• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism does not exist

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Willamena said:
"Not left" and "the pendulum at rest" are still two distinct definitions.
Click to expand...
They're distinct in the sense that they don't describe the exact same thing, but but they're not mutually exclusive. "The pendulum at rest" is a subset of "not left"... in the same sense that "3:00 pm" is a subset of "afternoon" or "12:00 midnight" is a subset of "early morning".
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
They're distinct in the sense that they don't describe the exact same thing, but but they're not mutually exclusive. "The pendulum at rest" is a subset of "not left"... in the same sense that "3:00 pm" is a subset of "afternoon" or "12:00 midnight" is a subset of "early morning".
Click to expand...
But the proposition put forth by Artie was that the pendulum swinging right is a subset of the pendulum at rest. That's what I'm arguing against.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
ArtieE said:
Nobody is disputing the existence of stamps. Better use Bigfoot. Some people believe in the existence of Bigfoot, some people are sure he doesn't exist. Personally I have no opinion either way. I have no belief in his existence, but I don't believe he doesn't exist either. He might, or he might not. Somebody asks me if he exists I won't say "I believe he exists" and I won't say "I don't believe he exists". I'm undecided. I have an absence of belief in his existence, and an absence of belief in his non-existence.
Click to expand...

An absence of belief is exactly what is required. If somebody asks if you believe in big foot, your response is an absence of belief - which is a "no". That's exactly what atheism means.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
An absence of belief is exactly what is required. If somebody asks if you believe in big foot, your response is an absence of belief - which is a "no". That's exactly what atheism means.
Click to expand...
Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. If somebody asks me if I believe in bigfoot I can have three answers:

1. I believe in the existence of bigfoot, which would be the equivalent of "theism".
2. I have an absence of belief in the existence of bigfoot, which would be the equivalent of "atheism".
3. I actively disbelieve in the existence of bigfoot, which would be the equivalent of "hard/strong atheism".

1. I believe. Bigfoot may exist or not, but I believe he does.
2. I have an absence of belief but not a presence of disbelief. Bigfoot may exist or he may not. I have no beliefs on the subject.
3. I disbelieve. Bigfoot may exist or not, but I believe he doesn't.

Just think of an elevator standing still on one floor. You can decide to go up (theism), you can just stay where you are (atheism, absence of upward movement) or you can decide to go down. (Hard/strong atheism).
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
From what I can gather, that's not what he put forward.
Click to expand...

He declared in this thread and another that atheism is not the pendulum swinging but the pendulum at rest.

He then retracted enough to contradict himself and declare that while atheism has only the one definition, it includes the pendulum swinging right.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
He declared in this thread and another that atheism is not the pendulum swinging but the pendulum at rest.

He then retracted enough to contradict himself and declare that while atheism has only the one definition, it includes the pendulum swinging right.
Click to expand...
Read my post 407. If you still don't get it, something is seriously wrong.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
I get it. I just disagree.
Click to expand...
You say you disagree but you don't say what you disagree with. Very little helpful.
If we were to go with what you said, we would deny a whole class of atheists.
Click to expand...
You said that "we would deny a whole class of atheists" but you don't say who. Also very little helpful. What would be the point of your post?
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
You say you disagree but you don't say what you disagree with. Very little helpful.
Click to expand...
As I said before, I disagree that "absence of belief (about God)," i.e. the pendulum at rest, is the root definition for all forms of atheism. I especially disagree that, as the pendulum at rest represents the absence of such belief, the pendulum swinging could possibly be encompassed by that.

ArtieE said:
What would be the point of your post?
Click to expand...
That it's okay for people to disagree with you.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
As I said before, I disagree that "absence of belief (about God)," i.e. the pendulum at rest, is the root definition for all forms of atheism.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. It covers absence of belief, it covers an atheist that actively disbelieves in gods (because if he disbelieves in gods he obviously also must have an absence of belief in gods), it even covers a person who has never heard of gods. Wikipedia says: "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." You understand that the expression "most inclusively" means "covers most" as in "covers most atheists"? If you disagree with that I can't help you.
I especially disagree that, as the pendulum at rest represents the absence of such belief, the pendulum swinging could possibly be encompassed by that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this makes no sense. Please rephrase. Perhaps the elevator analogy is easier for you to understand?
That it's okay for people to disagree with you.
Click to expand...
It is not ok for people to disagree with me if they don't explain why they disagree with me.
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
(because if he disbelieves in gods he obviously also must have an absence of belief in gods)
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that that's not usually the case. As I said before, more often a person disbelieves for a reason, and that reason is because they have another idea--a different belief--about what "god" is.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
Except, of course, that that's not usually the case. As I said before, more often a person disbelieves for a reason, and that reason is because they have another idea--a different belief--about what "god" is.
Click to expand...
Sorry this makes no sense. Please rephrase or provide an example.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
No. It's the some of the things you've said in posts you've made that I disagree with.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don't see our conversation going anywhere. I can't even make sense of some of your posts. I'll try to answer those who are sensible, rational and coherent and just leave the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top