Aristotle.
-
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
If we want to go back to the way the term was originally used, then "atheist" would simply denote someone who follows no religion. A Christian would become a Christian at baptism, and a child could be considered "atheist" if they had reached the age of baptism without being baptized or otherwise brought into some religion (by a bris, for instance). Would you prefer that approach?
Help me there. Where does he define atheism or some related concept?
Then you can't say things like "Nor is there a need to choose to define atheism as a default. It is just a fact for one to acknowledge". It is indeed a choice to define atheism so that it matches what you believe the default to be.
True enough. The alternatives are simply not useful, far as I can tell.
"We" don't want anything. "We" were just trying to answer a question.
I don't know that he does, but that wasn't what was asked. You asked where the notion that "it hinges on belief" comes from. It comes from Aristotle and the basics of logic that he laid out.
A proposition is a chunk of the world.
Belief is the thought that that chunk of the world is.
The negation of belief is the thought that that chunk of the world isn't.
Why do you think that defining atheism as the "belief that gods don't exist" or the "disbelief in the existence of gods" isn't useful?
I have many reasons why I think it more useful, more meaningful, and less problematic than your own definition.
Why do you think your own definition is better?
I do. That is what I propose. There is some misunderstanding happening here.
You should take that up with gnostic atheists.
I wasn't trying to imply that you were being illogical. I think we just have different ideas about how the word "atheist" is used and should be used. I was referring to Willamena and Kilgore Trout's arguments that a premise and its negation can be false at the same time (i.e. that whole "he's neither a fan nor not a fan" nonsense).
I am one. I have no problem with it.
Having no premise is not the same as a premise being false.
I'm not trying to mean "neither". The category "people who aren't fans of Keanu Reeves" includes not only people who hate Keanu but also people who are familiar with him but ambivalent as well as everyone who's never heard of him. It includes every single person except those who are fans of Keanu Reeves.
Really. You know there is no God?
Ignoring a premise is not the same as not having a premise.
In that context, "I don't know" answers a different question than the one asked. It implies that while the person can't tell where they are in the "fan vs. not fan" dichotomy, the dichotomy is valid.
Take "do you believe in God?" to mean "do you believe God exists as something other than only a concept?"
If this means that you've gone back and forth between belief and non-belief, this doesn't actually answer the question.
The question is "do you believe in God?" not "should you believe in God?"
I have no idea. Bob and I have come to contradictory conclusions. One of us is wrong (edit: or the two of us have different definitions for the terms we're using). Which of us is it? I don't know. You haven't given us enough information about this hypothetical situation for me to tell.
Let me put it this way: a person who is a theist is not an atheist. (Hopefully even the people here who disagree with me on the definition of "atheist" can at least agree with me on that point)
Are you a theist?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Well, not for me. Let's try it with 'fatguy'. Am I a fatguy or am I a non-fatguy?
Who knows. Well, am I a fairguy or a non-fairguy? Who knows. The terms are just labels which one person will place on me and another guy will deny me. It's not like there are actual fatguys and fairguys out there. It's just a personal judgment by some person about himself or about another person.
Same with atheist. I've known hundreds of people who called themselves atheists -- up close and personal. I never questioned a single one of them, found him improperly labelling himself, and denied him his atheism label. That would be like insisting to a Mormon that he's not really a Christian. Why do I care if he calls himself a Christian? i don't. It's just a word, just a label.
You're welcome to present a formal definition of 'atheism' if you'd like. And you can question me until the cows come home about my beliefs. But at the end of it, you'll just have your lone personal opinion about my atheism.
I'm sorry, but I consider that to be nonsensical. You may call me a fatguy or an uglyguy. Bob may call me a non-fat and non-ugly guy. Neither of you would be wrong. You'd just be labeling me differently.
Same with atheism.
With 'fatguy' you could at least attempt a rigorous definition: Any human male weighing more than 250 pounds at sea level is a fatguy. Then you could maybe call me a fatguy with some sort of precision. Of course, there'd be problems. Others would poopoo your definition, just for starters. Then a guy 6'5", entirely muscled, would be set beside a 5'2" couch potato. Both would have to be fatguys according to your definition, but lots of people would just think it is silly to give them both the same label. So might you.
And of course with 'atheism' there are way more problems. I haven't seen anyone yet post a rigourous definition of atheism here. It would have to be in the form of a statement to which atheists would assent and non-atheists would withhold assent (or vice versa), so it seems to me, and no one has even attempted that yet. Just a bunch of vague arguments over whether someone 'believes in God' or not.
Nah. I've told you quite directly that I am both an atheist and a prophet of God. If you really believe that I can't be both, i invite you to engage me, push me around, show the lurkers that am mistaken about being both at once.
I'm a theist and a non-theist at once, just as I'm a fatguy and a non-fat guy at once.
And I'm neither. Actually I find such labels to be evil things. It's why I try to shake people's faith in them.
Tribalism hurts humanity more than it helps, so I think.
Last edited:
Well, according to you there is no case of having no premise.
So I guess they're all safe.
Now you do have me confused.
You do what? You have claimed that you find the "alternatives" not useful. I assumed the "alternative" you were talking about was defining atheism as the belief that gods don't exist. Hence my question: Why don't you find such a definition to be useful?
But perhaps you had some other alternative in mind or were talking about something else completely.
That's my bad for jumping in there.
Though it does get to the crux of my beef with your position.
There are three options (for just about anything), as you have established:
1. Belief
2. Neither disbelief nor belief. (Neutral; no opinion; don't know)
3. Disbelief. (Belief not)
You want the phrasing "I don't believe X" (or "I am not a fan of X" or "I don't like X") to encompass both groups 2 and 3.
Due to the loophole present in the English language, "I don't believe X" could be a truthful statement for someone in group 2.
However, it is simply a curiosity, a play on words, the domain of comedians to exploit.
It is not how a normal English speaker would phrase such a position.
If they were in group 2, then they would either say "I don't know" or "I don't have an opinion" or even "I neither believe nor disbelieve". They would never simply, and only, say "I don't believe X" and expect their listener to know or suspect that it meant they were a neutral party.
To use such a phrasing, and to mean neutrality, is misleading.
And to be honest, I think such a phrasing on the part of many atheists who claim to merely "lack a belief" is indicative of a self-delusion. They phrase their non-belief as "I don't believe in Gods" because that accurately portrays how they feel on the subject-- that's the language they would naturally use to express themselves. But then they exploit the loophole to pretend as if they are neutral, to convince themselves of their neutrality.
They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they were truly neutral, if they were truly a group 2, then they would never say "I don't believe in gods". They would say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" or "I don't believe either position", etc.