atheism is a (religious position)

[SkepticThinker]

I believe it is the same by definition of standard English. Splitting frog hairs does not help unless you are defining lack of belief as some sort of apathetic indifference or agnostic view.

It's not the same thing according to the rules of logic and critical thinking. One is a claim, while the other is not.

I don't say "there are no gods" because I cannot demonstrate that and I don't believe that. I have no idea. All I know is, as of today, I've not yet seen any good evidence for the existence of any gods that humans have thus far proposed. But I'm willing to change my mind at any time if such a demonstration were to occur.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply that no Gods of any brand, kind or variety exist regardless of whether they have ever heard of them.

Can you describe these "brands, kinds and varieties" of gods?

Please include all of them. If you expect a single human being to be able to reject all of the "brands, kinds and varieties" of god, then a single person should be able to give an exhaustive, complete list of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you describe these "brands, kinds and varieties" of gods?

It was sarcasm over your head and you missed it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not the same thing according to the rules of logic and critical thinking. One is a claim, while the other is not.

I don't say "there are no gods" because I cannot demonstrate that and I don't believe that. I have no idea. All I know is, as of today, I've not yet seen any good evidence for the existence of any gods that humans have thus far proposed. But I'm willing to change my mind at any time if such a demonstration were to occur.

Both represent claims whether you acknowledge it or not.

You. of course, cannot claim there are not Gods, but you can believe that there are no Gods, or believe in the "lack of Gods."

There of course no objective evidence that Gods exist nor do not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was sarcasm over your head and you missed it.

It flowed from your previous post, so I assumed you were sincere.

Great to hear you were being sarcastic: that you think the idea of one person rejecting "Gods of any brand, kind or variety" is ridiculously impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both represent claims whether you acknowledge it or not.

You. of course, cannot claim there are not Gods, but you can believe that there are no Gods, or believe in the "lack of Gods."

There of course no objective evidence that Gods exist nor do not exist.

It's a special type of chauvinism that says "everyone who doesn't hold this particular belief of mine belongs to the same belief system! This belief is so important to me that its presence or absence must be the defining characteristic of everyone's belief system, regardless of what they consider important!"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Both represent claims whether you acknowledge it or not.

They don't. See: The rules of logic.

You. of course, cannot claim there are not Gods, but you can believe that there are no Gods, or believe in the "lack of Gods."

As I said, I do not believe "there are no gods."
Which is not the same thing as just not having god beliefs.

There of course no objective evidence that Gods exist nor do not exist.

Depends on the god but yes, I agree in general.

 

[shunyadragon]

It flowed from your previous post, so I assumed you were sincere.

Great to hear you were being sarcastic: that you think the idea of one person rejecting "Gods of any brand, kind or variety" is ridiculously impossible.

If one is an atheist the "belief" is very possible.

 

[shunyadragon]

They don't. See: The rules of logic.

As I said, I do not believe "there are no gods."
Which is not the same thing as just not having god beliefs.

Depends on the god but yes, I agree in general.

I very well know the four rules of logic. Changes in wording does not change the intent of the meaning of statements of belief. Your objections are meaningless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I very well know the four rules of logic.

Changes in wording does not change the intent of the meaning of statements of belief.

It doesn't appear that you are familiar with the rules of logic then.

Your objections are meaningless.

To you maybe. But you don't seem to understand how logic works so I'm cool with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't appear that you are familiar with the rules of logic then.

To you maybe. But you don't seem to understand how logic works so I'm cool with that.

Your objections need to be more specific instead of an assertion by trashing.

The two statements represent a form of fuzzy philosophical set of statements where they are too vague as far as truly different and meaningful.

These two statements are logically equivalent.

How do you know if two statements are logically equivalent?

Recognizing When Two Statements Are Logically Equivalent | Study.com

This lesson will cover how to determine when two statements have the same meaning and are logically equivalent. Tools that can be used to determine...

study.com

Logical equivalence occurs when two statements have the same truth value. This means that one statement can be true in its own context, and the second statement can also be true in its own context, they just both have to have the same meaning.

Splitting frog hairs.

 

[shunyadragon]

They don't. See: The rules of logic.

As I said, I do not believe "there are no gods."
Which is not the same thing as just not having god beliefs.

