Atheism does not exist

[idav]

Adi2d didnt catch your post I agree.

 

[Willamena]

Where did you get your definitions?

Probably the same place everyone else got theirs.

(Hint: ...and it ain't no dictionary.)

 

[Falvlun]

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.

While I am a fan of defining atheism as a position rather than merely a lack of one, I'm gonna go with everyone else here on this one. I don't think that atheism necessarily needs to be defined as knowledge of the inexistence of gods any more than theism needs to be defined as the knowledge of the existence of gods.

Belief works just fine for both definitions.

Not only that, but not many people claim to know that gods do not exist, though they will claim to believe that gods don't exist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

... and knowledge consists of justified true belief.

I've heard that definition of 'knowledge' again and again, and I possess absolute knowledge that no one can defend it as a legitimate defintion of knowledge.

Would you like to try?

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.

Yikes. Another Dictionary Master among us.

 

[Almustafa]

This is gonna bum everyone out, but nobody cares what is the right definition, everyone is gonna be how they want to be &

Whether or not you agree the thought 'atheism doesn't exist' originates with the observation that every mind believes something

 

[Willamena]

I've heard that definition of 'knowledge' again and again, and I possess absolute knowledge that no one can defend it as a legitimate defintion of knowledge.

What do you mean?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ok junior.

Lol...

You use whatever definitions you want

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

Right- and you're apparently not reading my posts since, I agree, they are both beliefs. The difference is one belief is true, and supported by sufficient evidence to constitute knowledge- atheism- whereas theism is also a belief, but one that happens to be false.

This addresses replies from several other posters to a similar effect. Both are beliefs. One happens to coincide with reality, and is based on fairly easily attainable evidence. (Of course, theists also like to claim that their belief is true- who doesn't, after all?- but the matter is, as always, determined by the tribunal of evidence and experience)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What do you mean?

I mean that that particular definition of 'knowledge' is unworkable. Educated and even very smart people recite the definition, but it's bunk. Indefensible.

I have absolute knowledge of the definition's bunkiness since according to the definition, knowledge is justified, true belief.

And all the things that I believe are justified, true beliefs.

Including my knowledge that the definition of 'knowledge' is bunk.

 

[Willamena]

I mean that that particular definition of 'knowledge' is unworkable. Educated and even very smart people recite the definition, but it's bunk. Indefensible.

I have absolute knowledge of the definition's bunkiness since according to the definition, knowledge is justified, true belief.

And all the things that I believe are justified, true beliefs.

Including my knowledge that the definition of 'knowledge' is bunk.

Hmm. I didn't learn a thing from reading that.

Would it help if I point out that the "justified" part does not refer to the fact but to the belief? It's not that the truth of a thing need be justified in any way, but that one must justifiably be able to believe it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I mean that that particular definition of 'knowledge' is unworkable. Educated and even very smart people recite the definition, but it's bunk. Indefensible.

I have absolute knowledge of the definition's bunkiness since according to the definition, knowledge is justified, true belief.

And all the things that I believe are justified, true beliefs.

Including my knowledge that the definition of 'knowledge' is bunk.

Lol... Nice try.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Lol... Nice try.

Oh, you're going to disappoint me just like all the others.

And you seemed so assertive when you first appeared.

 

[idav]

Hmm. I didn't learn a thing from reading that.

Would it help if I point out that the "justified" part does not refer to the fact but to the belief? It's not that the truth of a thing need be justified in any way, but that one must justifiably be able to believe it.

Theists should do there justifications of course, atheists not so much.

 

[adi2d]

Lol...

Right- and you're apparently not reading my posts since, I agree, they are both beliefs. The difference is one belief is true, and supported by sufficient evidence to constitute knowledge- atheism- whereas theism is also a belief, but one that happens to be false.

This addresses replies from several other posters to a similar effect. Both are beliefs. One happens to coincide with reality, and is based on fairly easily attainable evidence. (Of course, theists also like to claim that their belief is true- who doesn't, after all?- but the matter is, as always, determined by the tribunal of evidence and experience)

I'm always willing to learn something new. Could you list some of this 'sufficient evidence' to show knowledge that God does not exist? Hopefully the evidence will be better than I've read here about the evidence of God existing.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hmm. I didn't learn a thing from reading that.

I'd've been surprised if you had. It's all word salad. That's what happens when people start seriously arguing that 'belief' and 'knowledge' and 'true', etc... actually have clearcut meanings.

Would it help if I point out that the "justified" part does not refer to the fact but to the belief?

Sorry, but no. It doesn't help. (I don't even know what fact you're talking about.)

The silly part of the definition is the 'true' part. According to the definition, we can only have knowledge of a thing if the thing is true. I laugh hysterically every time I hear that. It guts the entire definition with one deft move.

