No, they neither like him nor dislike him. They are the equivalent of atheists.
-
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
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
They neither believe nor don't believe.
Am I the only person here who's heard of the law of the excluded middle? Am I the only one who cares about logic?
You're the only one abusing it. (I'm sure others base their position on less.)Am I the only person here who's heard of the law of the excluded middle? Am I the only one who cares about logic?
For any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.
The negation of a proposition is just that, the negation of it, not the elimination of it.
Atheists don't believe. They neither believe nor disbelieve.
Last edited:
I agree.
I just don't believe in non-existent things.
Where proposition is non-existent, there can be no belief in it nor the negation of belief it. Neither has a chance of being true.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Actually I've known hundreds of atheists, and I would guess that 98% of them would be happy declaring that they disbelieve.
So would you argue that they aren't really atheists?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Mathematical and logical sets are useful tools, but can become silly when strictly applied for the goal of semantic literalism. Carrots aren't fans of Keanu Reeves either. Although, I have heard that some easily impressed tomatoes are.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You seem to care it about it to the point of meaninglessness.
I guess sometimes you can care too much.
You carrying on about carrots and tomatoes instead of presenting anything meaningful is also pretty meaningless.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Please point out the meaningful information which is added by calling an infant an atheist, or the meaningful information which is added by ascribing belief or non-belief to anything that isn't capable of holding beliefs, such as a carrot, tomato, or human infant.
Many atheists say that they are also agnostic, so when posed the question if they believe in god "no" but they can still be agnostic in that they accept the possibility of being wrong. That is the soft atheist, they haven't called theists wrong per se just that they don't have a theist belief.
Right: they've "withheld belief," by refraining from taking a side about what is "true."
The law of excluded middle is an ontological stance, though. Either "there is a god" is true or "there is no god" is true. But that law does not address the case of there being no proposition.
OK but belief in something doesn't matter if it is true or not, belief is independent of knowledge.
When a person refrains from giving an answer on belief then it is still not believing.
How can you say that after arguing so well for the agnostic?
It matters to logic, when knowledge is justified true belief.
It emphasizes (or, apparently, clarifies) that atheism isn't always or even often a conscious or active choice, but rather a default state that may or may not be explicitly denied or ratified.
It avoids misconceptions. Or at least makes them apparent, which is a start.
Okay, but why is that meaningful? Why should anyone care about this emphasis of a 'nothing' state of knowing or believing nothing?
Why should anyone want to put themselves on a par with a corpse? (or a carrot)
God have mercy... If you had paid any attention you would have understood that we don't ascribe belief or non-belief to anything that isn't capable of holding beliefs. We are ascribing absence of belief and non-belief to anything that isn't capable of holding beliefs. Such as infants. We are saying that since they are not capable of holding neither the belief that gods exist nor the belief that gods don't exist they are in the exact same position as an atheist, who neither holds a belief that gods exist nor holds the belief that gods don't exist either.
How can you say that after arguing so well for the agnostic?
It matters to logic, when knowledge is justified true belief.
Aren't most thiests agnostics also?
No it isn't. It is an absence of believing and an absence of not believing. He simply may not have any beliefs at all on the subject.