Atheism is not a default position

[Shad]

Then the king of France is bald cannot be meaningless. But does this challenge logical positivism as you assert? Certainly we can derive several observations from this proposition that could be evidenced as true or false.

But, that was not my point. My point was that those who determine the proposition god exists meaningless, in my experience, do so not from the grounds of a logical positivist definition of meaning but rather from the standpoint that god is indefinable and the term is meaningless.

This is the correct view. The issue is all information people claim about God is via negation of things we know of. Time//timeless, material//immaterial, etc. It is information of secondary attitudes/characteristics which are only inferred by sloppy logic and from other people's statements rather than anything based on the source, god, itself. It only applies to religious language where as logical positivism applies other ides and language such as morality or ethics. More so there are issues with these terms. People call God timeless but without time there is no action, no thought, no A to B, no point of non-creation to creation. It is to be static These issues along with contradicts of religious language descriptions of God render the term meaningless.

 

[ArtieE]

One definition of anti-theism is "denial of the existence of a God". Strong Atheism (a newer term) has become synonymous with that version of anti-theism.

When you talk about theism/atheism I strongly advice that you only use definitions that include belief or the absence of it. The definition of theism is belief in the existence of god(s) and the definition of atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some people don't even understand this much and it's not advisable to complicate things by adding terms like anti-theism into the mix.

First you have to make people understand that theism is belief in the existence of god(s) and atheism an absence of this belief. Then if people get this you can further explain that atheism can be divided into people who just don't believe gods exist (weak atheists) and people who believe gods don't exist (strong atheists).

If they get this you can start elaborating more.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You say that Bigfoot exists (as an example). I say that I do not accept your claim (because I see no evidence sufficient to support that claim).

I am not claiming that Bigfoot definitely don't exist, I am just stating that until evidence is provided I am not going to accept that Bigfoot exists.

Well, firstly, God in classical theism is not an empirical being like bigfoot. There are always deep metaphysical claims, at least implicitly, in questions of his existence or non-existence, and hence why Russell's Teapot doesn't make much sense as a representation of theism, at least in its classical variety.

Secondly, it is not necessary for my point that you have to believe God definitely doesn't exist. The claim the evidence doesn't prove God includes and the suggestion, rather, implicit or explicit, it is more likely another explanation of the universe is correct is just as much a claim in need of support as either the claim that God definitely doesn't exist or the claims of the theist. Indeed, the same goes for the simple claim the evidence doesn't prove God's existence. This still involves a positive claim about the evidence and where it currently points, even if that direction is that God just as easily could or could not exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To be accurate its "A" = without and "Anti" = against.



Wrong way round.
If you don't have a belief in the existence of theistic Gods you are an atheist.
If you believe that theistic Gods definitely do not exist then you are an anti-theist.

All anti-theists are also atheists but not all atheists are anti-theists.



As your link states, "A" means without not against.

My point is athiest are without (opposite of with), no (opposite of yed), disbelief (opposite of belief) in any deity. (Which is whst you said rephrased again)

Antitheist (as per our definitions) are against beliefs in dieities.

Atheist are diebelief, without, whatever, in deitied.

Anti-against
A-opposite of what the root noun is implying.
(You have to quote me on saying A is against. I gave a link, and repeatdly said (think to someone?) A is opposite and anti is against.)

Amoral=without morals, lacking morals, no morals, whatever.

Making up a word

Antimorals=against morals, opposse to them, whatever.

It isnt complicated.

I am an atheist and I am Not against deities. (I dont fit your definition of athiest. Maybe most do. That doesnt change that theists believe in deities and atheists dont) It doesnt matter the type of gods. Gods/deities period.

If I were an antitheist I would be against deities regardless if I believe they exist or not.

Atheist. Disbelief, without, opposite of belief in gods
Theist. With belief. Belief in. The root word for which A is used as a prefix to express the opposite (whatever word you use without, none) of what the root words implies.

What am I missing here?

 

[Thief]

Sad you have to spin what is said to the point of blatant dishonesty.


