be defined by what you're not. It is a rare occurrence, but it does happen. "Homeless" for example, but that doesn't even accurately define what you're not, which is 'house less". But there's no controversy surrounding that word as most people understand what you mean when you say "homeless." "Atheist," however, is constantly being misrepresented to mean anything the theist wishes to suit their agenda or argument so it's up to us to insist....
BiggestOfDaddies 6 months ago
@eevil123
"Do we all become atheists after death?"
Clearly not. Death is the be all and end all of your being anything. Being is a property of the living. Besides, you never know, we might find out that there is a god after we die in which case we couldn't be atheists in that regard either.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@eevil123
"A newborn baby fits the definition of atheist because that baby"
When did that baby become an atheist though and why?
"This also negates your second argument."
Either babies are atheists OR there is a correlation between atheism and higher intelligence. No two ways about it.
"This is a problem with the term 'atheist' and why it should not be used."
To me it makes no sense to disregard something based on faulty logic when a perfectly logically acceptable alternative is available.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
I wish no offence, but your argument doesn't make sense to me. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Infants have no inherent belief. How is that so hard to understand?
TheLiveRevolutionary 7 months ago
@TheLiveRevolutionary
Well, I could say the same thing about my argument. Babies do not reject, deny or disbelieve there is a god nor do they hold a doctrine, theory or belief that there is no god so how can they be atheists? How is THAT so hard to understand? Besides, all you have done is restate what I disagree with without addressing any of the problems that describing babies as atheists raises.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Then you clearly don't understand what atheism is. It isn't REJECTING the belief. It's just a LACK of belief.
TheLiveRevolutionary 7 months ago
@TheLiveRevolutionary
A lack of belief is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing. It is like I have asked you what colour your car is and you replied 'not blue' and asserted that this is sufficient information to deduce its actual colour. You've told me what atheism isn't, how about telling me what it is.
Also, I don't often feel the need to refer people to the dictionary (as I'd rather talk about the entity that is atheism not the meaning of the word) but you might just want to check that.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman I did say what it is, it's a lack of belief. I'd check out QualiaSoup's video, "Lack of belief in gods". It defines the argument pretty solidly.
TheLiveRevolutionary 7 months ago
@TheLiveRevolutionary
"I did say what it is, it's a lack of belief."
Lack uses the logical operator "not." What X is NOT is ONLY what X is not, not what X is. How do you say what atheism is by saying that atheism is not a belief in gods? Take a look at this:
"X is not a belief in gods."
Where did I what X is? I ONLY said what is NOT.
"X is not dog crap."
Substitute X for atheism. Atheism is also not dog crap, but does that say what atheism IS? No. Neither does lack of belief.
Tonloc1986 7 months ago
@TheLiveRevolutionary
"I did say what it is, it's a lack of belief."
If a belief in god is a thing then a lack of belief in god is an absence of a thing so you have only said what it is not. Is not =/= is. It is like saying that an absence of bananas is still bananas or that zero is a positive integer.
Qualiasoup's video lacks any first order logic in its construction and relies simply on finding an argument to fit his opinion. His argument, defeated by logic, is not solid in the slightest.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@eevil123
"If someone believes something, they should have reasons to support that belief."
That's nothing more than your opinion. If a 4 year old girl believes her mom will give her a present for coming 5th birthday, does she need to give reasons to support that belief? If this girl has a friend who says their name and she believes what her friend told her about her name, does she need reasons to support that belief? Sure, a person can give reasons to support belief, but it isn't required.
Tonloc1986 7 months ago
@eevil123
A belief requires no burden of proof. A belief is not a truth claim that something does not exist. No beliefs can be proven, otherwise they stop being beliefs. They become truths, which aren't beliefs. A claim of truth requires the burden of proof, not one who simply claims a belief. People typically don't ask for proof of person's name. They simply believe them. Does that require a burden of proof? Nope. The term atheist is fine as is. It's certain people who are the problem.
Tonloc1986 7 months ago
@eevil123
No, that isn't the definition of theist, and such a definition does lead to problems. That's the point. It uses the same logic you used for atheism, thus, atheism suffers from the same problem if defined as not holding a belief there is a god. You didn't hold a belief in a god when you did not exist. Were you an atheist a billion years ago before you existed? The problem isn't with the word "atheist," but with the logic in which certain people attempt to employ behind it.
