Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

Aren't most thiests agnostics also?

Perhaps. Where are you going with this?

 

[idav]

He simply may not have any beliefs at all on the subject.

So not theist but atheist.

 

[idav]

Perhaps. Where are you going with this?

Agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with knowledge and the truth value. You can believe or not believe and be either agnostic or gnostic. Gnostic atheists, strong atheist, know god doesn't exist, Gnostic theists know god exists. Agnostic can take different meanings, basically agnostics can take the stance of belief while not being 100% just as a person can just say that it is unknowable and still believe. In same way atheists can refrain from investing belief while acknowledging that they could be wrong in which case the atheist does not necessarily believe in their non-belief, soft atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So now words aren't correct if unless they're used in a way that you care about? How refreshingly solipsistic.

 

[Willamena]

If you're suggesting that "withholding belief," which is the agnostic, is necessarily the atheist, I disgree. I started on these forums identifying as "agnostic theist." By that, I meant that while I believed in "God," what I believed in was my understanding of a concept and I didn't mistake that for something else. The concept was of something beyond what I could understand.

I've since added meaningful depth to that, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Willamena]

Agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with knowledge and the truth value.

Perhaps the two most sadly misused words on Internet forums today.

Doppleganger pointed to an excellent article once that points out that both have found that knowledge, and in doing so both understand that they've failed to obtain it. That is an eclectic group of agnostic, though, and the majority of mystic gnostic.
Sermon - The Agnostic a Gnostic by Robert M. Price

 

[ArtieE]

So not theist but atheist.

Yepp. If he neither believes nor disbelieves but have an absence of both he's an atheist. You have to do something active like becoming a believer or becoming a non-believer to not automatically remain what you always were: an atheist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Mathematical and logical sets are useful tools, but can become silly when strictly applied for the goal of semantic literalism.

I was thinking the same thing when Penguin made the comment about logic. Language isn't necessarily logical, not at all.

An example is the statement, "I could care less."

Over the past few years, this statement has come to mean the same thing as, "I couldn't care less." It's just the way language works. People make mistakes and those mistakes propagate until the error becomes correct usage.

So my friend says to me, "I could care less about the Dodgers. Baseball bores me."

Let's say I have laryingitis and no handy pen-and-paper and so cannot argue with my friend about the illogicality of it. Well, I'll still understand perfectly well what my friend means, as illogical as the words themselves may appear.

I find that many people are confused about atheism because they see the a- prefix and can't help thinking that an atheist must be the opposite of a theist, no matter what. After all, there is the negating prefix! Of course language doesn't work that way. Words mean what they mean and logic be damned.

In my experience, coders and mathematicians are expecially enamored with the notion of logic-in-language, but others often seem of the same persuasion.

 

[idav]

Perhaps the two most sadly misused words on Internet forums today.

Doppleganger pointed to an excellent article once that points out that both have found that knowledge, and in doing so both understand that they've failed to obtain it. That is an eclectic group of agnostic, though, and the majority of mystic gnostic.
Sermon - The Agnostic a Gnostic by Robert M. Price

There is always varying degrees of knowing and not knowing. For an agnostic atheist, they may have some idea but they may also feel that it is unanswerable. Even a person who has a firm grasp of theology all there life, unlike a baby, could still say I don't know and not invest faith in there non-belief. Theism is about faith where as atheists can have faith but it isn't necessary for non-belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, but why is that meaningful? Why should anyone care about this emphasis of a 'nothing' state of knowing or believing nothing?

You tell me. After so many pages in this thread it is rather obvious that we both do care.

If I had to guess why: perhaps because we feel that it is fairly serious a misunderstanding if the matter is not duly clarified.

Why should anyone want to put themselves on a par with a corpse? (or a carrot)

Honesty and clarity.

The fact of the matter is that we are just like corpses and carrots in some respects, while being unlike in others.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

You see a meaningful distinction between absence of belief (not holding a belief) and non-belief (not holding a belief)? Is this what I haven't been "paying attention to?"

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.

Right, so a carrot is in the exact same position as an atheist, according to you. It's fine if you think this is the case. However, I find it silly and meaningless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought you included babies there too since we were talking about babies. I see you were just talking about priests. If a priest is unmarried, I don't see why the word "bachelor" wouldn't be suitable for him, to be honest.

Regardless, the specific example wasn't the point. The point is that often taking a literal definition of the word, in spite of normal usage and connotation, results in expanding that word to include things that it shouldn't and normally doesn't.

I have a different take on this. When you say "normal usage and connotation", I think you're talking about preconceptions and stereotypes.

I think you conceded that you recognize this for the word "bachelor": even though it usually elicits the idea of a field-playing lady's man, you acknowledged that a celibate priest is a bachelor. It's the exact same principle that applies for "atheist": even though the word elicits images of Richard Dawkins or Madalyn Murray O'Hare, the word legitimately applies to anyone who doesn't hold a belief in a god.

For real? This doesn't even make sense. It's just more evidence of the semantic gymnastics this stance requires.

There are three possibilities for a person's opinion of Keanu Reeves:

1. he likes Keanu Reeves
2. he dislikes Keanu Reeves
3. he neither likes nor dislikes Keanu Reeves.

"Not liking Keanu Reeves" encompasses 2 and 3. "Not disliking Keanu Reeves" encompasses 1 and 3.

On one hand, you think you require extraordinary experience and knowledge of something before you will be willing to say you don't believe it, and on the other hand, you think it's just fine to never have one experience with something before you claim not to like it at all.

Yes, because not liking a thing isn't the same as disliking it. "Neither like nor dislike" implies both not liking and not disliking.

There is no difference between not liking something and disliking something, Peng. Again, in this made up semantic world, you could claim there is, but if 100 people came up to me and said "I don't like Keanu Reeves", then 100 times I would take it to mean that they disliked him. And you would too, because that's how normal English conversation works.

