Is superstition a wildly held unjustified belief?

[Willamena]

There is no false dichotomy. What other option is there? Either God exists or He doesn't.

The alternative is that "existence" is not a proper predicate, it doesn't describe anything about a thing. There is no alternative to existence: non-existence is not a thing.

In other words, the idea of "existence" is abused, both in grammar and concept.

 

[Kirran]

Not really. Astrology isn't global like God vs. no God is. Astrology isn't connected to existence itself like God vs. no God is.

Astrology has several different interpretations and can be shown in each case to just be a farce.

Either a God exists or He doesn't, it's a black and white argument that cannot be logically proven either way.

I think you are attempting more to compare God and astrology rather than beliefs, which is what we're talking about.

For me personally to say 'a God' exists doesn't make sense, and to say God doesn't exist is a non-sequitur - God is at the foundation of existence, God is the silence within which all sounds are made.

Also I think belief in astrology is pretty widely distributed. I know it's in at least Europe, North and South America and South Asia. There are very old astrological traditions coming out of Europe and South Asia. I suspect there are others in East Asia etc.

EDIT: I had a quick look, and yeah there's a Chinese astrological tradition too.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I think you are attempting more to compare God and astrology rather than beliefs, which is what we're talking about.

For me personally to say 'a God' exists doesn't make sense, and to say God doesn't exist is a non-sequitur - God is at the foundation of existence, God is the silence within which all sounds are made.

Also I think belief in astrology is pretty widely distributed. I know it's in at least Europe, North and South America and South Asia. There are very old astrological traditions coming out of Europe and South Asia. I suspect there are others in East Asia etc.

You compared them and said they were alike. I'm just saying they are not so alike.

So we disagree, no big deal.

 

[Kirran]

You compared them and said they were alike. I'm just saying they are not so alike.

So we disagree, no big deal.

Huh? I just said that disbelieving in astrology is similar to disbelieving in a deity. Like a baby is an 'agiraffeist' because they do not believe in giraffes. Doesn't matter what the object is. It's the belief that's under discussion, not the object of it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Huh? I just said that disbelieving in astrology is similar to disbelieving in a deity. Like a baby is an 'agiraffeist' because they do not believe in giraffes. Doesn't matter what the object is. It's the belief that's under discussion, not the object of it.

Never mind. Please continue on without me.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is anything that is not theism. So it includes 'no position on theism' and 'disbelief in theism'.

If atheism is used as only a non-position, then it can't be an oppositional to theism, as well,/ non-positions aren't oppositionals, they don't infer a position/adherence.

 

[Kirran]

Common mistake. Atheism can't mean both of those, without a specifier; hence, has to mean the only sensible option, which is 'disbelief'. Again, there are reasons for this, one of which is that, you are consequently 'adding' inference, to some ones ''I don't know''. Not everyone want's an added inference, /the added inference is actually unavoidable without other probably arbitrary or redundant descriptors/.
If you think that it can mean both with added descriptors, it loses inherent meaning, altogether.
ex.
using your format
/agnostic theism=contradictory

The real problem here is that the definitions don't quite match the usage, /necessarily. That is why you have to use the definitions that are 'constant', regardless of the variables.
the fact is, ''I don't know'', is not ''atheism''.
//atheism posits an oppositional stance, as mentioned earlier.

If atheism is used as only a non-position, then it can't be an oppositional to theism, as well,/ non-positions aren't oppositionals, they don't infer a position/adherence.

Nevertheless, that's how the word is used in the English language. We can debate should as much as we like, but language doesn't need our justification.

 

[Kirran]

Belief in deity=theist
Anything else=atheist

 

[Kirran]

I'm not arguing a ''should'', I'm presenting the information as to why your usage isn't actually conveying a meaningful meaning.
In other contexts, ''I don't know'', whatever, to that affect, doesn't mean ''no, I don't think so'' /whatever the context is/

pretty basic really.

Not if it used as an oppositional to theism. Then it has to have a specific meaning. 'a-theism', is actually implying an oppositional stance to theism, by necessity, ie has a specific meaning, by default.

hence, you're incorrect.

there are many reasons for this, and in arguments or presented positions, when you use a single word for multiple ideas, it creates all sorts of problems, not only in argumentation, but when used as the basis for other ideas, it really becomes non-sensical.

theism and atheism , are positions, /neither of which have an inherent burden of proof/

Nevertheless, this is the meaning of the word in English. The prefix a- is not oppositional, it's just a lack of something.

 

[Desert Snake]

Belief in deity=theist
Anything else=atheist

This would make an
agnostic theist,
a 'atheist theist'.

something isn't right, there.

 

[Kirran]

This would make an
agnostic theist,
a 'atheist theist'.

something isn't right, there.

English doesn't make sense sometimes

 

[McBell]

That isn't ''atheism''. atheism means taking the position that there isn't a deity,

That is ONE definition of atheism.
Seems to be the only definition theists can understand and or accept.

 

[McBell]

This would make an
agnostic theist,
a 'atheist theist'.

something isn't right, there.

Only if you ignore the fact that agnostic is about knowing, not believing.

 

[Willamena]

The prefix a- is not oppositional, it's just a lack of something.

It really doesn't. It signifies a negation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Incidentally,
'agnostic theist'
actually infers unsurity about the belief in deity, per combination.
(going by strictly dictionary definitions)
these words imply different concepts, when used separately, and 'agnostic', or 'gnostic', actually are used for different subjects.

 

[Desert Snake]

Only if you ignore the fact that agnostic is about knowing, not believing.

Right, it only has meaning to the referenced 'agnosticism'; in this instance ''theism'', /belief in Deity (dictionary definition, basically)

 

[Onyx]

The Atheism believe that G-d is imaginative, so Atheism"s subscribing to "no-god" concept is reflection of one's superstition.
Regards

I like a person who can think outside of the box. (I'm crawling back into mine now.)

 

[McBell]

Right, it only has meaning to the referenced 'agnosticism'; in this instance ''theism'', /belief in Deity (dictionary definition, basically)

Theism/atheism is about beliefs concerning deities.
Gnostic/agnostic is about knowing about deities.


Since they are about different aspects of deities, it is quite possible, and in all honesty quite probable, that there will be overlaps.
Problems arise when people pick one definition and try applying it to everything regardless of reality.

Atheism is not just the disbelief in deities.
It is also the lack of belief in deities.
For some reason theists have a problem understand and or accepting that fact.

 

[McBell]

Lol actually, not everyone wants their non-theism position to be inferred as disbelief in Deity, or even a lack of belief in Deity. The person in this equation who isn't understanding the nuances and actual adherence/positions for both theists and atheists, is you.
Consider that these words are used broadly as well,
ex.
/can theism be held as a position without belief
/can atheism be held with a belief a deity, /like some Satanists etc/

'agnostic' and 'gnostic', actually not being an indicator or even usable in either position, /except for the instance of 'agnostic theism', which by it's combination, is referencing theistic belief, /per dictionary definition.

One either believes in a deity or does not believe in a deity.
Please be so kind as to present the other options.

 

[Desert Snake]

One either believes in a deity or does not believe in a deity.
Please be so kind as to present the other options.

therefore what is a position of belief in Deity, with no adherence?

a ''theist''?
Great, that means many people who think that Deity /or deities,/, is real, yet do not adhere to said Deities, can thusly be labeled ''Theists'.

I don't have a problem with that.