In that light, I can't comppletely tell if she's cute, but the voice is adorable. I'd tweak the volume, however, as it is terribly difficult to hear this, at least on my laptop. As for what I think Atheism is... It is the next stage past skepticism. A skeptic must seek evidence to support things, while an Atheist tends to have found most of the evidence needed. Also there is Anti-Theism where the subject believes he has learned enough to disregard the believe completely, like myself.
@gklr That is the whole point. The one thing that that the label atheist tells you, and the only thing that the label atheist tells you, is that the person in question rejects theistic claims.
It would, of course, be contingent on a little common savvy on the part of your interlocutor that he realizes the term atheist refers to a person who exists or once existed. Any further confusion could be cleared up by simply asking if the reference was to a living person or a fictional character.
There is no longer any confusion about the definition of Atheism. This recent message gives you a clear explanation.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
@LucisFerre1 I didn't word that well. What I meant was that there is no argument for a God that has ever been dreamed up by man that can't be demonstrated to be either fallacious or else based on special pleading.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God/gods. It's the negative critique of a positive claim. Beyond that there's various forms like, positively asserting that there's no God or there maybe a God but, non suggested thus far has met the burden of proof. There are no denominations of Atheism, just varying degrees of certainty. Usually it boils down to "you suggest a god & I'll disbelieve it for whatever reason". Some are so doubtful of the possibility that a God exists that they'll assert no God exists
There is also no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is proven true.
Saying atheists lack belief in god is true, it just isn't true about what is the case about atheists... it is true for what is not the case about atheists.
Theists believe there is a god, nontheists are people that don't.
Atheists believe there is no god, nonatheists are people that don't.
@gklr I have an apple. Therefore I have a thing called an apple. If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple. therefore I lack the thing!
I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief but, to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the claim.
You have to define God before I can assert I disbelieve it. God could be cheese cake in your faith for all I know.
@MrLittletomdj said, " I have an apple. Therefore I have a thing called an apple. If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple. therefore I lack the thing!"
Yes, he's confusing absence with nonexistence. Absence can be a property, but existence is not a property. "Nothing unreal exists" ~ Spock (who just happens to be right in this case).
"If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple."
Yes, but that doesn't describe anything you have. To lack something is to not have something. You do not "have" what you lack.
I lack a 23rd eye is true, it is not true about anything I have or even about me, it is true about what is not the case about me (meaning if I don't exist it is still true). You say nothing about X to say X lacks Y. A lack of something is not something that exists.
@gklr 1) Wow, you've written a small book to respond & some twat has flagged half your comments as spam. I'll try to remember to number my responses from now on, do you think you could do the same (saves confusion)? This is a response to the "A lack of something is not something that exists" comment. We're in complete agreement here. I'm not sure why you responded to this bit, that was exactly what I was saying and I never said it "describe(s) anything you have"... puzzled... ???
"I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief"
There is no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is possibly true or false. Proofs result in truths and falsehoods. All beliefs must be possibly true and possibly false and yet proven as neither. No truth is possibly false and no falsehood is possibly true, wheras beliefs must be both. As soon as a proposition is proven true, it can't be a belief.
"There is no burden of proof on any belief." agreed.
"No belief is possibly true or false." Totally disagree, you either believe something which is true or believe something which is false. I think that was just a sloppy sentence & you stated the contrary in this same comment. You only have to prove it if you make a truth statement about that claim, I disagree with your definition of belief here, you can believe in a proven truth as you still believe the proporsition is true.
""No belief is possibly true or false." Totally disagree, you either believe something which is true or believe something which is false"
Then the propositions would be true or false and not beliefs. No belief is a truth, no belief is a falsehood.... each are resolved by different methods.
Belief is not something you do, it is a description of a type of statement.... just as truth is.
There are 2 types of truth statements and 3 types of belief statements.
"I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief"
My belief is that no god exists.
"to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence"
Evidence is useless and can be lies, fabrications and utter nonsensese. You've mistaken me for a theist without the slightest indication I am... provided a belief you have that was utterly unfounded. It seems you are convinced without evidence much sooner than you suggest.
@gklr Continued.. Though I wouldn't use the qualifier of "I believe" in statements of proven knowledge..
3) "Evidence is useless and can be lies, fabrications and utter nonsensese" How about I expand to a more rigid definition. Testible, cooberative, repeatable, empiricle evidence. This is the dumbest response you've made, how do you evaluate the truth of anything without evidence?
I barely made the assumption you were a theist, but if I did it kinda proves this point.
Then you have no "evidence" of language, logic, mathematics, theism or atheism. You seem to be looking for "scientific evidence" and this is not science. Here we use evidence more like a courtroom..... that is why theists use the term "testimony". Theists have no proof... they have mounds and mounds of evidence and all of it is lame.
"This is the dumbest response you've made, how do you evaluate the truth of anything without evidence?"
There are no truths in the matter of god existing, we examine beliefs on the matter and not truths. It's not me saying they have no evidence... I am saying they do... and it is in examining that evidence we can conclude they use belief with every statement about their alleged god(s).
"to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence"
What theists don't have is PROOF. They have plenty of evidence. To deny or reject that theists have a solid grasp of the world around them we need to investigate their testimonies and bibles and other nonsense. We can't call it nonsense if we don't look at their evidence. Evidence is not proof, don't confuse the 2.
Testimonies are evidence in court and they are here too.
@gklr 4) The reason why the evidence isn't proof is because it's contradicting, fallacious, unsubstantiated, anecdotal, personal & prone to comformation bias. I'm sorry that I'm restricted to a 500 character limit & didn't elaborate, but that's YT for ya. How do you prove something if "evidence is useless" though? I recommend you retract that quote, because it's buggered your whole arguement. I assure you, I haven't confused the two!
"The reason why the evidence isn't proof is because it's contradicting"
Contradictions are proof of impossibility, no belief needed there. When we can prove a proposition is contradictory then we have proven what is impossible.
When we show a contradiction for a god we have proven that the proposed god does not exist.... no atheism required.... just logic is required.
Fallacies can have a true premise and because an argument is fallacious doesn't make it false, wheras a contradiction does.
1+1=2 because my daddy says so.... is an argument by authority, but 1+1=2 is still true.
"unsubstantiated, anecdotal, personal & prone to comformation bias"
Agreed... that is why their evidence fails to prove their claims.... but they don't generally say they CAN prove their claims. Nor need they... theism is a belief.
"How do you prove something if "evidence is useless" though?"
Well here you touch on the theory of proof, a whole other matter. It isn't that evidence is useless... it's just that evidence need not be true. We sift through the evidence to examine what they say to critique theology.... but doing so has no more to do with atheism than poking holes in Germany is a way to promote the US.
"thus the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the claim."
My claim is the there is no god and I have the upperhand with intellectual integrity on theists who claim they know a god exists by saying I believe that a god doesn't exist and that I know no such thing. I allow the possibility that a god exists and so do all atheists, as atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist and not a claim that we know there is no god. "There is probably no god".
@gklr 5) "My claim is the there is no god" That's fine, you're willing to make that positive claim & accept the burden of proof and thus identify yourself as a strong/positive Atheist. But not all Atheists do and thus the burden of proof is not on all Atheists.
"atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist"
That is the position of Strong Atheism, not Weak Atheism. A weak Atheist may not believe in the Clockwork Universe Theory but he doesn't assert its false, it's merely unsubstantiated
"That's fine, you're willing to make that positive claim & accept the burden of proof "
There is no burden of proof on any belief statement. Proof only applies to truths and falsehoods. I am not saying it is a proven truth that no god exists.
Strong/weak atheism relies and the very mistakes in logic that I am underlining here on primary vs secondary predication. There is no such thing as strong or weak atheism, there is just atheism.
"You have to define God before I can assert I disbelieve it"
Proposed gods are not defined, they are described.
As an atheist I believe all 'proposed gods' do not exist, it doesn't matter how they are described. Atheists can only refer to those 'alleged gods' that are proposed to exist.
Asking a theist to describe a god is asking for utter rubbish. I don't recommend it.
@gklr 6) "Proposed gods are not defined, they are described."
I see where your going, in terms of Biblical or Qu'ranic descriptions, but Christians, in particular, assign attributes to God & those attributes define what it is. Typical examples include, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. These are all core attributes which are definitive of what God is & "his" nature. If these attributes are propposed, I will assert that this God is locically incoherent & doesn't exist.CONT
No name or label has ever been defined, whether that be your name, god, atheist, theist... what have you.
Labels and names are the only words that have no meaning. All defined words ARE their definition. Names and labels act as pointers that refer to objects. Defined words don't do that. Omnipotent etc are attempts at desciptions, and are not attempts to define a god.
@gklr 7) However, many deist theories aren't logically incoherent. I may not be convinced of them but, I don't assert that they're false.
I think you've made a few fatal errors in your logic. Do you just enjoy the debate or have you taken a real staunch opposition to my comment? We can switch to PM's if you like. I noticed you kept getting flagged as spam & I don't see any real reason to keep this in the public forum.
There are no errors in the logic I have provided. The arguments on primary vs secondary predicates you see are taught in every university and was first formalized by Bertrand Russell in 1905 when he wrote his essay On Denoting, which introduced Russells greatest work... his Theory of Descriptions. Most of what else I put up is set theory, and some simple rules of language.
I do enjoy the debate, it opens people up to modern logic. PMs work for me too.
