Atheism does not exist

[lewisnotmiller]

I could imagine an atheist who "doesn't like the idea of god," and who is surrounded by like-minded atheist, might also define it this way.

Really? I don't think it's possible to shun what you don't think exists. I can certainly see atheists shunning or hating religion. But not God.

 

[Willamena]

Really? I don't think it's possible to shun what you don't think exists. I can certainly see atheists shunning or hating religion. But not God.

It's not "God" that he hates on, it's "the idea of God."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not "God" that he hates on, it's "the idea of God."

Ahhh...got ya now.

 

[idav]

It's not "God" that he hates on, it's "the idea of God."

That is an anti-theist which isn't all atheists.

 

[Willamena]

That is an anti-theist which isn't all atheists.

Yup.

But it's enough atheists. If there's even one, then it too is "atheism."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yup.

But it's enough atheists. If there's even one, then it too is "atheism."

Not sure I'm following (again).
Anti-theism <> atheism.

It's the same as saying communism is atheism.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure I'm following (again).
Anti-theism <> atheism.

It's the same as saying communism is atheism.

It's no more or less than saying non-existent people are atheists. That's okay, too, though it makes no sense to me personally.

It's the function of words, for each of us, to express the unique way we look at the world. The dictionary is a collection of some of the more common of these, but it's not authoritative. The only authority for what a word means is the chunk of the world that we (each) are trying to express.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's no more or less than saying non-existent people are atheists. That's okay, too, though it makes no sense to me personally.

It's the function of words, for each of us, to express the unique way we look at the world. The dictionary is a collection of some of the more common of these, but it's not authoritative. The only authority for what a word means is the chunk of the world that we (each) are trying to express.

*chuckles*

Yeah, I kinda stopped posting in this thread, since it seemed to be belaboring a difference in opinion that won't meet in the middle, imho.

Semantic word usage vs the usefulness of the word usage, I suppose.
I already said I don't see the point in tagging inanimate objects (for example) as atheists. Perhaps it is semantically right, but given the shifting meaning behind words, who cares? It's uninformative unless trying to make a political point about 'atheism' being the default state.

But I don't think it is. Not for humans. So...

 

[Willamena]

*chuckles*

Yeah, I kinda stopped posting in this thread, since it seemed to be belaboring a difference in opinion that won't meet in the middle, imho.

Semantic word usage vs the usefulness of the word usage, I suppose.
I already said I don't see the point in tagging inanimate objects (for example) as atheists. Perhaps it is semantically right, but given the shifting meaning behind words, who cares? It's uninformative unless trying to make a political point about 'atheism' being the default state.

But I don't think it is. Not for humans. So...

'Semantics' means hacking out what the usefulness of a word, to someone else, is. Unwillingness to engage semantics--such as when a person knows precisely what a word means and it can't mean anything other than precisely what that person knows it to mean--was in a large part what most of the debating was about, for me at least.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

'Semantics' means hacking out what the usefulness of a word, to someone else, is. Unwillingness to engage semantics--such as when a person knows precisely what a word means and it can't mean anything other than precisely what that person knows it to mean--was in a large part what most of the debating was about, for me at least.

Yeah. I haven't been arguing against any particular definition of atheism. I've just been opposing those who proclaim that 'Atheism means X and only X.'

 

[idav]

Yup.

But it's enough atheists. If there's even one, then it too is "atheism."

I'd think most atheists don't have a hate towards the idea of god, unless it is for a specific god for those who are ex-theists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.

Sounds like your friend is an idiot. If he is an atheist, then necessarily, at least one atheist exists, and atheism as well. Moreover, there are plenty of atheists besides him (myself included), so that atheists exist is indisputable.

He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

Not at all. The problem of "negative existentials", or, the problem of proving a negative (i.e. what does NOT exist), was solved with the discovery of the predicate calculus. Proving a negative is not very difficult.

Moreover, one needn't need to prove something in order to be justified in believing it, or to know it; proof, in the strict sense, is only possible in the domains of math and logic. All science, and all inductive knowledge, cannot be proved- but is still knowledge, is still true, and is still science nonetheless.

I cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but believing that it will is reasonable, justified, and supported by sufficient evidence to count as knowledge.

Belief in the non-existence of God and/or gods is the same.

Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.