Ah, now I understand.
You are merely setting up a strawman.

just can't let go of that shallow retort routine....can you?

 

[Thief]

2,400+ postings about what to stich the label on.
reminds me of my childhood when stick-on flowers were getting pasted everywhere.

So...the atheists want their label on everything that can't speak.....
and the glue won't stick.

 

[Thief]

That isn't really what I was talking about, Thief. Children aren't very critical thinkers, so they don't have to contend with all of the contradictions inherent in the concept of the Christian god that adults do. If you believe in magic, ghosts, spirits, super powers, and other childhood fantasies, than belief in super-intelligent, super-powerful, immaterial gods isn't much of a barrier to overcome. As one becomes more and more aware of how the world works, it becomes a lot harder to believe in miracles. The cognitive dissonance grows as the mind grows, and it takes a greater effort to reconcile all of those contradictory and confusing differences between imaginary beings and the real ones that we interact with in everyday life. That doesn't mean that one can't overcome the dissonance. You have managed to do that, but I haven't. Nor have other atheists who started out as believers and had to confront the mental corners that they painted themselves into.


Why, no. Atheists are never confused about anything. They are superior in every respect to theists.

yeah right....

So did you see the experiment?.....I did.
Real children....deception in play....

When the light comes on the adult says....
Oh!....the light fairy must be here!
The light comes on when one enters the room.
The light goes out....
Oh!....all gone!

The child will actually believe this.

Similar to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and whatever else......

Now shall we continue as if we are adults talking about the serious possibility of a God?
Or continue pasting stickers....as if the label is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Curious George]

This is the correct view. The issue is all information people claim about God is via negation of things we know of. Time//timeless, material//immaterial, etc. It is information of secondary attitudes/characteristics which are only inferred by sloppy logic and from other people's statements rather than anything based on the source, god, itself. It only applies to religious language where as logical positivism applies other ides and language such as morality or ethics. More so there are issues with these terms. People call God timeless but without time there is no action, no thought, no A to B, no point of non-creation to creation. It is to be static These issues along with contradicts of religious language descriptions of God render the term meaningless.

Luckily I don't use "timeless" in my definition. Thus I maintain meaning and can meaningfully deny a god concept.

 

[Curious George]

Right, but the concept of gods is not meaningless. We have a very good idea of what they are. They are human-like (usually spiritual) agencies that have absolute control over some aspect of reality and that human beings try to influence through worship rituals. There can be a lot of different ideas about the nature of gods, but there is a common core of ideas that define them. Perhaps our earliest prototypical understanding of gods in childhood derives from our experience of parental and adult authority, which children tend to obey instinctively. Adults, especially parents, define all moral behavior and are all powerful in the eyes of very young children. As children mature, they acquire a more realistic view of parents and other adults, but the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing being that commands absolute obedience and love is ingrained from the beginning.

This I agree with. I did not say that our concept of god was meaningless, just that some view it as such. If it was meaningless, I couldn't deny it.

 

[ArtieE]

My point is athiest are without (opposite of with), no (opposite of yed), disbelief (opposite of belief) in any deity. (Which is whst you said rephrased again)

Antitheist (as per our definitions) are against beliefs in dieities.

Atheist are diebelief, without, whatever, in deitied.

Anti-against
A-opposite of what the root noun is implying.
(You have to quote me on saying A is against. I gave a link, and repeatdly said (think to someone?) A is opposite and anti is against.)

Amoral=without morals, lacking morals, no morals, whatever.

Making up a word

Antimorals=against morals, opposse to them, whatever.

It isnt complicated.

I am an atheist and I am Not against deities. (I dont fit your definition of athiest. Maybe most do. That doesnt change that theists believe in deities and atheists dont) It doesnt matter the type of gods. Gods/deities period.

If I were an antitheist I would be against deities regardless if I believe they exist or not.

Atheist. Disbelief, without, opposite of belief in gods
Theist. With belief. Belief in. The root word for which A is used as a prefix to express the opposite (whatever word you use without, none) of what the root words implies.

What am I missing here?

