Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 14:38:29 GMT
Criticism Those such as William Lane Craig who define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god say agnosticism and atheism are incompatible. What a ridiculous statement, that's up there with "atheists are just mad at God because..." Does that mean that theism is the denial of the non-existence of a god?Yes |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 14:56:03 GMT
Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground If you don't believe in any god's existence, then you're an atheist by definition. Whether or not you believe in the non-existence of gods is the difference between a hard atheist and a soft atheist. T.H. Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' because he didn't like being grouped in with hard atheists. The term was meant from the start to cover a subset of what was included in the definition of 'atheist'. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who use it more in line with its construction. "If you don't believe" is a sloppy use of terms. It has two meanings that need to be distinguished. Just as "disbelief" might mean "lack" of belief or the belief in the negative, "I don't believe in any god's existence" can as well. Just because a word or expression has two meanings doesn't mean they're the same. That might be what's confusing you. To believe there is no god is not a lack of belief despite the existence of terms with multiple meanings. Analogous constructions are not always correct, but they can be favored. To "disbelieve" might more easily be understood the way to "disprove" is. Notice there is no "lack" of belief or proof. A "disproof" is a indeed a "proof" of the opposite or negative. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 5, 2017 14:57:53 GMT
tpfkar Different people use different meanings for "agnostic". Sometimes the same people use different meanings in different contexts. Always good to spell it out. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
 
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 15:57:35 GMT
If you don't believe in any god's existence, then you're an atheist by definition. Whether or not you believe in the non-existence of gods is the difference between a hard atheist and a soft atheist. T.H. Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' because he didn't like being grouped in with hard atheists. The term was meant from the start to cover a subset of what was included in the definition of 'atheist'. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who use it more in line with its construction. "If you don't believe" is a sloppy use of terms. It has two meanings that need to be distinguished. Just as "disbelief" might mean "lack" of belief or the belief in the negative, "I don't believe in any god's existence" can as well. Just because a word or expression has two meanings doesn't mean they're the same. That might be what's confusing you. To believe there is no god is not a lack of belief despite the existence of terms with multiple meanings. Analogous constructions are not always correct, but they can be favored. To "disbelieve" might more easily be understood the way to "disprove" is. Notice there is no "lack" of belief or proof. A "disproof" is a indeed a "proof" of the opposite or negative. No sloppiness whatsoever. Either reading applies, which is exceedingly clear if you read the sentence following the one that confused you. I'm sorry you got confused, but next time, just ask for help. The distinction you're looking to impose is irrelevant in this case, hence our having the terms 'soft atheist' and 'hard atheist'. Perhaps if you understood these rather basic concepts, you wouldn't get confused and think only one of them is the whole meaning of 'atheist'. As for the rest of your confusion, nouns and verbs are different things. The prefix 'dis' before a verb is not analogous to the same prior to a noun. Also, the prefix is from the Latin with meanings including 'away', 'apart', and 'asunder' as well as the negation of a concept. Finally, believing no gods exist is indeed a lack of belief — it's a lack of belief in gods. You're wrongly forgetting the subject at hand and being confused by your own reframing. See, we're addressing theism, with the prefix 'a' before it serving its standard purpose, meaning 'without' not 'against'. Something atonal is not against the concept of tone, for example. Basic English, really. But then, English is difficult for many. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 16:00:11 GMT
If you don't believe in any god's existence, then you're an atheist by definition. Whether or not you believe in the non-existence of gods is the difference between a hard atheist and a soft atheist. If i don't believe in any god's non-existence, then i am a theist by definition. Goes both ways. No. You would have to actively believe in a god's existence. A lack of awareness would be a lack of belief and you aren't a believer in every god you haven't heard of. The word 'theism' addresses active belief in a god or gods. What do you think it means? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 16:14:38 GMT
If i don't believe in any god's non-existence, then i am a theist by definition. Goes both ways. No. You would have to actively believe in a god's existence. A lack of awareness would be a lack of belief and you aren't a believer in every god you haven't heard of. The word 'theism' addresses active belief in a god or gods. What do you think it means? I would have to actively believe in god(s) non-existence to be considered an atheist. i am not. i am an agnostic and i wont complicate my beliefs further than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 16:35:00 GMT
No sloppiness whatsoever. Either reading applies, Don't give up your attitude. I'm certainly not going to give up mine. Yours appears ridiculous on you. What would we do without that? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 17:21:42 GMT
Other atheists I've met usually are trying to be "nice" and accepting individual's own various new ideas. I'm honestly not sure why you needed to write all of that. Perhaps I'm not being clear so I'll try a different approach.