It is not a fallacy, but even if it were, saying it is wouldn't be enough- you have to show the fallacy- show how it leads to a contradiction. (since this is what a fallacy is, in logic)

Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

You've made yourself a fool by making this unsubstantiated and hopelessly vague accusation.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. I

Atheism is the knowledge that God and/or gods do not exist.

 

[adi2d]

Sounds like your friend is an idiot. If he is an atheist, then necessarily, at least one atheist exists, and atheism as well. Moreover, there are plenty of atheists besides him (myself included), so that atheists exist is indisputable.



Not at all. The problem of "negative existentials", or, the problem of proving a negative (i.e. what does NOT exist), was solved with the discovery of the predicate calculus. Proving a negative is not very difficult.

Moreover, one needn't need to prove something in order to be justified in believing it, or to know it; proof, in the strict sense, is only possible in the domains of math and logic. All science, and all inductive knowledge, cannot be proved- but is still knowledge, is still true, and is still science nonetheless.

I cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but believing that it will is reasonable, justified, and supported by sufficient evidence to count as knowledge.

Belief in the non-existence of God and/or gods is the same.



It is not a fallacy, but even if it were, saying it is wouldn't be enough- you have to show the fallacy- show how it leads to a contradiction. (since this is what a fallacy is, in logic)



You've made yourself a fool by making this unsubstantiated and hopelessly vague accusation.



Atheism is the knowledge that God and/or gods do not exist.

Just two quick comments for you

1 the sun won't rise tomorrow

2 atheism is about a belief NOT knowledge

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Just two quick comments for you

1 the sun won't rise tomorrow

Mmk, want to place a wager on that?

And what's the point here, that you can state the opposite of what is the case?

2 atheism is about a belief NOT knowledge

No, atheism is a belief, and it is knowledge. Knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive- all knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge.

And belief that is true and supported by sufficient evidence is commonly referred to as "knowledge" (just an FYI...).

Thus, atheism is the knowledge that God/gods do not exist.

 

[adi2d]

Mmk, want to place a wager on that?

And what's the point here, that you can state the opposite of what is the case?



No, atheism is a belief, and it is knowledge. Knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive- all knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge.

And belief that is true and supported by sufficient evidence is commonly referred to as "knowledge" (just an FYI...).

Thus, atheism is the knowledge that God/gods do not exist.

Wrong on both counts as far as I define the words

Using your definitions theism would be knowledge that God exists no one alive knows the truth of God. All we have are beliefs

 

[Almustafa]

Whether or not you agree
It is most likely when a person says that atheism doesn't exist, they mean that everyone believes in SoMETHING whether or not its religious

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wrong on both counts as far as I define the words

Ok, but that's irrelevant- we're using English, not your "special language". And using the normal English meanings of our words, the sun will indeed rise tomorrow (like I said- want to make a bet on it? didn't think so!), and knowledge consists of justified true belief.

Using your definitions theism would be knowledge that God exists no one alive knows the truth of God. All we have are beliefs

No.

Theism- belief that God/a god/gods exists
Atheism- knowledge that God/a god/gods do not exist

If you're unclear on the definitions of "belief", "knowledge", their relation to each other, and so on, you should probably hold off on participating in threads about these matters.

 

[Almustafa]

They probably just use the context clues atheists often give when proclaiming how atheism is right...

 

[adi2d]

Ok, but that's irrelevant- we're using English, not your "special language". And using the normal English meanings of our words, the sun will indeed rise tomorrow (like I said- want to make a bet on it? didn't think so!), and knowledge consists of justified true belief.



No.

Theism- belief that God/a god/gods exists
Atheism- knowledge that God/a god/gods do not exist

If you're unclear on the definitions of "belief", "knowledge", their relation to each other, and so on, you should probably hold off on participating in threads about these matters.

Ok junior. You use whatever definitions you want

The A in atheist means 'not'. That means an atheist is not a theist. Both beliefs

 

[idav]

No.

Theism- belief that God/a god/gods exists
Atheism- knowledge that God/a god/gods do not exist

If you're unclear on the definitions of "belief", "knowledge", their relation to each other, and so on, you should probably hold off on participating in threads about these matters.

Atheism simply means ”not theism”, anti-thesis to theism and doesnt get into what the person might know. Where did you get your definitions?