That's how the rhetorical device called "understatement" works. If someone came up to you and said "Keanu Reeves isn't my favourite actor", how likely would you consider it that he thought that he loved Keanu almost as much as his favourite?

That's all that my atheism definition requires then. Actually, less. If you don't believe that any of the god concepts you've encountered so far exist, then that's good enough for me.

Can this put to rest your strawman once and for all?

But that contradicts what you've said before. A baby would meet that definition, and you've insisted all along that babies aren't atheists.

Can you come up with a definition of fairy that excludes angels?

Definitions don't work that way.

I think you're missing my point. In the Christian context, the definition of "god" requires that angels aren't gods. In the Norse context, the definition of "god" requires that Thor, Loki and friends are gods. Can you reconcile these two belief systems so that one definition of "god" works for both?

You understand what the word god means well enough to know whether you believe something of that sort exists or not. Once again, you are falling into the trap of assuming you need to know every single description of one.

I recognize that I don't consider anything I believe in to be a god. I don't need a comprehensive definition of "god" to do this. If you're going to exclude babies from the definition of "athiest", then you need something more.

Unless you have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say the word "god", unless it is as absolutely meaningless to you as the word "jestinper", then your position is intellectually dishonest.

If you think that the word "god" is clear and meaningful, please provide a definition.

Bonus points if your definition allows Christians to be monotheists.

The fact that you can and do use the word "god" meaningfully with other people shows that you do know what it means, that it is a discrete concept to you, despite your protestations.

Kinda sorta. For the most part, I approach "god" like pornography, though I think that my ideas about "god" are more defined in terms of discrete lists based on social convention rather than actual characteristics (e.g. Thor, Zeus and Yahweh are gods; Superman, Santa Claus, and hyper-intelligent aliens are not. What makes Thor a god but Superman not? I don't know). When talking with others, I usually try to figure out what they mean by "god", which I've found tends to vary quite a bit from person to person.

 

[Willamena]

I was thinking the same thing when Penguin made the comment about logic. Language isn't necessarily logical, not at all.

An example is the statement, "I could care less."

Over the past few years, this statement has come to mean the same thing as, "I couldn't care less." It's just the way language works. People make mistakes and those mistakes propagate until the error becomes correct usage.

So my friend says to me, "I could care less about the Dodgers. Baseball bores me."

Let's say I have laryingitis and no handy pen-and-paper and so cannot argue with my friend about the illogicality of it. Well, I'll still understand perfectly well what my friend means, as illogical as the words themselves may appear.

I find that many people are confused about atheism because they see the a- prefix and can't help thinking that an atheist must be the opposite of a theist, no matter what. After all, there is the negating prefix! Of course language doesn't work that way. Words mean what they mean and logic be damned.

In my experience, coders and mathematicians are expecially enamored with the notion of logic-in-language, but others often seem of the same persuasion.

Yes. This speaks to the degradation of the language in the last century, and since Internet it's become worse. Originally it did (and really does) have logical structure. I attended a course yesterday on grammar for business writing. The instructor was a self-proclaimed "grammar nerd," and her embarassment when she had to answer a question on proper use of some things was painful. She was forced to admit that most of the rules she learned in the first half of her adult life, in her career in Communications, no longer apply, no longer matter, and that's just the state of the world.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So now words aren't correct if unless they're used in a way that you care about? How refreshingly solipsistic.

I'm simply saying it adds no useful information, and is therefore meaningless. Although, I do find your statement to be unrefreshingly ironical.

 

[Willamena]

You tell me. After so many pages in this thread it is rather obvious that we both do care.

If I had to guess why: perhaps because we feel that it is fairly serious a misunderstanding if the matter is not duly clarified.

Things ought to make sense. Rocks being atheistic defies what "atheism" means (not believing in God, i.e. the negation of belief in God).

Honesty and clarity.

The fact of the matter is that we are just like corpses and carrots in some respects, while being unlike in others.

No, "honesty and clarity" doesn't address why being on a par with carrots is significant, it addresses why you're arguing semantics.

We're just like corpses and carrots in being dead. Fine. What does that have to do with God?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes. This speaks to the degradation of the language in the last century, and since Internet it's become worse. Originally it did (and really does) have logical structure.

I think language has a logical structure, sure enough. I was once a student of transformational generative grammar and we manipulated language almost mathematically. But I think we have to accept language however it's used on the ground. I listen to the way English speakers are using language these days and I unpack a speaker's meaning based on that, based on my ear, not on my logical manipulation of his words and grammar.

Ultimately, 'atheism' simply means whatever people mean when they use the word. A hundred years ago it carried connotations of immorality and even devil worship. I think it even denoted immorality, meaning that some dictionaries listed that as one of its definitions.

Nowadays a woman in OK City, a nice and pleasant woman, can say on camera that she's an atheist. That wouldn't have happened 50 years ago, and it will happen more and more often as we move along, so I hope.

 

[Willamena]

Ultimately, 'atheism' simply means whatever people mean when they use the word.

Yup. :bow:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nowadays a woman in OK City, a nice and pleasant woman, can say on camera that she's an atheist. That wouldn't have happened 50 years ago, and it will happen more and more often as we move along, so I hope.

Yes, but until the day comes when the world's infants are able to proudly and publicly claim their atheism, we have a lot of work to do, both societally and semantically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think language has a logical structure, sure enough. I was once a student of transformational generative grammar and we manipulated language almost mathematically. But I think we have to accept language however it's used on the ground.

And "on the ground", the term is used in different ways by different people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And "on the ground", the term is used in different ways by different people.

You hear a lot of people call babies atheists "on the ground?"

I've never heard it outside of the semantic gymnastics on RF.