Lack of belief in gods.

[Curious George]

Very vaguely defined at best.

Is such an entity even possible should be the first consideration. Did this god have parents? Where did he/she come from? One of a kind or part of a pantheon of gods?

And then there is the consideration of any impact to reality which would make such an entity more than an exercise in meaningless pipe dreaming. To that end, any observable or measurable aspect to this "control" you speak of?

Absolutely. But that is not part of the conversation does a god existhe or does no god exist. That is a conversation about how can god be defined. So, to my earlier point. A person who believes niether a god exists nor no god exists, cannot be part of the discussion of whether a god exists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If someone told me a fish was a cat, I would try to understand what they meant. If it was nonsensical it would be easy to sort out. I could articulate precisely where the problem was. Whether they understood or not is besides the point. If what I am truly saying is nonsensical, I wouldn't anticipate me understanding how it was so. Certainly such would be possible, but I wouldn't anticipate such. However, what is absent is any clear attempt on your part to address my argument instead of my character. I can only conclude that this is because of one of two possibilities A) you cannot B) you think such an act would be futile.

What I am currently struggling with is if A) why wouldn't you acknowledge such? And if B) why would you think such?

"you think such an act would be futile."

This one from the start. I already made my case earlier in the thread and you ignored it.

 

[Curious George]

Very vaguely defined at best.

God is a somewhat abstract concept, I cannot imagine the definition of a god, not a particular god, would not be considered vague.

 

[Curious George]

You need to say something reasonable before reason can be applied to it.

And what exactly did I say that was unreasonable?

 

[Curious George]

"you think such an act would be futile."

This one from the start. I already made my case earlier in the thread and you ignored it.

Sorry if I ignored an explanation on why you think such an argument would be futile. I will reread the your posts. If you could I would appreciate a post number to shorten my search. If not, I understand. You do sound quite frustrated (not my intention btw)

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And what exactly did I say that was unreasonable?

Ya I am not gonna jump down that rabbit hole.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sorry if I ignored an explanation on why you think such an argument would be futile. I will reread the your posts. If you could I would appreciate a post number to shorten my search. If not, I understand. You do sound quite frustrated (not my intention btw)

"You do sound quite frustrated (not my intention btw)"

I won't take me so seriously, I certainly don't.

This is my official position:

I think there is a lot of semantical bamboozling that goes on here, but what we are looking at is a belief in an extraordinary claim without evidence and a lack of belief in that claim. The two are not equivalent and I don't care how you try to twist the words.

And I still I don't accept your reasoning here as valid:

To make atheism part of the conversation. If you cannot hold a belief, you cannot hold a discussion about the topic.

I can defiantly hold a discussion about a topic without having a belief one way or another in it, and I know this to be true because I have done it many times before. Everyone can do it.

What you are doing is argument of semantic to the abstract, and I simply don't care for it, as it does not translate back very well. Push everything aside and this is what we are left with: "a belief in an extraordinary claim without evidence and a lack of belief in that claim" and these two are not the same. And that is what this whole thing is about really; theists looking for a way to claim atheism is the same as theism. Then that leads into a another deal about the role of faith, and so on.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

By the etymology we are discussing a belief. Specifically a not-god belief. We are not discussing a not-belief in god.

Have you even thought about this? So what do you call the millions of non believers that hold no such belief?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Not necessarily the same thing.

Is one who lacks theos (god) the same as one who lacks theism (god belief)? i.e., Is atheosism (not-god belief) the same as atheism (not god-belief)?

Admittedly the "a-" prefix can have a number of meanings, but are we really talking about the antithesis of god (theos) or belief in god (theism). This seems to be a major sticking point for a number of theists.

As an atheist for over 40 years, I have always define the word as not god-belief, i.e., "a-theism".

Yes, many apologists would prefer that atheism be viewed as a religion, because it brings it down(way down) to their level.

The fact that it makes not one positive claim about anything doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Thumper]

Absolutely. But that is not part of the conversation does a god existhe or does no god exist. That is a conversation about how can god be defined. So, to my earlier point. A person who believes niether a god exists nor no god exists, cannot be part of the discussion of whether a god exists.

Yep. I am really ignostic in that I don't think the term "god" has ever been defined to a level of detail such that existence can even be considered.

However, once anyone starts to define any properties for such an entity, then the question of possibility for those properties are fair game for consideration.

 

[Thief]

in the scheme of superlatives.....Someone is....
bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced

that someone would be......God.....
by definition.....the Almighty

Man might think of himself as dust...however
that would make our existence here a complete mystery with no resolve

this form we live in will in turn form a unique spirit on each occasion
and it all ends up in dust?
all of us?
not one chance in billions that a few might survive the last breath?

and then we meet our Creator

I don't need proof

and you are willing to be ....dust?

 

[Thief]

What declaration?