Tonloc1986 7 months ago
@eevil123
"A newborn baby fits the definition of atheist because that baby, presumably, does not hold a belief in a god. Thus, an atheist. Logic and reason are not necessary."
A newborn baby fits the definition of theist because that baby, presumably, does not hold a belief there is no god. Thus, a theist. Logic and reason are not necessary.
Tonloc1986 7 months ago
If I tell you I have an invisible dragon in my garage, you won't believe me unless I prove it, right?
So why is it when you tell me there's an invisible man in the sky, I, according to you, by default, I believe it until someone proves it wrong?
bobmuffins 7 months ago
@bobmuffins
I'm sorry? So because I say that atheism is not the default position you conclude that I must therefore be arguing that theism is? It's tempting to call strawman but I think that you genuinely misunderstood me.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
How can any living thing be anything before they were born? This guy claims he is intelligent. Not so sure about that one. I think there is a natural "fill in the blank" part of human nature. As child will ask why has my mother died? A farmer will ask why hasn't it rained? Something good happens and we ask why was I so lucky? Humans through history have sought scientific answers to these questions and they have also pulled answers out of their asses (gods).
jim6584 7 months ago
You are an atheist until you have someone try to indoctinate you. Once you are indoctinated and accept whatever religion you are being indoctrinated in, you are that religion. When you realize there is no proof for this indoctrination is when you go back to atheism.
gortews 7 months ago
@gortews
No one tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago: was I an atheist then?
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman LOL, so, your nearing 1,000,001 then right? missed the birthday party.
Terratr0n 7 months ago
@Terratr0n
Not only are you utterly missing the point you used very poor grammar to express it. That's where the real lols come from.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Yeah lets not laugh at the fact you claim to be 1,000,001 years old; "No one tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago".
Terratr0n 4 months ago
@Terratr0n
Clearly I claim no such thing, you daft troll.
Either someone tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago or they did not. There is no reality where both situations can be true. Therefore if you are saying that it is not true that no one tried to indoctrinate me 1,000,000 years ago then you are claiming that it is true that someone did try to do such a thing so in fact it is you who are claiming that I am older than 1,000,000 years. Checkmate, mate.
mungbeanman 4 months ago
@mungbeanman goin senile in that old age eh?
Terratr0n 4 months ago
@Terratr0n
I will admit senility if you can show me
a) Where I in fact "claim to be 1,000,001 years old" and
b) A reality where the contradiction you failed to address can be reconciled.
Good luck, your lack of cognitive ability expressd as it is through questionable grammar leads me to believe that you can do no such thing.
If you have nothing better to do with your sad little life other than troll may I recommend doing it on someone who is less smart than you and more likely to bite.
mungbeanman 4 months ago
@mungbeanman Too late, apparently.
Terratr0n 4 months ago
@Terratr0n
So you can't? What a surprise. Well, all that is left to say good luck in your chosen career as a troll. You have my pity as I imagine you as a lonely and sad individual, possibly with mental health issues, who is angry at those who discuss matters beyond his comprehension. I hope one day you get yourself a life and hopefully some perspective in order to see how pathetic your behaviour is.
I block trolls. Goodbye.
mungbeanman 4 months ago
since you did not exist and could not be indoctrinated, you weren't. People are taught a religion. That is why Christianity is not prevalent everywhere automatically. It is introduced by missionaries. If a religion were the default position, that religion would be instinctual and would not need to be taught.
gortews 7 months ago
@gortews "You are an atheist until you have someone try to indoctinate you."
So i'm assuming your including newborns since they are not indoctrinated, al all, about anything, lol
Sashajw12345 7 months ago
Are you joking? Atheism IS the default position, and if you cannot accept this fact, the conversation ends there.
kissmygrittsyall 7 months ago
@kissmygrittsyall
I don't accept because it defies logic and therefore cannot be a fact. If you don't want to try and wrap your head around the logic then so be it. I can't make people think that don't want to think. But thanks for the comment nonetheless.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman
Because it defies logic? I'm honestly quite confused with your position. You claim in your video series that "atheism is not the lack of belief in a god" which of course it IS the lack of belief in a god.
Seriously, what the hell?
kissmygrittsyall 7 months ago
@kissmygrittsyall
This is why it defies logic.
