agnostics = weak atheists

[dogsgod]

What an atheist might believe is not relevant. All that is required to be an atheist is to not share in the belief of the theist.

 

[imaginaryme]

That's the whole problem with logic. It ain't real.

When I was agnostic, I wasn't "weak nothing." It's like my name is ellen. You can call me other things, and I may or may not respond; but my name is ellen. Anarchy is much more better. Whether one agrees or disagrees or ignores, anarchy!

 

[Oberon]

What an atheist might believe is not relevant. All that is required to be an atheist is to not share in the belief of the theist.

Wrong. First, an animist who believes everything, from a rock to a tree to a person, has a soul, is not an atheist, even if s/he does not believe in any deity or theos. Second, even using a narrow definition of atheist, the word itself comes from a denial of gods, and a BELIEF that gods do not exist. Atheism is BELIEF, just like theism.

 

[dogsgod]

Atheists believe there is something not in the universe? Believers and their silly definitions, yagottaluvem.

 

[Oberon]

Atheists believe there is something not in the universe? Believers and their silly definitions, yagottaluvem.

You should try studying logic, epistimology, epistemic modality, conditionals, and semantics. A thorough study in any of the above would demonstrate that belief in X means non-belief in Y, and belief in Y means non-belief in X. If you don't believe in gods, you believe that no gods exist.

Atheists have a belief system.

 

[Willamena]

You should try studying logic, epistimology, epistemic modality, conditionals, and semantics. A thorough study in any of the above would demonstrate that belief in X means non-belief in Y, and belief in Y means non-belief in X. If you don't believe in gods, you believe that no gods exist.

Atheists have a belief system.

Any study of the above from a mystical perspective would also demonstrate that belief in X means belief and non-belief in Y, and belief in Y means belief and non-belief in X.

In other words, it's not much use to dictate to others their belief.

 

[Oberon]

Any study of the above from a mystical perspective would also demonstrate that belief in X means belief and non-belief in Y, and belief in Y means belief and non-belief in X.

In other words, it's not much use to dictate to others their belief.

I'm not trying to. The only point I am attempting to establish is that disblief in something means a belief in something else (logically, epistemicologically, etc). If one believes no gods exist, one therefore believes that NO gods exist. Disbelief is belief in something.

 

[imaginaryme]

You should try studying logic, epistimology, epistemic modality, conditionals, and semantics. A thorough study in any of the above would demonstrate that belief in X means non-belief in Y, and belief in Y means non-belief in X. If you don't believe in gods, you believe that no gods exist.

Atheists have a belief system.

Everybody has a belief system. I believe it is 2010... what about you? It is those dang semantics that are a pain in the neck.

 

[dogsgod]

Are atheists supposed to believe that something is not in the universe? Could someone that defines God please clarify what it is atheists are supposed to believe doesn't exist?

 

[Oberon]

Are atheists supposed to believe that something is not in the universe? Could someone that defines God please clarify what it is atheists are supposed to believe doesn't exist?

Stop being foolish. You claim that "All that is required to be an atheist is to not share in the belief of the theist." First, clearly if a theist believes that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, an atheist can believe the same thing and still be an atheist.

In other words, it is specifically the theists beliefs about god(s) which the atheist denies, not all beliefs of a theist.

Yet it is not required for an atheist to have defined for him/her every belief and definition of a god to disagree with a theist. The concept of god is known enough for theists who disagree to still be able to converse about "god" or "gods" and for atheists to deny that they exist.

You don't need a clear definition of every conception of god in order to determine that you are an atheist or a theist, or that you don't know one way or the other (i.e. are an agnostic.).

 

[dogsgod]

Stop being foolish. You claim that "All that is required to be an atheist is to not share in the belief of the theist." First, clearly if a theist believes that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, an atheist can believe the same thing and still be an atheist.

In other words, it is specifically the theists beliefs about god(s) which the atheist denies, not all beliefs of a theist.

Well, duh.

Yet it is not required for an atheist to have defined for him/her every belief and definition of a god to disagree with a theist. The concept of god is known enough for theists who disagree to still be able to converse about "god" or "gods" and for atheists to deny that they exist.

Deny they exist? That's a good one. Now atheists are merely in denial.

You don't need a clear definition of every conception of god in order to determine that you are an atheist or a theist, or that you don't know one way or the other (i.e. are an agnostic.).

I would need clarification if I was to formulate a belief either way, meanwhile I would suspend belief. As it is I don't define gods, that is for the preoccupation of the theist to engage in. I don't share in the belief of the theist, I'm atheist.

 

[Oberon]

Deny they exist? That's a good one. Now atheists are merely in denial.

English is your first language, correct? You know there is a difference between being "in denial" (a grammatical construction than implies a normally willful ignorance) and denying something, which simply means contradicting or not affirming something.

I would need clarification if I was to formulate a belief either way, meanwhile I would suspend belief.

Not according to your definition. If an atheists does share the same beliefs (about god) that a theist does, obviously they must have some idea what those beliefs are.

As it is I don't define gods, that is for the preoccupation of the theist to engage in. I don't share in the belief of the theist, I'm atheist.

In order to not share the belief of the theist, you must have some idea what that belief is. That understanding is enough to say "I don't believe that." By saying "I don't believe that" you clearly (according to simple logic) believe something else. Disbelief in X is a belief in not-X.