The spam markers are automated by YT, and I have no idea what the parameters are for triggering them. I just ignore them, everyone gets marked spam.
It is inconvenient to put up with the spam markers or the 500 character limit and the only advantage I see is that the matters brought forth on defining atheism or describing an atheist are directly what the video is asking for. I am good with PMs.
@gklr said, ["There is no such thing as a lack of a thing. There is also no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is proven true."]
Wrong on both counts. Absence is a lack of a thing. And yes, one believes when one also knows (if one is sane). Don't confuse belief with faith. To know something and yet disbelieve it would be completely bonkers. It's belief without knowing that has no argumentative weight and has earned no respect.
Asymmetry means not symmetrical. Atypical means not typical. Atheist means not a theist. The "a" prefix means "not", "non" or "without", not "anti-" as some would suggest.
A-theist means not a theist. A theist is a person who "believes in 'god', however they define that. Atheism is not juxtaposed to "god", it's juxtaposed to being a theist. So, defining 'god' is the theists burden, not mine.
The definition of "strong" atheism doesn't define atheism just as "protestant" doesn't define Christian.
@gklr, you don't seem to realize that, as I said, atheism is not juxtaposed to some alleged "god", it's juxtaposed against theists, and theists demonstrably exist.
Contrary to what Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayers thought, it doesn't really matter if the ideas of theists are consistent and cogent before it's legitimate for me as an atheist to say that I'm not a theist. It's just as legitimate as saying that I'm not a member of Bo and Peep's Heaven's Gate cult, (which is a Christian sect).
"you don't seem to realize that, as I said, atheism is not juxtaposed to some alleged "god", it's juxtaposed against theists, and theists demonstrably exist."
Atheism is a position on the existence of a god and is not a position on the existence of theists.
"it's legitimate for me as an atheist to say that I'm not a theist"
Of course it is... it simply isn't saying anything about you... so it doesn't tell me that you are an atheist because you are not a theist.
@gklr said, ["Atheism is a position on the existence of a god and is not a position on the existence of theists."]
False. The "a" prefix means "not", "non-" or "without". (Dictionary).
A-theist means not a theist or non-theist.
Of course it doesn't "tell you about me", it's not a positive assertion of beliefs or philosophy. It's merely stating that I have no theistic beliefs.
@gklr, if you're pretending to know the difference between Aristotelian logic and modern logic, then I'm calling your bluff. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about modern logic, as evidenced by the puerile and child-like mistakes you repeatedly make and refuse to correct. You don't even seem to comprehend simple set theory. That the "a" prefix means not, non or without is in the dictionary. I recommend reading it sometime.
"That the "a" prefix means not, non or without is in the dictionary. I recommend reading it sometime"
Oh I have and I also realize that the rules that applied in the stone age do not apply since Russells Theory of Descriptions.
Etymology is no way to define or describe anything as it allows for only 1 root. Ambiguity and context wouldn't exist if that is how understood words, yet they do.
"It's obvious that you know next to nothing about modern logic"
*choke*... this coming from someone who can't tell the difference from a description and a definition... and is referring me to stone age logic when you've been confronted with how Bertrand Russell formally showed the problems for NOT that I bring here.
@gklr, your bluff isn't going to work. As I've stated before, if you're going to talk about logic and existence, then you need to use predicate logic with existential and universal quantifiers. 'Fact is, you're completely ignorant of that form of symbolic logic and your lack of understanding of even the basest of ideas in set theory is even more obvious. So, continue to bluff away by invoking the name of Russell, Aristotle, etc. You'll only manage to impress people more ignorant than you are.
@gklr Enlighten you? You've proved that this isn't possible. Not-A does not mean "nothing", it means not-A. If x can be in A, B or both and it's not-A then it's B. Non-theists are people who are not theists. If you can't understand that, then your IQ is a numeral lower than the room temp in F.
"If x can be in A, B or both and it's not-A then it's B"
Saying X is not A, doesn't speak about X at all.
Nontheists are people that are not theists, is valid and says nothing about nontheists. From that we don't know if nontheists even exist.
And we never do know that. It is a belief to say you or anyone does not believe in a god as it cannot be proven true and it is a belief that isn't about you anyway.
@gklr said, ["And we never do know that. It is a belief to say you or anyone does not believe in a god as it cannot be proven true and it is a belief that isn't about you anyway."]
That's so completely stupid that it's beyond description. There are no disembodies properties.
If R has the predicate X, that says something about R. X is as a primary predicate of R.
Not Y, is not a primary predicate of R, it is a secondary predicate and doesn't talk about R.
When we use secondary predication we are not talking about the subject, we are saying what is not the case for the subject, and not what is the case for it.
@LucisFerre1 To whatever your last comment was. We disagree on a fundamental issue. That's it. It's stalemate. I was thinking of going into something about "do you positively assert that no purple apples exist "or some other fucking dumb analogy like that but, I'm soooo bored. Would dictionary definitions persuade you? Probably not & the apple didn't represent the non-believer either. My original response was for the uploader anyway, not for if X=X predicate Y<P Then !=WTF.. jeez
@MrLittletomdj, Did the Ancient Greeks worship Zeus, or the IDEA of Zeus? Theists subscribe to an idea that atheists don't. That can be described with symbolic predicate logic just well as "John doesn't carry a wallet" can. gklr is just trying to dazzle people with bullshit. He knows just enough to confuse himself.
@LucisFerre1 Ahh shit man, I responded to you, that last comment was intended for gklr... sorry! Sounds like you figured out who it was directed at anyway. I can't handle this comment trail anymore though, It's just a rambling mess, 9 responses at a time, I mean Christ on a bike! No wonder the girl in the video is confused. He didn't even get the Apple anology and I thought it was sooo flipping clear. Ahh well,take it easy, I'm off.
@gklr said, ["There is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism."]
Who do you expect to impress with that blather? Atheists demonstrably exist. You can't even show that a disembodied intelligent creator of universes CAN even possibly exist.
If you had even a semi background in logic then you would know that all of logic rests on AXIOMS of which none can be proven true and are all beliefs. Without them logic doesn't work.
And you want to say atheism doesn't require belief? Seriously? When logic itself does?
Ok prove anyone believes in a god then. Show us how you deterimine that. Prove you don't. (even if you could, and you can't, it wouldn't be about you anyway).
Facts are properties of material objects. If "my pen is blue" is true, then blue is a fact for the pen. Facts are not true or false. Blue is never "true". Propositions about blue are true, propositions about the pen are true. The pen or blue are never true.
This speaks to the logic of theists where they say "Jesus is truth" which is false. Jesus is not a proposition.
All facts are shown to exist via empirical truths, no empirical truth exists for ignorance. Ignorance is conceptual, not factual. Concieved and not percieved.
You are trying to use words that you have no background with.... absolute, fact, not, atheist. All of these you have wrong and I get the feeling that is just scratching the surface.
"as evidenced by the puerile and child-like mistakes you repeatedly make and refuse to correct"
Show me the error. You have none to show.
It's you repeating your error, even after shown why it can't possibly be valid.
Not something IS something?
And you want to cite "logic"?
You apparently have no idea how to use NOT. Stifling ignorance of that magnitude doesn't exactly leave the impression you are in any position to insult anyone.
How about when you admitted that the existence of God was highly improbable, then you switched to saying it was a 50/50 proposition, and then further moved to saying that if anything theists have the upperhand?
How many times do you have to contradict yourself before admitting you've made an error?
False. Not a theist doesn't refer to anything at all... and nontheist only tells me you exist... not that you are anything.
Atheist doesn't MEAN anything, it is a label and no label or name means anything. Names and labels refer to something, they are pointers. Defined words don't refer, they are not pointers.
@gklr said ["False. Not a theist doesn't refer to anything at all... and nontheist only tells me you exist... not that you are anything.
Atheist doesn't MEAN anything, it is a label and no label or name means anything. Names and labels refer to something, they are pointers. Defined words don't refer, they are not pointers."]
You are simply too stupid to bother talking to. "I'm not a theist" is a statement that has value in and of itself.
"I'm not a theist" is a statement that has value in and of itself. "
"I'm not a theist" says what I am not... I didn't say it had no value... I've said it says nothing about "I".
Your reply had no bearing on the points you quote me talking about. I was pointing out that atheist is described and not defined, atheism is defined and not described. You replied with an utter disconnect to those points made.
@gklr said, "Where X is anything at all, not X is not anything at all.
No matter what X is, NOT X is not something."
To say that not-A is "nothing at all" is ludicrous. If there is A and B, then not-A is B. If there is A, B and C, then not-A is B, C or any combination thereof excluding A. An a-theist is a non-theist. There are certainly theists and non-theists, so you have no argument.
"Not" is a logical term. You can't use NOT with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. Theist is not a proposition, nor is it a propositional function.
You just can't use 'not' that way.
I can say "I am not you"... which says "I am not" "you". It says what I am not, not what I am. It doesn't say "I am" "not you". Not you isn't something anything is.
@gklr "Not" is a logical term. You can't use NOT with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. Theist is not a proposition, nor is it a propositional function."]]
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you're a hopeless idiot.
"... coming to the conclusion that you're a hopeless idiot"
Your problem isn't with what I am saying.... it is with what formal logic has said for over 100 years. Your problem is with logic, not me.
Nothing is "not something" Not something is not anything.