Jesus rose from the dead and Joseph Smith found golden tablets and many gurus walk on water and I can talk to my dead grandmother.

I know all these things because they are justified true beliefs.

In other words, everything is knowledge. All we have to do is justifiably believe that the thing is true.

Talk about a definition swallowing its tail!

 

[Falvlun]

Right- and you're apparently not reading my posts since, I agree, they are both beliefs. The difference is one belief is true, and supported by sufficient evidence to constitute knowledge- atheism- whereas theism is also a belief, but one that happens to be false.

This addresses replies from several other posters to a similar effect. Both are beliefs. One happens to coincide with reality, and is based on fairly easily attainable evidence. (Of course, theists also like to claim that their belief is true- who doesn't, after all?- but the matter is, as always, determined by the tribunal of evidence and experience)

Ok, now you've officially went off the deep end.

 

[Willamena]

"Justification" is included as part of the formula to prevent a lucky guess from being knowledge.

If I asked you what the capital of Alberta was and you made a guess, and it happened to be correct even though you just took a shot in the dark, that would not be real "knowledge."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"Justification" is included as part of the formula to prevent a lucky guess from being knowledge.

If I asked you what the capital of Alberta was and you made a guess, and it happened to be correct even though you just took a shot in the dark, that would not be real "knowledge."

OK, I guess. But that doesn't address my issue.

I have absolute knowledge that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

Why? Well, because it is a justified true belief that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

That doesn't sound silly or wrong to you -- me knowing (having knowledge) that I can talk to Granny?

If I can know that, then anyone can know anything.

So knowledge means nothing at all except 'being convinced that we're right'... which happens to be my own definition of knowledge and is much finer than 'justified, true belief.'

'Knowledge' merely means 'great psychological certainty that our mental outlook lines up with external reality.'

To have knowledge merely means to be convinced that we are right, yes?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm always willing to learn something new. Could you list some of this 'sufficient evidence' to show knowledge that God does not exist? Hopefully the evidence will be better than I've read here about the evidence of God existing.

Congratulations- this is the best, and most pertinent, reply I've received so far.

In sum, the fact that A. the Christian notion of God is incoherent and cannot, by definition, exist (mutually exclusive properties- omnipotence/eternality/atemporality, the "problem of evil", an existent transcendent being, etc.) B. gods, particularly God, involve predicates which entail changes in the world, which have no occurred, or for which there is no evidence (global floods, creation ex nihilo, etc.), and the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence, and C. the fact that, in comparative religion and anthropology, the hypothesis that humans author deities and not the other way around remains unfalsified- implies that belief that God/gods do not exist is a (defeasibly) true and justified belief, aka "knowledge".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sorry, but no. It doesn't help. (I don't even know what fact you're talking about.)

The silly part of the definition is the 'true' part. According to the definition, we can only have knowledge of a thing if the thing is true. I laugh hysterically every time I hear that. It guts the entire definition with one deft move.

Jesus rose from the dead and Joseph Smith found golden tablets and many gurus walk on water and I can talk to my dead grandmother.

I know all these things because they are justified true beliefs.

In other words, everything is knowledge. All we have to do is justifiably believe that the thing is true.

Talk about a definition swallowing its tail!

There needs to be an emoticon for someone smashing their face to hamburger against a brick wall- the simple face-palm does not express how stupid this is.

Actually, it isn't that it is so stupid in itself, but coupled with your misplaced condescension, it becomes a fail of epic proportions.

"Justification" is a technical term in epistemology. You are criticizing something you obviously don't really understand, based on a term you are misusing. Justification refers to the support one has for a belief- knowledge is only knowledge if it is true (you cannot, by definition, know a falsehood- you cannot know that France is a monarchy, because "France is a monarchy" is false) and if it is justified- that is, if it is held on a sufficient basis.

But I don't want to do your work for you, you need to do your homework before you start shooting your mouth off-

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There needs to be an emoticon for someone smashing their face to hamburger against a brick wall- the simple face-palm does not express how stupid this is.

Actually, it isn't that it is so stupid in itself, but coupled with your misplaced condescension, it becomes a fail of epic proportions.

"Justification" is a technical term in epistemology. You are criticizing something you obviously don't really understand, based on a term you are misusing. Justification refers to the support one has for a belief- knowledge is only knowledge if it is true (you cannot, by definition, know a falsehood- you cannot know that France is a monarchy, because "France is a monarchy" is false) and if it is justified- that is, if it is held on a sufficient basis.

But I don't want to do your work for you, you need to do your homework before you start shooting your mouth off-

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Look, I can save us both a bunch of time by putting together a basic reading list for you. Have you had rudimentary training in formal logic? At least high school courses? If so, I'll leave out a couple of the primers and begin you with some intermediate works.

Just let me know what you need. I'll be happy to help.