You can be either atheist or theist. Now you don't have to label yourself as such, I agree, but you do have to be one or the other. You either accept a god as true or you don't. Saying you "don't know" or some other phrase that is noncommittal, is saying that you don't accept it as true, which makes you an atheist.
So you can be A
gnostic athiest agnostic atheist gnostic theist agnostic theist
I am perfectly open to listening to other peoples points of views, but regarding this topic, that is how those terms work.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 17:24:12 GMT
No he is right. We are done here. No seriously, he's wrong. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 17:32:48 GMT
No sloppiness whatsoever. Either reading applies, Don't give up your attitude. I'm certainly not going to give up mine. Yours appears ridiculous on you. What would we do without that? Ah, stay clueless, Arlon. Stay clueless.  I'll take your avoidance as the dictionary having won. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 17:34:55 GMT
No. You would have to actively believe in a god's existence. A lack of awareness would be a lack of belief and you aren't a believer in every god you haven't heard of. The word 'theism' addresses active belief in a god or gods. What do you think it means? I would have to actively believe in god(s) non-existence to be considered an atheist. i am not. i am an agnostic and i wont complicate my beliefs further than that. No, you're still confused. Actively believing in the non-existence of all gods would make you a hard atheist. If you lack belief in any god beyond that, then you're a soft atheist. Not to blow your mind, but both hard atheists and soft atheists are atheists. Which isn't to say you're free to use whatever label you prefer. However, when it comes to the wider conversation and people address atheists, that means all of them, including the soft atheists. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 17:37:31 GMT
As far as I know, agnosticism is not only a claim to not have knowledge of God; it's also a claim that knowledge of God is not possible. The latter claim is known as hard agnosticism, the former soft agnosticism. Both are covered by the term. And common usage is simply not believing any gods exist or that gods don't, essentially soft atheism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 17:46:37 GMT
I would have to actively believe in god(s) non-existence to be considered an atheist. i am not. i am an agnostic and i wont complicate my beliefs further than that. No, you're still confused. Actively believing in the non-existence of all gods would make you a hard atheist. If you lack belief in any god beyond that, then you're a soft atheist. Not to blow your mind, but both hard atheists and soft atheists are atheists. Which isn't to say you're free to use whatever label you prefer. However, when it comes to the wider conversation and people address atheists, that means all of them, including the soft atheists. It's not always about atheists. I guess agnostics are the cool people and everyone wants them to be part of their gang. |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 17:59:19 GMT
No, you're still confused. Actively believing in the non-existence of all gods would make you a hard atheist. If you lack belief in any god beyond that, then you're a soft atheist. Not to blow your mind, but both hard atheists and soft atheists are atheists. Which isn't to say you're free to use whatever label you prefer. However, when it comes to the wider conversation and people address atheists, that means all of them, including the soft atheists. It's not always about atheists. I guess agnostics are the cool people and everyone wants them to be part of their gang. Couldn't address what I actually wrote? Wow, that must be a blow to your self-esteem. I didn't say anything about anything being always about atheists. I addressed the meaning of words you didn't understand. |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 5, 2017 18:00:24 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. In fuzzy (many valued) logic, propositions may have three truth values: true( T); false( F); unknown( U). The unknown is between true and false, also known as the middle value. Belief is holding a proposition true and no belief is holding a proposition false, so using the proposition d = deity exists: Theist: d = T; agnostic: d = U; atheist: d = F. Regarding propositional truth values, agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism. Any unknown value added to a false value is ultimately a false value: Agnostic atheist: d = U & F = F, i.e. agnostic atheist is propositionally equivalent to atheist. Interestingly, Any unknown value added to a true value is ultimately a unknown value: Agnostic theist: d = U & T = U, i.e. agnostic theist is propositionally equivalent to agnostic . |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 18:02:27 GMT
... ... ...