And you made this reply to one of the rules of propositional logic.... quite hilarious when I think of it. NOT can't be used with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. THEIST is neither
@gklr, again, atheism is not a positive assertion of belief or philosophy. It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs. ALL atheists are not theists. All asymmetry is not symmetrical. All the atypical are not typical. Other than "atypical" the term atypical does not tell you what it IS. It tells you what it isn't.
"again, atheism is not a positive assertion of belief or philosophy"
Philosophy is the act of doubting, it never proposes anything. Atheism is a position on the existence of any god and all positions are beliefs or truths. This one happens to be a belief.
"It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs"
"It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs"
Saying what a person does not have does not say a thing about that person. It's an application of secondary predication and in such instances we say nothing about the subject of the statement, in this case "person".
X does not have Y, tells you nothing about X. You can't even know X exists. If X doesn't exist, X does not have Y is valid.... no matter what Y is.
Strong-weak atheism never did exist. For those definitions to be meaningful requires a complete suspension of modern logic and the usage of NOT, where NOT something IS something.
It was formulated by someone who didn't know what they were doing and it caught on with people that couldn't see why they didn't know what they were doing.
When I see alleged atheists use this, I realize I am listening to someone who follows the crowd right over the cliffs of irrationality.
@gklr said, ["For those definitions to be meaningful requires a complete suspension of modern logic and the usage of NOT, where NOT something IS something."]
Sorry, but atheists are not saying that there is a 'god' that does not exist. We're saying that one has no business saying that there is a 'god' unless you can provide existential import to qualify your use of the existential quantifier. (In predicate logic).
BTW, ALL atheists are not theists. That's the appropriate definition of atheist
"Sorry, but atheists are not saying that there is a 'god' that does not exist. "
Yes we are.... that is what atheism is, that is what atheists maintain. If you do not believe that there is no god then you are not an atheist.
"ALL atheists are not theists"
Saying what atheists aren't doesn't say what atheists are. Nor are atheists defined, they are described. Atheism is defined, atheists can't be defined.
No name or label is defined. Names and labels are described
All numbers are not letters. So "not letters" is what numbers are? I see... so Jupiter is not a letter... and by your reasoning of what an atheist is, Jupiter must be a number. What number is Jupiter then?
Theism is not a theist.... so theism must be an atheist according to your description that you called a definition by accident.
You can't know... X may not exist. If X doesn't exist then X doesn't have anything and lacks all things. No truths exist for X if X does not exist. A truth about something proves that thing exists.
Telling me X lacks Y, tells me zero about X... I can't assume X even exists. X lacks Y is true if X does not exist and is not about "X". It is about what X IS NOT. Not about what X IS
@gklr, If you're going to pretend to understand logic while also talking about existence, then you need to use predicate logic. Otherwise you're blubbering gibberish like "lacks". "Lacks" is not a word used in logic.
@gklr 8) jeeezzz.. O.K. so I just read through your back & froth with LucisFerre1 who I strongly agree with. "X lacks Y is true. What is X?" I think this is the whole point. Atheism tells you nothing. It's not there to tell you anything except one thing. Beyond that X could be anything, you're right. You can be a humanist & nihilst or Buddhist or anything else which isn't a Theist. If something is not an apple what is it? It could be anything else & that's the point.
"If something is not an apple what is it? It could be anything else & that's the point."
It may not exist at all. THAT is the point. You haven't said a single thing about X to say X lacks Y. X may not exist and it is valid.
By saying you are an atheist it certainly does tell me something, it tells me you maintain no god exists, you deny a god exists, you disbelieve a god exists.... all beliefs themselves. Atheism is a position on the existence of a god.
@gklr "It may not exist at all. THATs the point." EXACTLY! So the apple doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you've got an anti-apple!
You're not following my comments anymore. Yes, Atheism is the disbelief in God. It seems like you think the apple represents God. It represents the Belief btw. I thought that was pretty obvious. You're making the burden of proof fallacy repeatedly. If we've not got that through to you yet we never will. You've confused the trail anyway. Not fun anymore.
"So the apple doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you've got an anti-apple!"
If the apple doesn't exist, it doesn't believe in a god. Saying so says nothing about the apple at all. Saying atheists don't believe in a god says nothing about atheists.
"Yes, Atheism is the disbelief in God"
Yes and disbelief is the belief a proposition is false.
"It seems like you think the apple represents God"
No. The apple represents the non-believer.
"You're making the burden of proof fallacy repeatedly"
No burden of proof applies to any belief. The burden of proof only ever applies to claims of truth. Only truths are proven, beliefs never are. Nor is there a burden of proof fallacy.
There is no such thing as a lack of belief, without belief, an absence of belief.
None of those are things that exist. None of those can or ever were atheism, because none of those things exist.
Quite ironic considering the topic is atheism.
Atheism exists, it is something. A lack of belief isn't anything at all. Atheism is the belief there is no god and if someone doesn't believe there is no god then they are not an atheist. They'd be nonatheist.
For the sake of argument, I assume that by X lacks Y, you either mean that X does not belong to the set of Y or that X is not Y.
You're exactly right. You've just abrogated your own point. The fact that an atheist is not a theist tells you nothing about what an atheist is, it simply tells you that an atheist isn't a theist.
@LucisFerre1 9) I got so many responses from "gklr" that I've started to number mine to make the chronology less confusing. He's a smart enough guy, but I've gotta say I'm in full agreement with you. I think he's on an odd false dichotomy trip. Anyway, do fancy peer reviewing my 8 prior responses & seeing if I've fallen into any pit falls.
P.s. gklr, seems alright to me, I ain't having a go... I just think he's wrong on several points.
Atheism is only applicable to proposed gods that are possible. For proposed gods that are impossible that is shown via logic... not atheism. No belief required to prove what does not exist.
P and not P, at the same time... if that is shown then the subject of P cannot exist. P stands for proposition.
Simple as that. If you are asked whether you believe in God and your answer is anything other than yes, including "I don't know" then you are an atheist.
In fact, Christians are atheist towards every God except one.
a = without when the Greek language was formed in about 4300BC, the stone age. You quote quite literally... stone age logic.
Over 2000 years later Aristotle founded formal logic. Over 2000 years after Aristotle a guy named Bertrand Russell showed (in 1905, On Denoting)... the difference between a primary and secondary predicate.
"I don't know" and "I don't believe" say nothing about "I". I can't know from that, that you exist.
We now have the scientific method, which yields results. Philosophy is the discipline of the man who has been thoroughly routed from practical academia.
All of science relies on the laws of logic to show any of it's conclusions are true or false. True and false are hardly scientifically observable objects.
Philosophy only asks questions. Logic is the discipline used in all truths, scientific or analytical.
The law of noncontradiction is not obsolete. Nor is classical logic. Science never proves anything. All proofs are logical ones.
@gklr Science is the only method of seperating fact from falsehood ever devised by mankind that works. Science created the modern world. Science is behind everything from the very computer you're typing on to extended life expectancy to exploring space. Name me one example of a practical application of philosophy, if you can?
"The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as ornithology is to a bird" -- Richard Feynman.
@gklr You clearly don't understand what science is. Science is a methodology. Hypothesize -> Observe -> Experiment -> Repeat.
Do you know how many times logic came up when I took my science degree? Not once. It wasn't even mentioned, because classical logic, while interesting, is basically no use to a scientist whatsoever.
Science is about comparing predictions to physical experience in a way that demonstrates statistically significant experimental results.
Bertrand Russell also claimed to know that there wasn't a God."
False. Show me where you think he said that. And I thought you never crossed paths with any philosophers or logicians? Now you want to put words in their mouth?
Russell was a lot smarter than that. Ever hear of Russells teapot? It was a metaphore for god. He couldn't prove it didn't exist and said so.
Yes the teapot example did do that, and it also showed he could not prove the teapot doesn't exist.
We prove what does not exist by showing the object in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction. A contradiction is expressed as "P and not P, at the same time" where P is a proposition. eg: god is on fire and god is not on fire, at the same time. THAT god can't exist.
Unless shown as a contradiction, anything is possible.
"When I did not exist, I did not exist. To say I was or was not anything is meaningless..."
You were not anything when you did not exist... you were not a believer in god and you were not an atheist. You lacked belief in a god and were not an atheist.
If you claim to know there is no god, then you claim to know things you do not know.
"If your response to being asked if you believe in God is anything other than yes then you're an atheist"
"There is no evidence of God existing, unless you count peoples anecdotes as evidence, which would be absurd."
We are talking evidence like we mean evidence in a court where lies and fabrications are accepted as testimony everyday. We are not dealing with science, so we are not using "scientific evidence".
There is no proof of a god yes. There is mounds of evidence and all of it weak. Proof is not equal to evidence.
"I asked you already to give me one argument or piece of evidence in favour of God. I'm still waiting..."
All testimonies by theists, all bibles, all accounts of a god. I already said they were weak and lame. Outright lies are "evidence" in a court. That is why theists call them "testimonies" I think... to give them that sense of validation. It doesn't work.
@gklr I give God a capital G because that is the common usage in the country I live in.
When someone tells me they believe in God I accept it because it is not an extraordinary claim that they do, and it doesn't really matter to me whether they do or not. I see no reason why someone would lie to me about that, and it makes no odds to me if they are.
as to proving to you that I don't believe in God, again that is not an extraordinary claim and does not require extraordinary evidence.
"Also, I'm still waiting on you pointing out a practical application of philosophy"
Philosophy is the act of questioning, doubting. By it's very nature atheism is a conclusion that results from philosophy... mind you so is religion.