You are missing:

1. The understanding that without belief in gods is not the opposite of belief in gods...
2. The understanding that disbelief is not the opposite of belief...
3. The understanding that adding A doesn't give you a word meaning the opposite of what the root noun is implying...
4. The understanding that an anti-theist is not against deities but against belief in them... you said "If I were an antitheist I would be against deities"

I'll stop there...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are missing:

1. The understanding that without belief in gods is not the opposite of belief in gods...
2. The understanding that disbelief is not the opposite of belief...
3. The understanding that adding A doesn't give you a word meaning the opposite of what the root noun is implying...
4. The understanding that an anti-theist is not against deities but against belief in them... you said "If I were an antitheist I would be against deities"

I'll stop there...

Id have to repeat everything I said since I think we agree.

A...opposite

Opposite of with is without.
Opposite of belief is disbelief
Get the pattern?

When you put an A as a prefix it is the opposite (negates, if you so like that word better) the root word. Thats simple grammar.

1. Since "without" is the opposite of "with" we can say:

Atheist is the opposite of a theist.

2. If that be the case, then why the "contrast" between the two words. One is belief the other is disbelief. If opposite is throwing you off, use, I dont know, negation, of that word: belief.

Thats simple grammar. How is that hard to understand?

3. Some who is "with" morals is moral. Someone who is "without" morals is Amoral. With and without are contrasting words. (Likewise with theist and atheist) Maybe contrast is easier to understand?

4. You have to quote me. The point is anti is against and A is contrast, if you like, of the root word. As moral is the root word, the contrast to that is Amoral. Dis- is also a word used to contrast between the root word belief. Gosh, there are so many examples and from the link I gave list all the prefixes and their meanings.

Maybe you are thrown off by the words I am using?

We can look at context. Skip the words.

Atheist is disbelief in Gods.
Antitheist is how you said against the belief in gods
Theist is belief in gods.

If someone believes in gods there can also be someone who believes the oposite...they disbelieve in gods.

Someone can be for belief in deities even if they disbelieve them. Other people believe the opposite, they are against the belief in deities.

I took out the A and kept with the definition and context. I hope thats easier to understand.

Using the words makes it much less tedeous to type. But seems that the words applied to the context above we are debating about not the context?

 

[ArtieE]

A...opposite

No it isn't. a- is "not, without". anti- counter- and contra- is opposite.
https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No it isn't. a- is "not, without". anti- counter- and contra- is opposite.
https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm

When you contrast something, in the cause of using A, you are negating (countering, contra, whatever links we posted), of the root word.

The word opposite is throwing you off.

Context:

Someone who believes in God believes the opposite of someone who does not believe in God.

With the words:

Theist is the opposite of atheist.

Thats the simpliest I can put it

 

[Thief]

give it a moment ....someone is about to post something ....contrary....

 

[ArtieE]

Someone who believes in God believes the opposite of someone who does not believe in God.

With the words:

Theist is the opposite of atheist.

Thats the simpliest I can put it

Since you don't understand that a- means "not, without" and not "opposite" so a-theism is not the opposite of theism I put you on ignore.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since you don't understand that a- means "not, without" and not "opposite" so a-theism is not the opposite of theism I put you on ignore.

Okay. Why cant we just be civilized and agree to disagree? I posted grammar links and stated the context to my point.

Sheesh.

Please read this in full and then put me on ignore.

A- without

Without is the opposite of with.

That is why i say opposite.

I am not disagreing with you. Give me a break.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@ArtieE

Here we go:

A- without

Without is the opposite of with.

That is why i say opposite.

I am not disagreeing with you.

Here is where we agree: quote from 2408 "Atheist=Disbelief, without, opposite of belief in gods"

Ignore if you wish. Really contradicting the purpose of RF

 

[Shad]

This I agree with. I did not say that our concept of god was meaningless, just that some view it as such. If it was meaningless, I couldn't deny it.

This is the difference between meaning for the believer and meaning for ontology.

Luckily I don't use "timeless" in my definition. Thus I maintain meaning and can meaningfully deny a god concept.