Yes, there are no bananas today

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your objections need to be more specific instead of an assertion by trashing.

They have been.

The two statements represent a form of fuzzy philosophical set of statements where they are too vague as far as truly different and meaningful.

Splitting frog hairs.

It's not fuzzy at all.

It's actually an important difference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, there are no bananas today

?

 

[shunyadragon]

They have been.

It's not fuzzy at all.

It's actually an important difference.

No importance whatsoever. Just two ways of describing ones belief in atheism.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/recognizing-when-two-statements-are-logically-equivalent.html#:~:text=Logical equivalence occurs when two,to have the same meaning.

Logical equivalence occurs when two statements have the same truth value. This means that one statement can be true in its own context, and the second statement can also be true in its own context, they just both have to have the same meaning.

Just saying there is an important difference does not make it so.

Splitting frog hairs.

 

[shunyadragon]

?

Yes, there are no bananas today

 

[SkepticThinker]

No importance whatsoever. Just two ways of describing ones belief in atheism.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/recognizing-when-two-statements-are-logically-equivalent.html#:~:text=Logical equivalence occurs when two,to have the same meaning.

Logical equivalence occurs when two statements have the same truth value. This means that one statement can be true in its own context, and the second statement can also be true in its own context, they just both have to have the same meaning.

Just saying there is an important difference does not make it so.

Splitting frog hairs.

Disagree. For reasons already pointed out. And I've already pointed out that the two statements do not have the same "truth value."

 

[shunyadragon]

Disagree. For reasons already pointed out. And I've already pointed out that the two statements do not have the same "truth value."

Sure you disagree

You have not pointed any thing meaningful other than the simply 'assertion' making the statements and saying the difference is meaningful

Air Ball bid time.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will acknowledge that arguments against the Gods of ancient scriptures and mythology in ancient cultures most likely do not exist as described in the scriptures, myths and legends.

 

[Copernicus]

Is the belief that no Gods exists (my position) the same as lacking belief that God exists (held by a possibly bigger set of atheists)?

In other words, is no belief in X, the same as belief in non-X? or is it weaker?

I think the two claims are equivalent, and I think the former is a sort of the average atheist’s cop-out to dodge the burden of proof, but I am really not sure. At any rate, that can only be addressed by logic.

ciao

- viole

Actually, I think that it can be better addressed by the study linguistic semantics. Belief is a mental state, and, when you negate belief, there is an inherent linguistic ambiguity--whether the mental state falls within the scope of negation. So consider the ambiguous sentences:

"Henry does not believe that God exists."

Depending on context, it could be a denial that Henry holds the belief, or it could be an affirmation that Henry believes in the non-existence of God. In that case, Henry would hold a positive belief about whether or not gods (or God) existed.

Now consider words like "atheist" and "agnostic". Both are words that are inherently negative in meaning. They both define people who reject some kind of belief, but how could one apply the label properly to any individual? One can only do that if the object of the mental state--in this case, a belief--is known and understood. In other words, gods have to mean something to those who use the labels "atheist" and "agnostic". In normal conventional usage, we usually use the words in reference to people who reject the object of belief--gods (atheists) or ability to know of the existence of gods (agnostics). This is not to say that we can't extend the word meanings to a broader category--that is, the negation of the mental state itself. However, that would depart from the norms of usage. English speakers don't normally think of atheists and agnostics as people who merely lack the concept of gods.

The problem for atheists is that lack of evidence for the existence of god(s) is a motivation for rejecting belief in them, so they often feel a need to include that motivation as part of the definition of atheism. By insisting that the term only refers to absence of belief, they emphasize their position that atheism ought to be the default for everyone, often shoring up the opinion by pointing out that people who are religious still usually reject other religious belief systems by default. ("You and I are no different in whether we are skeptical about the existence of gods, except that you aren't skeptical about one particular god.")

Nevertheless, a lexicographer--someone who constructs word definitions for a living--should not be swayed by how people would like to define words. They should base their definitions on how people actually use words in most contexts, and that is an empirical question. I have not actually done a thorough investigation of the usage of words like "atheism" and "agnosticism", but my gut feeling is that people seldom use those words to refer to a mere absence of belief. Almost invariably, it is about rejecting the object of a belief.