The philosophy OF religion doubts and questions religion... sound familiar? Atheists engage in the philosophy of religion, doubting it, questioning it.
Philosophy? It is the act of questioning. It doesn't answer anything. Logic does however. Logic shows how to prove something exists, how to show something doesn't exist and much more.
All propositions... including empirical truths fall under propositional logic... not science.
Show me a single proposition science has that is not a proposition, (contradictory so you can't... that was loaded...) or show any proposition that doesn't fall under propositional logic. (oops, just as bad)
I like to be fair and that wasn't.
I explained philosophy is not logic, and doesn't answer anything. It asks.
"When someone tells me they believe in God I accept it because it is not an extraordinary claim that they do, and it doesn't really matter to me whether they do or not."
But to say they do requires belief. To say theism exists at all requires belief.
Wait on it...
It requires belief of some measure to say anything at all. Every proposition, even scientific ones, fall under propositional logic which rests on AXIOMS of which none can be proven true.
I didn't say it was a belief system, it is a belief. A single belief.
Doctorine implies to me more than 1 belief.
"There is no god" is a belief statement because it can't be proven true. For every alleged god we don't have proof they do not exist. That is needed to say what you did, that we know there is no god.
Only "P and not P, at the same time" proves what doesn't exist. If we could use every proposed god as the subject of P, then you'd be right.
"The statement, "I don't accept your claim that there is a God because it is a baseless assertion." is not a belief statement."
Then prove it is true. (and I don't claim there is a god)
We can't read minds. For anyone to say they believe in god (theist) or not (nontheist) is not provable. For anyone to say they believe there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist) is not provable. They are belief statements.
"That said, the evidence in favour of God is so risible, I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that I know there is no God."
I agree it is wholly unlikely... but I also know it can't be shown that for every proposed god they are proven to not exist.
The god that can do all things (koran) but also cannot have son (same koran) cannot exist. No atheism required there, just logic. We have an example of P and not P at the same time.
@gklr There comes a point where you can confidently dismiss claims that people make. While I can't actually prove to a philosopher that God does not exist, the reality is that it's perfectly possible to say quite confidently that I know God does not exist.
I'm not agnostic about goblins living in my garden or tea pots orbiting Neptune or Easter Bunnies either.
Can you prove to me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?
"While I can't actually prove to a philosopher that God does not exist, the reality is that it's perfectly possible to say quite confidently that I know God does not exist."
then prove it. I even showed you how. You might try and thank me. I already knew.
"I'm not agnostic about goblins living in my garden or tea pots orbiting Neptune "
Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Agnosticism is a position about mankind.
@gklr and there you go again. You either genuinely can't see why I brought agnositicism into this, in which case you have some kind of congnative dysfuntion, or else you know exactly where I'm coming from and you're just being a dick.
Do you sit on the fence over the question of the Easter Bunny, or would you be willing to go out on a limb and say that you know that the Easter Bunny is not real?
If philosophy stops you making simple judgement calls, then what the fuck is it good for?
"and there you go again. You either genuinely can't see why I brought agnositicism into this, in which case you have some kind of congnative dysfuntion, or else you know exactly where I'm coming from and you're just being a dick."
False dichotomy. You should have taken SOME logic at least. lol. Funny.
"Do you sit on the fence over the question of the Easter Bunny, or would you be willing to go out on a limb and say that you know that the Easter Bunny is not real?"
Oh I am quite confident there is no Easter Bunny, just as I am confident I won't turn into a chicken the next time I cross the road. The difference between you and I is I realize it is a belief and not proven true.
In that light, I can't comppletely tell if she's cute, but the voice is adorable. I'd tweak the volume, however, as it is terribly difficult to hear this, at least on my laptop. As for what I think Atheism is... It is the next stage past skepticism. A skeptic must seek evidence to support things, while an Atheist tends to have found most of the evidence needed. Also there is Anti-Theism where the subject believes he has learned enough to disregard the believe completely, like myself.
skywize 1 month ago
@skywize I believe Angie coined 'Antitheism' if I am not mistaken.
skywize 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr That is the whole point. The one thing that that the label atheist tells you, and the only thing that the label atheist tells you, is that the person in question rejects theistic claims.
It would, of course, be contingent on a little common savvy on the part of your interlocutor that he realizes the term atheist refers to a person who exists or once existed. Any further confusion could be cleared up by simply asking if the reference was to a living person or a fictional character.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
Comment removed
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
There is no longer any confusion about the definition of Atheism. This recent message gives you a clear explanation.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus said,
"There is no God that has ever been dreamed up by man that cannot be demonstrated to be contradictory."
Well, that's a bit odd for something that is typically and incompletely defined as an ineffable, inscrutable divine mystery.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1 I didn't word that well. What I meant was that there is no argument for a God that has ever been dreamed up by man that can't be demonstrated to be either fallacious or else based on special pleading.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This Britney look-alike is so sweet and nice.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
Atheism is a lack of belief in God/gods. It's the negative critique of a positive claim. Beyond that there's various forms like, positively asserting that there's no God or there maybe a God but, non suggested thus far has met the burden of proof. There are no denominations of Atheism, just varying degrees of certainty. Usually it boils down to "you suggest a god & I'll disbelieve it for whatever reason". Some are so doubtful of the possibility that a God exists that they'll assert no God exists
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
There is no such thing as a lack of a thing.
There is also no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is proven true.
Saying atheists lack belief in god is true, it just isn't true about what is the case about atheists... it is true for what is not the case about atheists.
Theists believe there is a god, nontheists are people that don't.
Atheists believe there is no god, nonatheists are people that don't.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I have an apple. Therefore I have a thing called an apple. If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple. therefore I lack the thing!
I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief but, to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the claim.
You have to define God before I can assert I disbelieve it. God could be cheese cake in your faith for all I know.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj said, " I have an apple. Therefore I have a thing called an apple. If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple. therefore I lack the thing!"
Yes, he's confusing absence with nonexistence. Absence can be a property, but existence is not a property. "Nothing unreal exists" ~ Spock (who just happens to be right in this case).
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"If I don't have an apple I lack that thing called an apple."
Yes, but that doesn't describe anything you have. To lack something is to not have something. You do not "have" what you lack.
I lack a 23rd eye is true, it is not true about anything I have or even about me, it is true about what is not the case about me (meaning if I don't exist it is still true). You say nothing about X to say X lacks Y. A lack of something is not something that exists.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 1) Wow, you've written a small book to respond & some twat has flagged half your comments as spam. I'll try to remember to number my responses from now on, do you think you could do the same (saves confusion)? This is a response to the "A lack of something is not something that exists" comment. We're in complete agreement here. I'm not sure why you responded to this bit, that was exactly what I was saying and I never said it "describe(s) anything you have"... puzzled... ???
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief"
There is no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is possibly true or false. Proofs result in truths and falsehoods. All beliefs must be possibly true and possibly false and yet proven as neither. No truth is possibly false and no falsehood is possibly true, wheras beliefs must be both. As soon as a proposition is proven true, it can't be a belief.
No belief has a burden of proof.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 2)
"There is no burden of proof on any belief." agreed.
"No belief is possibly true or false." Totally disagree, you either believe something which is true or believe something which is false. I think that was just a sloppy sentence & you stated the contrary in this same comment. You only have to prove it if you make a truth statement about that claim, I disagree with your definition of belief here, you can believe in a proven truth as you still believe the proporsition is true.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
""No belief is possibly true or false." Totally disagree, you either believe something which is true or believe something which is false"
Then the propositions would be true or false and not beliefs. No belief is a truth, no belief is a falsehood.... each are resolved by different methods.
Belief is not something you do, it is a description of a type of statement.... just as truth is.
There are 2 types of truth statements and 3 types of belief statements.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLittletomdj,
"I agree that there is no burden of proof on a your belief"
My belief is that no god exists.
"to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence"
Evidence is useless and can be lies, fabrications and utter nonsensese. You've mistaken me for a theist without the slightest indication I am... provided a belief you have that was utterly unfounded. It seems you are convinced without evidence much sooner than you suggest.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr Continued.. Though I wouldn't use the qualifier of "I believe" in statements of proven knowledge..
3) "Evidence is useless and can be lies, fabrications and utter nonsensese" How about I expand to a more rigid definition. Testible, cooberative, repeatable, empiricle evidence. This is the dumbest response you've made, how do you evaluate the truth of anything without evidence?
I barely made the assumption you were a theist, but if I did it kinda proves this point.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"Testible, cooberative, repeatable, empiricle evidence."
Then you have no "evidence" of language, logic, mathematics, theism or atheism. You seem to be looking for "scientific evidence" and this is not science. Here we use evidence more like a courtroom..... that is why theists use the term "testimony". Theists have no proof... they have mounds and mounds of evidence and all of it is lame.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"This is the dumbest response you've made, how do you evaluate the truth of anything without evidence?"
There are no truths in the matter of god existing, we examine beliefs on the matter and not truths. It's not me saying they have no evidence... I am saying they do... and it is in examining that evidence we can conclude they use belief with every statement about their alleged god(s).
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLittletomdj,
"to prove that belief is true to one that doesn't believe requires evidence"
What theists don't have is PROOF. They have plenty of evidence. To deny or reject that theists have a solid grasp of the world around them we need to investigate their testimonies and bibles and other nonsense. We can't call it nonsense if we don't look at their evidence. Evidence is not proof, don't confuse the 2.