It all depends on how one attempts to define God. Pantheism for example is harder to nail down unless one goes Deepak

 

[Copernicus]

Right, but the concept of gods is not meaningless. We have a very good idea of what they are. They are human-like (usually spiritual) agencies that have absolute control over some aspect of reality and that human beings try to influence through worship rituals. There can be a lot of different ideas about the nature of gods, but there is a common core of ideas that define them. Perhaps our earliest prototypical understanding of gods in childhood derives from our experience of parental and adult authority, which children tend to obey instinctively. Adults, especially parents, define all moral behavior and are all powerful in the eyes of very young children. As children mature, they acquire a more realistic view of parents and other adults, but the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing being that commands absolute obedience and love is ingrained from the beginning.

This I agree with. I did not say that our concept of god was meaningless, just that some view it as such. If it was meaningless, I couldn't deny it.

I understand, but the interesting question is on what basis one could make a claim that the concept is meaningless. Usually, people who argue along those lines are not talking about gods in general, because we have references to gods that go back to the very earliest records of human history. Religious belief has been ingrained in the fabric of human society forever, so the claim that the "god" concept is meaningless seems utterly absurd on the face of it. And atheism entails rejection of belief in all of those putative god entities, not just the various varieties of the Abrahamic God, which itself originally derived from a blend of the head of the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, "El", and the lesser god "Yahweh". That is, the Jewish religion actually started out as henotheistic, but evolved into a monotheistic religion, especially under the influence of the Persian Achaemenids, who may also have introduced the taboo against idolatry that is so characteristic of modern Abrahamic religions. Herodotus mentioned that the Achaemenids never depicted their gods with statues, although the practice of idolatry did start up again under Artaxerxes II.

Usually, the idea that the "god" concept is meaningless is rooted in arguments over the nature of a monotheistic god, and that means an Abrahamic "God" in our culture. There have been arguments about the contradictory properties attributed to this idealized God that actually predate Christianity, but we know them in terms of arguments over the so-called "omnimax" God, a being with the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. In short, it is a being that is imagined to be perfect in every respect--the ultimate Platonic concept. One of the best examples of arguments against the Christian ideal of God can be found in a 2005 collection of philosophical essays called The Impossibility of God. So one tack that noncognitivists take is to argue that the concept ultimately collapses logically and cannot have a coherent meaning or reference. Hence, it is meaningless to assert or deny the existence of something that could never exist in the first place. I find that position ironic, because one could only sustain it if, in fact, there was enough meaning associated with the concept to make the argument that it was self-contradictory. Human beings are quite capable of holding contradictory beliefs, so claiming that a word is ultimately incoherent is not the same thing as claiming that it has no meaning.

 

[Bunyip]

Your statements imply otherwise. So lets just get this out of the way. Do you believe that babies in any form or inferred in any way are atheists. Yes or no?

I have addresses this a number of times. Do you understand n the point about there being no 'correct' definition of 'atheism'? I do not think babies have philosophical views.

If the idea is solely based on a definition, which is found all over this thread, then defeating the definition and showing it's flaws also defeats the argument.

Wow! You still don't get it. No mate, defeating a definition is a waste of time - you misunderstand how language works. As I said, defeating a definition is like defeating the use of the term 'fishing rod' to describe a fishing rod.

Not if said term is the core of their argument to the point of being the only factor the argument has.



Definitions of words should be logical and not just used due to popular opinion.

What do you mean 'should be'? Maybe they should, but they aren't - people drive changes in word usage and dictionaries can not stop them.

Hence why many dictionaries do not include slang at all. This is the difference between formal and informal language. Formal language is not dictated by the masses, only informal language is. I am under no obligation to entertain informal language.

Language is not dictated by anyone - nobody can enforce any specific definition as the 'correct one'.

Again if the idea and argument is solely based on a single definition then defeating the definition defeats the argument. I already proposed two alternatives which few even considered.

What do you even mean? The idea is described by the definition, not based on it. You are attacking the DESCRIPTION, not the idea.