So you can be A
gnostic athiest agnostic atheist gnostic theist agnostic theist
... ... ... that is how those terms work.
No, they don't "work." To "work" there has to be people that some number of us can agree are "gnostic atheists" or whatever according to some common standard of measure. You have no standards for you definitions thus no definitions. You can make up definitions all day because definitions are neither right nor wrong. They are just labels. Only when you can apply the label to something correctly and have that understood by someone is any definition "right." Yours are not ever right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 18:03:04 GMT
It's not always about atheists. I guess agnostics are the cool people and everyone wants them to be part of their gang. Couldn't address what I actually wrote? Wow, that must be a blow to your self-esteem. I didn't say anything about anything being always about atheists. I addressed the meaning of words you didn't understand. I really have time for people with excess hubris |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 18:04:53 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. In fuzzy (many valued) logic, propositions may have three truth values: true( T); false( F); unknown( U). The unknown is between true and false, also known as the middle value. Belief is holding a proposition true and no belief is holding a proposition false, so using the proposition d = deity exists: Theist: d = T; agnostic: d = U; atheist: d = F. Regarding propositional truth values, agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism. Any unknown value added to a false value is ultimately a false value: Agnostic atheist: d = U & F = F, i.e. agnostic atheist is propositionally equivalent to atheist. Interestingly, Any unknown value added to a true value is ultimately a unknown value: Agnostic theist: d = U & T = T, i.e. agnostic theist is propositionally equivalent to agnostic . The problem with what you just said is atheism doesn't value god as false. It values it as unknown.
Here I'll try to explain with flipping a coin. Heads is god, tails is no god. I just flipped it. Do you believe it's heads? No, you have no evidence. Do you believe it's tails? No, you have no evidence. It's an unknown. Congratulations, you're an atheist in regards to the result of the coin flip, because you do not believe it was heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 18:06:06 GMT
... ... ...
So you can be A
gnostic athiest agnostic atheist gnostic theist agnostic theist
... ... ... that is how those terms work.
No, they don't "work." To "work" there has to be people that some number of us can agree are "gnostic atheists" or whatever according to some common standard of measure. You have no standards for you definitions thus no definitions. You can make up definitions all day because definitions are neither right nor wrong. They are just labels. Only when you can apply the label to something correctly and have that understood by someone is any definition "right." Yours are not ever right. those are the definitions and this isn't a debate. I'm telling you directly what they are.
For context, I am an active member of atheist communities, and I'm telling you how those words are applied. If you don't accept that, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 5, 2017 18:08:41 GMT
In fuzzy (many valued) logic, propositions may have three truth values: true( T); false( F); unknown( U). The unknown is between true and false, also known as the middle value. Belief is holding a proposition true and no belief is holding a proposition false, so using the proposition d = deity exists: Theist: d = T; agnostic: d = U; atheist: d = F. Regarding propositional truth values, agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism. Any unknown value added to a false value is ultimately a false value: Agnostic atheist: d = U & F = F, i.e. agnostic atheist is propositionally equivalent to atheist. Interestingly, Any unknown value added to a true value is ultimately a unknown value: Agnostic theist: d = U & T = T, i.e. agnostic theist is propositionally equivalent to agnostic . The problem with what you just said is atheism doesn't value god as false. It values it as unknown.
Here I'll try to explain with flipping a coin. Heads is god, tails is no god. I just flipped it. Do you believe it's heads? No, you have no evidence. Do you believe it's tails? No, you have no evidence. It's an unknown. Congratulations, you're an atheist in regards to the result of the coin flip, because you do not believe it was heads.
Where did I say atheism doesn't value god as false? It doesn't surprise me that you'd argue against rules of logic. |
|