Testimonies are evidence in court and they are here too.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 4) The reason why the evidence isn't proof is because it's contradicting, fallacious, unsubstantiated, anecdotal, personal & prone to comformation bias. I'm sorry that I'm restricted to a 500 character limit & didn't elaborate, but that's YT for ya. How do you prove something if "evidence is useless" though? I recommend you retract that quote, because it's buggered your whole arguement. I assure you, I haven't confused the two!
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"The reason why the evidence isn't proof is because it's contradicting"
Contradictions are proof of impossibility, no belief needed there. When we can prove a proposition is contradictory then we have proven what is impossible.
When we show a contradiction for a god we have proven that the proposed god does not exist.... no atheism required.... just logic is required.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"fallacious"
Fallacies can have a true premise and because an argument is fallacious doesn't make it false, wheras a contradiction does.
1+1=2 because my daddy says so.... is an argument by authority, but 1+1=2 is still true.
"unsubstantiated, anecdotal, personal & prone to comformation bias"
Agreed... that is why their evidence fails to prove their claims.... but they don't generally say they CAN prove their claims. Nor need they... theism is a belief.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"How do you prove something if "evidence is useless" though?"
Well here you touch on the theory of proof, a whole other matter. It isn't that evidence is useless... it's just that evidence need not be true. We sift through the evidence to examine what they say to critique theology.... but doing so has no more to do with atheism than poking holes in Germany is a way to promote the US.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"thus the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the claim."
My claim is the there is no god and I have the upperhand with intellectual integrity on theists who claim they know a god exists by saying I believe that a god doesn't exist and that I know no such thing. I allow the possibility that a god exists and so do all atheists, as atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist and not a claim that we know there is no god. "There is probably no god".
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 5) "My claim is the there is no god" That's fine, you're willing to make that positive claim & accept the burden of proof and thus identify yourself as a strong/positive Atheist. But not all Atheists do and thus the burden of proof is not on all Atheists.
"atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist"
That is the position of Strong Atheism, not Weak Atheism. A weak Atheist may not believe in the Clockwork Universe Theory but he doesn't assert its false, it's merely unsubstantiated
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"That's fine, you're willing to make that positive claim & accept the burden of proof "
There is no burden of proof on any belief statement. Proof only applies to truths and falsehoods. I am not saying it is a proven truth that no god exists.
Strong/weak atheism relies and the very mistakes in logic that I am underlining here on primary vs secondary predication. There is no such thing as strong or weak atheism, there is just atheism.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"You have to define God before I can assert I disbelieve it"
Proposed gods are not defined, they are described.
As an atheist I believe all 'proposed gods' do not exist, it doesn't matter how they are described. Atheists can only refer to those 'alleged gods' that are proposed to exist.
Asking a theist to describe a god is asking for utter rubbish. I don't recommend it.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 6) "Proposed gods are not defined, they are described."
I see where your going, in terms of Biblical or Qu'ranic descriptions, but Christians, in particular, assign attributes to God & those attributes define what it is. Typical examples include, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. These are all core attributes which are definitive of what God is & "his" nature. If these attributes are propposed, I will assert that this God is locically incoherent & doesn't exist.CONT
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
No name or label has ever been defined, whether that be your name, god, atheist, theist... what have you.
Labels and names are the only words that have no meaning. All defined words ARE their definition. Names and labels act as pointers that refer to objects. Defined words don't do that. Omnipotent etc are attempts at desciptions, and are not attempts to define a god.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr 7) However, many deist theories aren't logically incoherent. I may not be convinced of them but, I don't assert that they're false.
I think you've made a few fatal errors in your logic. Do you just enjoy the debate or have you taken a real staunch opposition to my comment? We can switch to PM's if you like. I noticed you kept getting flagged as spam & I don't see any real reason to keep this in the public forum.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
There are no errors in the logic I have provided. The arguments on primary vs secondary predicates you see are taught in every university and was first formalized by Bertrand Russell in 1905 when he wrote his essay On Denoting, which introduced Russells greatest work... his Theory of Descriptions. Most of what else I put up is set theory, and some simple rules of language.
I do enjoy the debate, it opens people up to modern logic. PMs work for me too.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
The spam markers are automated by YT, and I have no idea what the parameters are for triggering them. I just ignore them, everyone gets marked spam.
It is inconvenient to put up with the spam markers or the 500 character limit and the only advantage I see is that the matters brought forth on defining atheism or describing an atheist are directly what the video is asking for. I am good with PMs.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr said, ["There is no such thing as a lack of a thing. There is also no burden of proof on any belief. No belief is proven true."]
Wrong on both counts. Absence is a lack of a thing. And yes, one believes when one also knows (if one is sane). Don't confuse belief with faith. To know something and yet disbelieve it would be completely bonkers. It's belief without knowing that has no argumentative weight and has earned no respect.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1 Sir, you've restored my faith...
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"Don't confuse belief with faith"
I don't confuse belief with faith.
Belief is a type of proposition and there are 3 types.
1. inductive logic (uses assumption)... this includes all the axioms of logic
2. subjective belief (opinion, dreams, taste, values)
3. myths (storybook accounts)
Each is seperated by the method applied in determining the belief itself.
Faith is any of the 3 belief types held strongly and speaks to a matter of conviction of 1 of those beliefs.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1,
"Absence is a lack of a thing"
Being absent of something is saying what is not there. What is not there is not something that is there.
You're mistake in propositional logic is in confusing a primary predicate (what something is) with a secondary predicate(what something is not).
"It's belief without knowing that has no argumentative weight and has earned no respect"
No belief is "known". Using what you just said, I cannot know anyone believes in a god.
gklr 1 month ago
Asymmetry means not symmetrical. Atypical means not typical. Atheist means not a theist. The "a" prefix means "not", "non" or "without", not "anti-" as some would suggest.
A-theist means not a theist. A theist is a person who "believes in 'god', however they define that. Atheism is not juxtaposed to "god", it's juxtaposed to being a theist. So, defining 'god' is the theists burden, not mine.
The definition of "strong" atheism doesn't define atheism just as "protestant" doesn't define Christian.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"Asymmetry means not symmetrical"
False. Atheism is not symmetrical and is not asymmetrical.
"A-theist means not a theist"
Not something is never something.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Where X is anything at all, not X is not anything at all.
No matter what X is, NOT X is not something.
"So, defining 'god' is the theists burden"
god would have to be described by theists, not defined. We don't define labelled or named things.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, you don't seem to realize that, as I said, atheism is not juxtaposed to some alleged "god", it's juxtaposed against theists, and theists demonstrably exist.
Contrary to what Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayers thought, it doesn't really matter if the ideas of theists are consistent and cogent before it's legitimate for me as an atheist to say that I'm not a theist. It's just as legitimate as saying that I'm not a member of Bo and Peep's Heaven's Gate cult, (which is a Christian sect).
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"you don't seem to realize that, as I said, atheism is not juxtaposed to some alleged "god", it's juxtaposed against theists, and theists demonstrably exist."
Atheism is a position on the existence of a god and is not a position on the existence of theists.
"it's legitimate for me as an atheist to say that I'm not a theist"
Of course it is... it simply isn't saying anything about you... so it doesn't tell me that you are an atheist because you are not a theist.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr said, ["Atheism is a position on the existence of a god and is not a position on the existence of theists."]
False. The "a" prefix means "not", "non-" or "without". (Dictionary).
A-theist means not a theist or non-theist.
Of course it doesn't "tell you about me", it's not a positive assertion of beliefs or philosophy. It's merely stating that I have no theistic beliefs.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"False. The "a" prefix means "not", "non-" or "without". (Dictionary)."
In the stone age (literally) in 4300BC when the Greek language was formed, you'd have a point.
More than 2000 years after then, Aristotle founded something called formal logic.
More than 2000 years after Aristotle, Bertrand Russell gave us the arguments I am bringing here.
And you ask me to return to the stone age? Sorry... I know better than that.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, if you're pretending to know the difference between Aristotelian logic and modern logic, then I'm calling your bluff. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about modern logic, as evidenced by the puerile and child-like mistakes you repeatedly make and refuse to correct. You don't even seem to comprehend simple set theory. That the "a" prefix means not, non or without is in the dictionary. I recommend reading it sometime.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"That the "a" prefix means not, non or without is in the dictionary. I recommend reading it sometime"
Oh I have and I also realize that the rules that applied in the stone age do not apply since Russells Theory of Descriptions.
Etymology is no way to define or describe anything as it allows for only 1 root. Ambiguity and context wouldn't exist if that is how understood words, yet they do.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"It's obvious that you know next to nothing about modern logic"
*choke*... this coming from someone who can't tell the difference from a description and a definition... and is referring me to stone age logic when you've been confronted with how Bertrand Russell formally showed the problems for NOT that I bring here.
lol.
Ok!
lol.
Priceless.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, your bluff isn't going to work. As I've stated before, if you're going to talk about logic and existence, then you need to use predicate logic with existential and universal quantifiers. 'Fact is, you're completely ignorant of that form of symbolic logic and your lack of understanding of even the basest of ideas in set theory is even more obvious. So, continue to bluff away by invoking the name of Russell, Aristotle, etc. You'll only manage to impress people more ignorant than you are.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
I merely refer to you Russell... I am using his argument to spank you silly.
Call that bluff. :)
Not something IS something?
And you want to talk "logic"? Really? lol.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"and your lack of understanding of even the basest of ideas in set theory is even more obvious"
Enlighten me.
For every member of a complement set we only know 1 thing about it... it exists.
We know 2 things.