Any given person - even the most informed adult - has never even heard of most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. What sort of declaration do you expect someone to make about a god they don't even know about?


So don't use adjectives to refer to babies? That's ridiculous.

try asking the next baby you see.....are you and atheist?
try asking a rock

you might get an intelligent answer

or maybe you might ask someone who knows what the label means
and THEN speak intelligently about it

it's not a default position
to have a position......you need the line drawn in definition

 

[Thief]

Yep. I am really ignostic in that I don't think the term "god" has ever been defined to a level of detail such that existence can even be considered.

However, once anyone starts to define any properties for such an entity, then the question of possibility for those properties are fair game for consideration.

I AM!......saith the Lord
...tell the people .....I AM!
and they will know whose law this is

said unto Moses

 

[Curious George]

"You do sound quite frustrated (not my intention btw)"

I won't take me so seriously, I certainly don't.

This is my official position:



And I still I don't accept your reasoning here as valid:



I can defiantly hold a discussion about a topic without having a belief one way or another in it, and I know this to be true because I have done it many times before. Everyone can do it.

What you are doing is argument of semantic to the abstract, and I simply don't care for it, as it does not translate back very well. Push everything aside and this is what we are left with: "a belief in an extraordinary claim without evidence and a lack of belief in that claim" and these two are not the same. And that is what this whole thing is about really; theists looking for a way to claim atheism is the same as theism. Then that leads into a another deal about the role of faith, and so on.

I understand what you are saying. But I do not see it the same way. I agree that theists are making a claim. I agree that claim is extraordinary. But we are not then left with other people who lack a belief in that claim. We are left with A) people who believe that claim is untrue B) people who find that claim equally as likely as the much less extraordinary claim that no god exists c) people who can't wrap their heads around the claim D) people who have never heard the claim.

Your categorization of theist and all the rest is not very reasonable. You are categorizing people who hold a belief alongside people incapable of holding a belief and that is just for starters.

We do all operate on faith. We call it inductive reasoning. All faith is not the same. If we didn't have some degree of faith we would all be swimming in solopsistic sewage. That an argument requires some assumptions is not bad. Atheism is not the same degree of faith as theism.

 

[Curious George]

Have you even thought about this? So what do you call the millions of non believers that hold no such belief?

Millions of people whom are incapable of holding the propositions "a god exists" or "no god exists" are true, and agnostics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

try asking the next baby you see.....are you and atheist?
try asking a rock

you might get an intelligent answer

I'll ask them if they're an atheist right after they tell me they're a baby.

or maybe you might ask someone who knows what the label means
and THEN speak intelligently about it

Do you use this approach with all adjectives?

it's not a default position
to have a position......you need the line drawn in definition

Atheism isn't a position.

 

[Curious George]

Yep. I am really ignostic in that I don't think the term "god" has ever been defined to a level of detail such that existence can even be considered.

However, once anyone starts to define any properties for such an entity, then the question of possibility for those properties are fair game for consideration.

And while I understand the ignostic position, I find their ability to evaluate definitions interesting. For instance, if I were to define god as: a small big. The ignostic can say point out that my definition is contradictory, and they can ask how this could be, they could ask a. For if they were to say that God cannot be a small big because of the law of noncontradiction, they will have in part defined god both with a partial negative definition (god is not a small big) and with a positive definition (god is something, which has a nature that adheres to the laws of logic). It is definitely a tricky stance. That if pushed I think most if theists could develop at least a vague definition of god. And if we were to take this definition and then ask whether it is more likely than not that such a being exists we would find that the answer is: no.

Similarly, I think the same about agnostics. If we were to push the subject I imagine many would fall to one side of the fence or the other.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I understand what you are saying. But I do not see it the same way. I agree that theists are making a claim. I agree that claim is extraordinary. But we are not then left with other people who lack a belief in that claim. We are left with A) people who believe that claim is untrue B) people who find that claim equally as likely as the much less extraordinary claim that no god exists c) people who can't wrap their heads around the claim D) people who have never heard the claim.

Your categorization of theist and all the rest is not very reasonable. You are categorizing people who hold a belief alongside people incapable of holding a belief and that is just for starters.

We do all operate on faith. We call it inductive reasoning. All faith is not the same. If we didn't have some degree of faith we would all be swimming in solopsistic sewage. That an argument requires some assumptions is not bad. Atheism is not the same degree of faith as theism.

"We do all operate on faith. "

I knew that was your end game, but despite what you think I do not operate on faith. But I am sure you are gonna tell me I am wrong and that I must think like you.

 

[Willamena]

"We do all operate on faith. "

I knew that was your end game, but despite what you think I do not operate on faith. But I am sure you are gonna tell me I am wrong and that I must think like you.

You missed the point.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You missed the point.

Please show me what I supposedly missed.