Atheists do not believe in god(s). That is true both simply from the word itself, as well as throughout the history of this belief system.

 

[dogsgod]

God is a belief that resides in the mind of the believer. I don't share in that belief, I'm an atheist. No, non belief is not a belief, let alone a belief system. Not partaking in stamp collecting is not considered a hobby. This is difficult, I know, but with a little effort it can be understood.

 

[Oberon]

No, non belief is not a belief

How do you talk about logic, conditional semantics, conditional information, and so forth to someone who hasn't read anything about any of these?

I suggest you get a good introductory textbook on logic. I would also suggest reading the relevant papers (particularly those on mental models, possible worlds, and logic) in On Conditionals (Cambridge, 1986) and On Conditionals Again (John Benjamins 1997), as well as relevant work in cognitive linguistics (a good starting place would be the oxford handbook).

If one says "I believe in god" by necessasity they don't belief that no god exists (i.e. they disbelieve in the non-existance of god). Likewise, if someone says "I don't believe in god" by necessity they believe that no god exists. Non-belief in X by definition is belief in non-X.

let alone a belief system.

Hence the "ism" part of Atheism. The idea that there is no god is a belief about one of the most fundamental aspects of the cosmos- its nature, creation, existence, etc. It most certainly is a belief system.

Not partaking in stamp collecting is not considered a hobby.

Horrific analogy. Having a hobby and not having a hobby is not comparable to belief and non-belief. You cannot disbelief something without belief.

 

[dogsgod]

How do you talk about logic, conditional semantics, conditional information, and so forth to someone who hasn't read anything about any of these?

I suggest you get a good introductory textbook on logic. I would also suggest reading the relevant papers (particularly those on mental models, possible worlds, and logic) in On Conditionals (Cambridge, 1986) and On Conditionals Again (John Benjamins 1997), as well as relevant work in cognitive linguistics (a good starting place would be the oxford handbook).

If one says "I believe in god" by necessasity they don't belief that no god exists (i.e. they disbelieve in the non-existance of god). Likewise, if someone says "I don't believe in god" by necessity they believe that no god exists. Non-belief in X by definition is belief in non-X.




Hence the "ism" part of Atheism. The idea that there is no god is a belief about one of the most fundamental aspects of the cosmos- its nature, creation, existence, etc. It most certainly is a belief system.

Stop being so bloody obtuse. The idea that there is no invisible pink unicorn is not by any stretch of the imagination a belief about one of the most fundamental aspects of the cosmos- its nature, creation, existence, etc. It most certainly is not a belief system worth pondering. Who, besides you, wastes time considering the existence of the vastly numerous things that people conjure up and then go on to consider the idea that not believing said nonsense is a fundamental basis for an understanding of the cosmos? That is totally insane. Some people obviously believe that the invisible little god they conjure up in their mind is in some way significant to those that have no idea what they are fantasizing about. It must require an incredibly inflated ego to suggest that not believing in the invisible god I fantasize about is a belief about one of the most fundamental aspects of the cosmos- its nature, creation, existence, etc. It most certainly is a belief system. Belief system, my ***.

Horrific analogy. Having a hobby and not having a hobby is not comparable to belief and non-belief. You cannot disbelief something without belief.

Spare us your fantasies.

 

[Oberon]

Stop being so bloody obtuse.

Says the one asking for a definition of god, as if that is necessary in order to disbelief in god's existance.

The idea that there is no invisible pink unicorn is not by any stretch of the imagination a belief about one of the most fundamental aspects of the cosmos

Given that the existence of gods and their role in the universe has been a part of basically every recorded culture and monumental in shaping philosophy, western culture, and even academia, and that atheism has a long history with its own conception of cosmology, to compare god(s) to pink unicorns is pitifully stupid.

Who, besides you, wastes time considering the existence of the vastly numerous things that people conjure up and then go on to consider the idea that not believing said nonsense is a fundamental basis for an understanding of the cosmos?

Anyone who studies logic and cognition (as related to belief systems, possible worlds, mental spaces, mental models, conditionals, etc) studies what belief in X or non-belief in X means.

That is totally insane.

Just because you are totally ignorant of logic and the other relevant topics doesn't make it totally insane.

Spare us your fantasies.

I'm agnostic. I lack the belief in god or no god.

 

[imaginaryme]

Are atheists supposed to believe that something is not in the universe? Could someone that defines God please clarify what it is atheists are supposed to believe doesn't exist?

God cannot exist. It's real simple using mathematics... relatively painless... ya won't feel a thing...

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? If each term of this series were written on a piece of paper; these scraps of paper would fill the entire universe before actually "adding up to one."

Yet god must be greater than infinity - ergo, god does not exist.

 

[dogsgod]

Says the one asking for a definition of god, as if that is necessary in order to disbelief in god's existance.



Given that the existence of gods and their role in the universe has been a part of basically every recorded culture and monumental in shaping philosophy, western culture, and even academia, and that atheism has a long history with its own conception of cosmology, to compare god(s) to pink unicorns is pitifully stupid.



Anyone who studies logic and cognition (as related to belief systems, possible worlds, mental spaces, mental models, conditionals, etc) studies what belief in X or non-belief in X means.



Just because you are totally ignorant of logic and the other relevant topics doesn't make it totally insane.





I'm agnostic. I lack the belief in god or no god.

I'm wasting my time debating your lunacy.