1, we know the member of the set exists.
2, we know the member is not something.
2 doesn't talk about the member of the set, as it uses secondary predication (see Russells On Denoting or Theory of Descriptions).
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr Enlighten you? You've proved that this isn't possible. Not-A does not mean "nothing", it means not-A. If x can be in A, B or both and it's not-A then it's B. Non-theists are people who are not theists. If you can't understand that, then your IQ is a numeral lower than the room temp in F.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
Saying X is not Y, says X is not Y alright, it simply says nothing about X or what X is.
X may not exist.... and X is not Y, no matter what Y is.
Are you saying truths ABOUT things that do not exist?
Or have you said a truth about what is not the case about X.
To describe "atheist" you'll need to say something about atheists. You didn't.
Nothing IS what it IS NOT.
IS does not equate IS NOT.
Too advanced for ya?
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"If x can be in A, B or both and it's not-A then it's B"
Saying X is not A, doesn't speak about X at all.
Nontheists are people that are not theists, is valid and says nothing about nontheists. From that we don't know if nontheists even exist.
And we never do know that. It is a belief to say you or anyone does not believe in a god as it cannot be proven true and it is a belief that isn't about you anyway.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr said, ["And we never do know that. It is a belief to say you or anyone does not believe in a god as it cannot be proven true and it is a belief that isn't about you anyway."]
That's so completely stupid that it's beyond description. There are no disembodies properties.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
not believing is not anything, let alone a property.
There is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr Yes, not-purple is a property. See, I told you that you are ignorant of predicate logic.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1,
"not-purple is a property"
Not purple is not anything.
Where X is anything, including purple, NOT X is not anything.
"See, I told you that you are ignorant of predicate logic."
Oh I see where you have told me this and yet you persist with what is ridiculous and shown wrong over 100 years ago.
Theists have an upperhand on you because their gods are possible, wheras your grasp of atheism isn't possible.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"not-purple is a property"
Great. Show this property not purple.
The number 1 is not purple. Atheism is not purple. The present King of France is not purple, or anything else.
So the present King of France has properties?
If so the present King of France exists.
Show this property "not purple" that the present King of France has, and you've shown that France has a King.
And you want to preach on logic? lol.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr , Imagine R, with an existential quantifier, and predicates x and ~y.
Explain.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
If R has the predicate X, that says something about R. X is as a primary predicate of R.
Not Y, is not a primary predicate of R, it is a secondary predicate and doesn't talk about R.
When we use secondary predication we are not talking about the subject, we are saying what is not the case for the subject, and not what is the case for it.
Nothing is what it is not.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr Of course it is, just as a white tennis shoe is not a raven.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 To whatever your last comment was. We disagree on a fundamental issue. That's it. It's stalemate. I was thinking of going into something about "do you positively assert that no purple apples exist "or some other fucking dumb analogy like that but, I'm soooo bored. Would dictionary definitions persuade you? Probably not & the apple didn't represent the non-believer either. My original response was for the uploader anyway, not for if X=X predicate Y<P Then !=WTF.. jeez
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj, Did the Ancient Greeks worship Zeus, or the IDEA of Zeus? Theists subscribe to an idea that atheists don't. That can be described with symbolic predicate logic just well as "John doesn't carry a wallet" can. gklr is just trying to dazzle people with bullshit. He knows just enough to confuse himself.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 Ahh shit man, I responded to you, that last comment was intended for gklr... sorry! Sounds like you figured out who it was directed at anyway. I can't handle this comment trail anymore though, It's just a rambling mess, 9 responses at a time, I mean Christ on a bike! No wonder the girl in the video is confused. He didn't even get the Apple anology and I thought it was sooo flipping clear. Ahh well,take it easy, I'm off.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1 "gklr is just trying to dazzle people with bullshit."
And failing dismally.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr said, ["There is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism."]
Who do you expect to impress with that blather? Atheists demonstrably exist. You can't even show that a disembodied intelligent creator of universes CAN even possibly exist.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
If you had even a semi background in logic then you would know that all of logic rests on AXIOMS of which none can be proven true and are all beliefs. Without them logic doesn't work.
And you want to say atheism doesn't require belief? Seriously? When logic itself does?
Ok prove anyone believes in a god then. Show us how you deterimine that. Prove you don't. (even if you could, and you can't, it wouldn't be about you anyway).
Bluff?
Logic is not your enemy.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, Really, is A = A a belief?
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"A = A a belief?"
Really... A=A is considered axiomatic itself.... not proven true but assumed true. It is considered "self evident".
Axioms use inductive logic, not deductive and none are proven true.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Ok prove anyone believes in a god then. Show us how you deterimine that."
Asking them would be a good place to start.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1,
"'Fact is, you're completely ignorant "
Ignorance is never a fact.
Facts are properties of material objects. If "my pen is blue" is true, then blue is a fact for the pen. Facts are not true or false. Blue is never "true". Propositions about blue are true, propositions about the pen are true. The pen or blue are never true.
This speaks to the logic of theists where they say "Jesus is truth" which is false. Jesus is not a proposition.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Ignorance is never a fact."
He never said that ignorance was a fact. He said it's a fact that you are ignorant and he's correct.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
All facts are shown to exist via empirical truths, no empirical truth exists for ignorance. Ignorance is conceptual, not factual. Concieved and not percieved.
You are trying to use words that you have no background with.... absolute, fact, not, atheist. All of these you have wrong and I get the feeling that is just scratching the surface.
Just sayin!
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"as evidenced by the puerile and child-like mistakes you repeatedly make and refuse to correct"
Show me the error. You have none to show.
It's you repeating your error, even after shown why it can't possibly be valid.
Not something IS something?
And you want to cite "logic"?
You apparently have no idea how to use NOT. Stifling ignorance of that magnitude doesn't exactly leave the impression you are in any position to insult anyone.
gklr 1 month ago
Comment removed
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Show me the error. You have none to show."
How about when you admitted that the existence of God was highly improbable, then you switched to saying it was a 50/50 proposition, and then further moved to saying that if anything theists have the upperhand?
How many times do you have to contradict yourself before admitting you've made an error?
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"A-theist means not a theist or non-theist"
False. Not a theist doesn't refer to anything at all... and nontheist only tells me you exist... not that you are anything.
Atheist doesn't MEAN anything, it is a label and no label or name means anything. Names and labels refer to something, they are pointers. Defined words don't refer, they are not pointers.
Atheism is defined and not described.
Atheist is described and not defined.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr said ["False. Not a theist doesn't refer to anything at all... and nontheist only tells me you exist... not that you are anything.
Atheist doesn't MEAN anything, it is a label and no label or name means anything. Names and labels refer to something, they are pointers. Defined words don't refer, they are not pointers."]
You are simply too stupid to bother talking to. "I'm not a theist" is a statement that has value in and of itself.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"You are simply too stupid to bother talking to"
Then don't.
Your insults simply do not matter to the topic at hand.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"I'm not a theist" is a statement that has value in and of itself. "
"I'm not a theist" says what I am not... I didn't say it had no value... I've said it says nothing about "I".
Your reply had no bearing on the points you quote me talking about. I was pointing out that atheist is described and not defined, atheism is defined and not described. You replied with an utter disconnect to those points made.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr said, "Where X is anything at all, not X is not anything at all.
No matter what X is, NOT X is not something."
To say that not-A is "nothing at all" is ludicrous. If there is A and B, then not-A is B. If there is A, B and C, then not-A is B, C or any combination thereof excluding A. An a-theist is a non-theist. There are certainly theists and non-theists, so you have no argument.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
gklr: Where X is anything at all, not X is not anything at all. No matter what X is, NOT X is not something.
"To say that not-A is "nothing at all" is ludicrous."
Figure it out.
Where X is anything says "X = anything"... NOT X = NOT ANYTHING.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Where is your possible confusion?
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr You REALLY need to discover Venn diagrams.
If apples do not belong to set A, then not-A isn't "nothing.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"Not" is a logical term. You can't use NOT with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. Theist is not a proposition, nor is it a propositional function.
You just can't use 'not' that way.
I can say "I am not you"... which says "I am not" "you". It says what I am not, not what I am. It doesn't say "I am" "not you". Not you isn't something anything is.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr "Not" is a logical term. You can't use NOT with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. Theist is not a proposition, nor is it a propositional function."]]
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you're a hopeless idiot.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1,
"... coming to the conclusion that you're a hopeless idiot"
Your problem isn't with what I am saying.... it is with what formal logic has said for over 100 years. Your problem is with logic, not me.
Nothing is "not something" Not something is not anything.
And you made this reply to one of the rules of propositional logic.... quite hilarious when I think of it. NOT can't be used with anything other than a proposition or a propositional function. THEIST is neither
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"There are certainly theists and non-theists, so you have no argument."
My argument is that there are theists (people who believe there is a god) and nontheists(people who don't believe there is a god).
And that neither of those describe atheists.
There are also atheists (those that believe there is no god) and nonatheists (those that don't believe there is no god).
That is set theory, not propositional logic.
For all NON-somethings we only know that they exist.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, again, atheism is not a positive assertion of belief or philosophy. It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs. ALL atheists are not theists. All asymmetry is not symmetrical. All the atypical are not typical. Other than "atypical" the term atypical does not tell you what it IS. It tells you what it isn't.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"again, atheism is not a positive assertion of belief or philosophy"
Philosophy is the act of doubting, it never proposes anything. Atheism is a position on the existence of any god and all positions are beliefs or truths. This one happens to be a belief.