1. Lack uses the logical operator 'not', right? As in 'does NOT have'. So by saying "atheism is a lack of belief in god" you have only said what atheism is not which is about as useful as saying red is not blue or X is not Y. And whilst this may be true it says nothing of what red or X is.
2. If atheism is therefore not theism and nothing more then everything that is not theism is atheism. You, me, the sky etc.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman
1. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief therefore atheism="not believing in a god". It's like saying false is "not true". You can define something as the opposite of something else and it still makes sense. Red is not blue is a true statement, but red is of course not defined as "not blue", since red and blue are not opposites.
2, 3 and 4: Logically that is correct. It is just unintuitive because you are assigning properties to things where they are meaningless.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@nezrif27
"It's like saying false is "not true"."
No it's not. True and false apply only to propositions but 'not true' could apply to all things that are not propositions therefore 'not true' =/= 'false'.
"You can define something as the opposite of something else and it still makes sense."
Again no. Take your computer for example - it can be on or off. If I throw your computer into the sun and destroy it it won't be on but that won't mean it's off. To be off it has to exist.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@nezrif27
"It is just unintuitive because you are assigning properties to things where they are meaningless."
I'm not applying atheism to any of things! It IS meaningless because atheism is what it is and not what it isn't. If it is meaningless then it is not logically sound.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman: Your problem is that you are assuming that if something does not exist it has all negative properties. Like it is not blue and also not red and not yellow since it does not exist. The problem is that that in itself is not a meaningful statement at all if "it" does not exist. Therefore something that does not exist is nothing. You can not assign any property to it and "not blue" is a property.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@nezrif27
"Your problem is that you are assuming that if something does not exist it has all negative properties."
I don't know what you mean by "negative properties". 'Not blue' is not a property of anything. If 'blue' is a property of something then 'not blue' is not a property. That's how predicate logic works.
If it can be demonstrated that something does not exist then neither do any of its properties, negative or otherwise.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman "If 'blue' is a property of something then 'not blue' is not a property"
So what you are saying that "For all properties A, "not A" is not a property"
That is like saying "For all persons X "not X" is not a person".
So if Peter is a Person then everyone who is not Peter is not a person. How does that make sense?
nezrif27 7 months ago
@nezrif27 Or maybe for a better example:
For all logical expressions X, "not X" is not a logical expression.
Which is clearly false.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@nezrif27
"How does that make sense?"
It doesn't because that is not what I am saying. The problem is that you have added the qualifier 'everyone' to create a new argument. If I say that 'not blue' is not a property of something I haven't said that every colour that is not blue is not a colour. Forget the 'everyone' part and say if Peter is a person then not Peter is just that, not Peter and saying what is not does not say what is. Simple as that, really.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman: Then why is "not blue" not a property of anything. I think "not X" can very well be a property.
"not dead" seems rather meaningful for example.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@nezrif27
"Then why is "not blue" not a property of anything."
Because as I said before if 'blue' is a property of something then 'NOT blue' is NOT a property of something. The predication has to balance. You cannot argue that 'is not' = 'is'. In a mathematical sense it would be like arguing that 0 is a positive integer.
""not dead" seems rather meaningful for example."
Not dead means just that. Alive or dead is a classic example of a false dichotomy.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman: Something and it's negative can still have the same properties as for example.
log(x): x is a logical expression.
log(x)->-log(-x) is what you are saying, but that is certainly not correct. The negation of a logic expression is of course a logic expression as well.
So I do not see why the negation of a property can not be a property as well.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Also I am justified in adding the all qualifier when your conclusion was:
"If 'blue' is a property of something then 'not blue' is not a property"
prop(x,y) means x is a property of y
There exists y so that, prop(b,y) -> there exists no x so that, prop(-b,x)
Or roughly if b is a property of something then there is nothing that not b is a property off.
nezrif27 7 months ago
@kissmygrittsyall
3. If atheism is a lack of belief in god then it applies to all things that aren't theists. Dogs and rocks would all be atheists.
4. If atheism is a lack of belief in god then to be an atheist you wouldn't even need to exist. You would have been an atheist 1,000,000 years ago. However all that is needed to prove something exists is one truth about it and it is true that you were an atheist 1,000,000 years ago then you have just proved you existed then. Quite the paradox.
mungbeanman 7 months ago