"It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs"
False, nothing is "not something".
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "False, nothing is "not something".
Yeah, but not "something" does not per se mean nothing.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"It merely conveys that the person does not possess theistic beliefs"
Saying what a person does not have does not say a thing about that person. It's an application of secondary predication and in such instances we say nothing about the subject of the statement, in this case "person".
X does not have Y, tells you nothing about X. You can't even know X exists. If X doesn't exist, X does not have Y is valid.... no matter what Y is.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
"ALL atheists are not theists"
Correct, but that tells you nothing about atheists.
"All asymmetry is not symmetrical"
False. Atheism is not symmterical and is not asymetrical.
Not something is never something. NOT X, not matter what X is, is never something.
Atypical says what something is (unusual, irregular), not what it isn't, asymmetrical too as it means a shape.
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
Strong-weak atheism never did exist. For those definitions to be meaningful requires a complete suspension of modern logic and the usage of NOT, where NOT something IS something.
It was formulated by someone who didn't know what they were doing and it caught on with people that couldn't see why they didn't know what they were doing.
When I see alleged atheists use this, I realize I am listening to someone who follows the crowd right over the cliffs of irrationality.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr said, ["For those definitions to be meaningful requires a complete suspension of modern logic and the usage of NOT, where NOT something IS something."]
Sorry, but atheists are not saying that there is a 'god' that does not exist. We're saying that one has no business saying that there is a 'god' unless you can provide existential import to qualify your use of the existential quantifier. (In predicate logic).
BTW, ALL atheists are not theists. That's the appropriate definition of atheist
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1,
"Sorry, but atheists are not saying that there is a 'god' that does not exist. "
Yes we are.... that is what atheism is, that is what atheists maintain. If you do not believe that there is no god then you are not an atheist.
"ALL atheists are not theists"
Saying what atheists aren't doesn't say what atheists are. Nor are atheists defined, they are described. Atheism is defined, atheists can't be defined.
No name or label is defined. Names and labels are described
gklr 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
All numbers are not letters. So "not letters" is what numbers are? I see... so Jupiter is not a letter... and by your reasoning of what an atheist is, Jupiter must be a number. What number is Jupiter then?
Theism is not a theist.... so theism must be an atheist according to your description that you called a definition by accident.
I learn so much on youtube.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I didn't say that "theism is not a theist". I said than an a-theist is a non-theist, as the "a" prefix means "non-".
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@gklr said, "All numbers are not letters. So "not letters" is what numbers are"
Yes, in much the same way a white tennis shoe is not a raven. (Hempel's Paradox).
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1,
Not something.... is something?
X lacks Y is true. What is X?
You can't know... X may not exist. If X doesn't exist then X doesn't have anything and lacks all things. No truths exist for X if X does not exist. A truth about something proves that thing exists.
Telling me X lacks Y, tells me zero about X... I can't assume X even exists. X lacks Y is true if X does not exist and is not about "X". It is about what X IS NOT. Not about what X IS
Is does not equal is not
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr, If you're going to pretend to understand logic while also talking about existence, then you need to use predicate logic. Otherwise you're blubbering gibberish like "lacks". "Lacks" is not a word used in logic.
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
@gklr 8) jeeezzz.. O.K. so I just read through your back & froth with LucisFerre1 who I strongly agree with. "X lacks Y is true. What is X?" I think this is the whole point. Atheism tells you nothing. It's not there to tell you anything except one thing. Beyond that X could be anything, you're right. You can be a humanist & nihilst or Buddhist or anything else which isn't a Theist. If something is not an apple what is it? It could be anything else & that's the point.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"If something is not an apple what is it? It could be anything else & that's the point."
It may not exist at all. THAT is the point. You haven't said a single thing about X to say X lacks Y. X may not exist and it is valid.
By saying you are an atheist it certainly does tell me something, it tells me you maintain no god exists, you deny a god exists, you disbelieve a god exists.... all beliefs themselves. Atheism is a position on the existence of a god.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr "It may not exist at all. THATs the point." EXACTLY! So the apple doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you've got an anti-apple!
You're not following my comments anymore. Yes, Atheism is the disbelief in God. It seems like you think the apple represents God. It represents the Belief btw. I thought that was pretty obvious. You're making the burden of proof fallacy repeatedly. If we've not got that through to you yet we never will. You've confused the trail anyway. Not fun anymore.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"So the apple doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you've got an anti-apple!"
If the apple doesn't exist, it doesn't believe in a god. Saying so says nothing about the apple at all. Saying atheists don't believe in a god says nothing about atheists.
"Yes, Atheism is the disbelief in God"
Yes and disbelief is the belief a proposition is false.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
"It seems like you think the apple represents God"
No. The apple represents the non-believer.
"You're making the burden of proof fallacy repeatedly"
No burden of proof applies to any belief. The burden of proof only ever applies to claims of truth. Only truths are proven, beliefs never are. Nor is there a burden of proof fallacy.
gklr 1 month ago
@MrLittletomdj,
There is no such thing as a lack of belief, without belief, an absence of belief.
None of those are things that exist. None of those can or ever were atheism, because none of those things exist.
Quite ironic considering the topic is atheism.
Atheism exists, it is something. A lack of belief isn't anything at all. Atheism is the belief there is no god and if someone doesn't believe there is no god then they are not an atheist. They'd be nonatheist.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "X lacks Y is true. What is X?
You can't know..."
For the sake of argument, I assume that by X lacks Y, you either mean that X does not belong to the set of Y or that X is not Y.
You're exactly right. You've just abrogated your own point. The fact that an atheist is not a theist tells you nothing about what an atheist is, it simply tells you that an atheist isn't a theist.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 9) I got so many responses from "gklr" that I've started to number mine to make the chronology less confusing. He's a smart enough guy, but I've gotta say I'm in full agreement with you. I think he's on an odd false dichotomy trip. Anyway, do fancy peer reviewing my 8 prior responses & seeing if I've fallen into any pit falls.
P.s. gklr, seems alright to me, I ain't having a go... I just think he's wrong on several points.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
BRITNEY!!!!
LucisFerre1 1 month ago
Atheism is only applicable to proposed gods that are possible. For proposed gods that are impossible that is shown via logic... not atheism. No belief required to prove what does not exist.
P and not P, at the same time... if that is shown then the subject of P cannot exist. P stands for proposition.
gklr 1 month ago
It's a Greek word.
A - Without
Theos - God.
Simple as that. If you are asked whether you believe in God and your answer is anything other than yes, including "I don't know" then you are an atheist.
In fact, Christians are atheist towards every God except one.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
a = without when the Greek language was formed in about 4300BC, the stone age. You quote quite literally... stone age logic.
Over 2000 years later Aristotle founded formal logic. Over 2000 years after Aristotle a guy named Bertrand Russell showed (in 1905, On Denoting)... the difference between a primary and secondary predicate.
"I don't know" and "I don't believe" say nothing about "I". I can't know from that, that you exist.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr
Aristotle is obsolete and so is classical logic.
We now have the scientific method, which yields results. Philosophy is the discipline of the man who has been thoroughly routed from practical academia.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
All of science relies on the laws of logic to show any of it's conclusions are true or false. True and false are hardly scientifically observable objects.
Philosophy only asks questions. Logic is the discipline used in all truths, scientific or analytical.
The law of noncontradiction is not obsolete. Nor is classical logic. Science never proves anything. All proofs are logical ones.
gklr 1 month ago
Comment removed
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr Science is the only method of seperating fact from falsehood ever devised by mankind that works. Science created the modern world. Science is behind everything from the very computer you're typing on to extended life expectancy to exploring space. Name me one example of a practical application of philosophy, if you can?
"The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as ornithology is to a bird" -- Richard Feynman.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@gklr You clearly don't understand what science is. Science is a methodology. Hypothesize -> Observe -> Experiment -> Repeat.
Do you know how many times logic came up when I took my science degree? Not once. It wasn't even mentioned, because classical logic, while interesting, is basically no use to a scientist whatsoever.
Science is about comparing predictions to physical experience in a way that demonstrates statistically significant experimental results.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"You clearly don't understand what science is. Science is a methodology. Hypothesize -> Observe -> Experiment -> Repeat."
And why do you think I an unaware of that?
"Do you know how many times logic came up when I took my science degree? Not once"
This explains this discussion then. Science does nothing for atheism. Atheism is not a science. Tell me how often atheism came up.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I never said Atheism was science. I said that philosophy has no practical applications and that logic fails because of GIGO.
Atheism simply means that you don't believe in God. It's a very stupid way to pigeonhole a person, by defining them according to what they are not.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"Atheism simply means that you don't believe in God"
Saying you don't believe in a god says nothing about you. Russell showed why in On Denoting and his Theory of Descriptions.
The present King of France does not believe in a god and is not an atheist, or anything. There is no such thing as the present King of France
Thats Russells example in On Denoting which is freely available online. I simply paraphrased "tpKoF is not bald" to "tpKoF is not a theist"
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"It wasn't even mentioned, because classical logic, while interesting, is basically no use to a scientist whatsoever."
Then they leave all the proving up to logicians.
"Science is about comparing predictions to physical experience in a way that demonstrates statistically significant experimental results. "
ya... and so what? where is the connect to any of what is being discussed? Can science prove atheism exists? No. Can it prove logic exists? No. So?
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr One more thing.
Bertrand Russell also claimed to know that there wasn't a God.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"One more thing.
Bertrand Russell also claimed to know that there wasn't a God."
False. Show me where you think he said that. And I thought you never crossed paths with any philosophers or logicians? Now you want to put words in their mouth?
Russell was a lot smarter than that. Ever hear of Russells teapot? It was a metaphore for god. He couldn't prove it didn't exist and said so.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr The teapot example was to point out how absurd it is to say that not being able to disprove something is evidence that it exists.
Now, give me a practical application of philosophy.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
Yes the teapot example did do that, and it also showed he could not prove the teapot doesn't exist.
We prove what does not exist by showing the object in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction. A contradiction is expressed as "P and not P, at the same time" where P is a proposition. eg: god is on fire and god is not on fire, at the same time. THAT god can't exist.
Unless shown as a contradiction, anything is possible.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
When you did not exist you were not a theist. You were "without god" and atheists believe we are all without a god.
Christians are not atheists by any stretch of the imagination.
When you did not exist, you did not know... and you were not an atheist.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr When I did not exist, I did not exist. To say I was or was not anything is meaningless...
I am a gnostic atheist in that I not only don't believe in God, I also claim to know there is not a God.
Christians are atheistic towards Thor, Wotan, Shigidi, Mithra, Shango, Nuit, Prometheus... et cetera.
If your response to being asked if you believe in God is anything other than yes then you're an atheist.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"When I did not exist, I did not exist. To say I was or was not anything is meaningless..."
You were not anything when you did not exist... you were not a believer in god and you were not an atheist. You lacked belief in a god and were not an atheist.
If you claim to know there is no god, then you claim to know things you do not know.
"If your response to being asked if you believe in God is anything other than yes then you're an atheist"
False.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr Give me one argument in favour of there being a God that isn't based on unsubstantiated assertions or special pleading, if you can.
I dare you.
Until someone can do this, then I KNOW that their God is a figment of their delusions.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"Give me one argument in favour of there being a God that isn't based on unsubstantiated assertions or special pleading, if you can."
I am an atheist. Why would I?
All of the evidence of god existing, and there is tons and tons of it... is weak.
This is why atheists traditionally invoke Ockhams Razor, where we explain the universe with less leaps of faith and not no leaps of faith.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr There is no evidence of God existing, unless you count peoples anecdotes as evidence, which would be absurd.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"There is no evidence of God existing, unless you count peoples anecdotes as evidence, which would be absurd."
We are talking evidence like we mean evidence in a court where lies and fabrications are accepted as testimony everyday. We are not dealing with science, so we are not using "scientific evidence".
There is no proof of a god yes. There is mounds of evidence and all of it weak. Proof is not equal to evidence.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I asked you already to give me one argument or piece of evidence in favour of God. I'm still waiting...
Your only interest here is arguing the usage of words, and frankly, your Asperger's Syndrome is starting to bore me.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"I asked you already to give me one argument or piece of evidence in favour of God. I'm still waiting..."
All testimonies by theists, all bibles, all accounts of a god. I already said they were weak and lame. Outright lies are "evidence" in a court. That is why theists call them "testimonies" I think... to give them that sense of validation. It doesn't work.
gklr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"Your only interest here is arguing the usage of words, and frankly, your Asperger's Syndrome is starting to bore me."
Well thanks for dropping in! lol.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
Prove you don't believe in god. You can't. So saying so is a belief statement.
Prove anyone believes in god. You can't. You take theists on faith that they do.
We can't read minds.
And why do you CAP G in god? Do you consider it is a real name or real label?
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I give God a capital G because that is the common usage in the country I live in.
When someone tells me they believe in God I accept it because it is not an extraordinary claim that they do, and it doesn't really matter to me whether they do or not. I see no reason why someone would lie to me about that, and it makes no odds to me if they are.
as to proving to you that I don't believe in God, again that is not an extraordinary claim and does not require extraordinary evidence.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"I give God a capital G because that is the common usage in the country I live in."
Ok but be alert that it signifies a title and is probably used in your country that way because it is primarily used by theists.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr So fucking what?
Do you think there is going to be some kind of dire repercussion over whether or not I give God a capital G? It doesn't matter a fuck.
Also, I'm still waiting on you pointing out a practical application of philosophy...
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"So fucking what?
Do you think there is going to be some kind of dire repercussion over whether or not I give God a capital G? It doesn't matter a fuck."
Oh for goodness sakes... I was just sayin! Slow down that engine.... lol.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr You're an annoying prick and a dickhead pal.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"You're an annoying prick and a dickhead pal."
lol. Have a nice day.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"Also, I'm still waiting on you pointing out a practical application of philosophy"
Philosophy is the act of questioning, doubting. By it's very nature atheism is a conclusion that results from philosophy... mind you so is religion.
The philosophy OF religion doubts and questions religion... sound familiar? Atheists engage in the philosophy of religion, doubting it, questioning it.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr I know what it is.
What practical applications has it created?
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"What practical applications has it created?"
Philosophy? It is the act of questioning. It doesn't answer anything. Logic does however. Logic shows how to prove something exists, how to show something doesn't exist and much more.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr But you can't give me a single example of a practical application of philosophy.
I can give you practical examples of science and examples of science proving things.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
Science doesn't prove anything, logic does.
All propositions... including empirical truths fall under propositional logic... not science.
Show me a single proposition science has that is not a proposition, (contradictory so you can't... that was loaded...) or show any proposition that doesn't fall under propositional logic. (oops, just as bad)
I like to be fair and that wasn't.
I explained philosophy is not logic, and doesn't answer anything. It asks.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"When someone tells me they believe in God I accept it because it is not an extraordinary claim that they do, and it doesn't really matter to me whether they do or not."
But to say they do requires belief. To say theism exists at all requires belief.
Wait on it...
It requires belief of some measure to say anything at all. Every proposition, even scientific ones, fall under propositional logic which rests on AXIOMS of which none can be proven true.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr That does not mean that atheism is a belief system. It isn't.
Show me the doctrine that atheists live by. Where can I obtain a copy of it?
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
I didn't say it was a belief system, it is a belief. A single belief.
Doctorine implies to me more than 1 belief.
"There is no god" is a belief statement because it can't be proven true. For every alleged god we don't have proof they do not exist. That is needed to say what you did, that we know there is no god.
Only "P and not P, at the same time" proves what doesn't exist. If we could use every proposed god as the subject of P, then you'd be right.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr The statement, "there is no God" is a belief statement.
The statement, "I don't accept your claim that there is a God because it is a baseless assertion." is not a belief statement.
That said, the evidence in favour of God is so risible, I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that I know there is no God.
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"The statement, "I don't accept your claim that there is a God because it is a baseless assertion." is not a belief statement."
Then prove it is true. (and I don't claim there is a god)
We can't read minds. For anyone to say they believe in god (theist) or not (nontheist) is not provable. For anyone to say they believe there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist) is not provable. They are belief statements.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"That said, the evidence in favour of God is so risible, I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that I know there is no God."
I agree it is wholly unlikely... but I also know it can't be shown that for every proposed god they are proven to not exist.
The god that can do all things (koran) but also cannot have son (same koran) cannot exist. No atheism required there, just logic. We have an example of P and not P at the same time.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr There comes a point where you can confidently dismiss claims that people make. While I can't actually prove to a philosopher that God does not exist, the reality is that it's perfectly possible to say quite confidently that I know God does not exist.
I'm not agnostic about goblins living in my garden or tea pots orbiting Neptune or Easter Bunnies either.
Can you prove to me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"While I can't actually prove to a philosopher that God does not exist, the reality is that it's perfectly possible to say quite confidently that I know God does not exist."
then prove it. I even showed you how. You might try and thank me. I already knew.
"I'm not agnostic about goblins living in my garden or tea pots orbiting Neptune "
Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Agnosticism is a position about mankind.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr and there you go again. You either genuinely can't see why I brought agnositicism into this, in which case you have some kind of congnative dysfuntion, or else you know exactly where I'm coming from and you're just being a dick.
Do you sit on the fence over the question of the Easter Bunny, or would you be willing to go out on a limb and say that you know that the Easter Bunny is not real?
If philosophy stops you making simple judgement calls, then what the fuck is it good for?
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetrueprometheus,
"and there you go again. You either genuinely can't see why I brought agnositicism into this, in which case you have some kind of congnative dysfuntion, or else you know exactly where I'm coming from and you're just being a dick."
False dichotomy. You should have taken SOME logic at least. lol. Funny.
gklr 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"Do you sit on the fence over the question of the Easter Bunny, or would you be willing to go out on a limb and say that you know that the Easter Bunny is not real?"
Oh I am quite confident there is no Easter Bunny, just as I am confident I won't turn into a chicken the next time I cross the road. The difference between you and I is I realize it is a belief and not proven true.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr No sir, the difference between you and I is that I realise that it the dichotomy you have pointed out here is of no practical relevance.
I know the difference between knowledge and belief. Since there isn't even a possiblity that there could be a God, I know that there isn't one.
I've already challenged you to prove to me that there possibly could be a God.
I'm still waiting with eager anticipation...
thetrueprometheus 1 month ago
@thetrueprometheus,
"If philosophy stops you making simple judgement calls, then what the fuck is it good for?"
You said you knew what philosophy was. It is a verb. Philosophy is the act of questioning, doubting. It answers nothing.
Logic answers things and I have applied propositional logic like P and not P, at the same time... to show how to prove what does not exist.
Did you score last in your class or something?
gklr 1 month ago