16 Aug 15
I think some of the confusion in this thread is the result of the loosely defined term atheism.
Anyone giving any answer to the question, "Is there a god?" is in belief. The question, "Is there a god?" is ill-formed. By the definition of a god, the question has no answer within the natural universe.
Do horses with magic horns exist? Do an endless number of beings and objects with all imaginable supernatural properties exist? It is because life and death are involved that the god question seems to have meaning, to many, when the endless, other questions don't.
The atheists that hold that they have no belief are not answering the question, "Is there a god?". They are not saying yes or no. They are saying, "this question is as meaningless as, "Is there a tooth fairy?" and we can only ever answer well-formed questions". In my opinion these atheists are better called agnostic but this is now just semantics.
A person identifying as atheist, and claiming the nonexistence of God or gods does hold a belief. These two very different atheists, confuse.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JerryH
I think some of the confusion in this thread is the result of the loosely defined term atheism.
Anyone giving any answer to the question, "Is there a god?" is in belief. The question, "Is there a god?" is ill-formed. By the definition of a god, the question has no answer within the natural universe.
Do horses with magic horns exist? Do an endless numbe ...[text shortened]... the nonexistence of God or gods does hold a belief. These two very different atheists, confuse.
By the definition of a god, the question has no answer within the natural universe.
By which definition of a god?
I think you will find [actually I know you will find] that there is no one definition of a god.
They are not saying yes or no. They are saying, "this question is as meaningless as, "Is there a tooth fairy?" and we can only ever answer well-formed questions"
Some of them might be, others not so much.
In my opinion these atheists are better called agnostic but this is now just semantics.
Then your opinion is wrong.
Agnostic is not a middle position between atheist and theist.
I have already [as have others] explained why in detail in this thread and in my bio.
A person identifying as atheist, and claiming the nonexistence of God or gods does hold a belief.
We know. We have been arguing about these issues for over a decade, these topics have come up a few
hundred times in that period.
EDIT: try page two of this thread to see us going over exactly this issue.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=165156&page=2
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI can see posts are starting to get heated, I'll drop this with you.If you've set in stone your views that the universe is godless that is what you'll see.
Yes but we HAVEN'T set our views in stone. THAT IS MY POINT!
Given that this is wrong, your entire argument falls apart.
I am an atheist because I see no evidence for the existence of any gods.
If I found evidence sufficient to justify belie ...[text shortened]... most definitely insult us.
Stop telling us what and how we think and instead ASK and LISTEN.
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeA god is a supernatural supreme being with any imaginable set of other properties.
[quote]
By which definition of a god?
Agnostic is not a middle position between atheist and theist.
Atheism and Theism are lumped together on one side as they answer the ill-formed question, "Is there a god?" and so are both religions. Agnosticism is the extreme other side. Agnosticism is philosophy on religion. This is how I define the three.
Does your ism, however you define it, answer the ill-formed question?
Originally posted by JerryHThe prefered meaning for the three words for this thread are:
Atheism and Theism are lumped together on one side as they answer the ill-formed question, "Is there a god?" and so are both religions. Agnosticism is the extreme other side. Agnosticism is philosophy on religion. This is how I define the three.
Theist: believes in god.
Atheist: everybody else.
Agnostic: believes the question of whether or not there is a god is unanswerable. May still hold a belief in god or not and thus be both agnostic and theist or agnostic and atheist.
Atheism as defined above is not a religion and it is not an attempt to answer the question 'is there a god'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryH
A god is a supernatural supreme being with any imaginable set of other properties.
Atheism and Theism are lumped together on one side as they answer the ill-formed question, "Is there a god?" and so are both religions. Agnosticism is the extreme other side. Agnosticism is philosophy on religion. This is how I define the three.
Does your ism, however you define it, answer the ill-formed question?
Atheism and Theism are lumped together on one side as they answer the ill-formed question, "Is there a god?" and so are both religions. Agnosticism is the extreme other side. Agnosticism is philosophy on religion. This is how I define the three.
Wow. you are even more wrong than I though you were.
Theism and atheism are answers to the question "do you BELIEVE that a god or gods exist?"
Theists believe that a god or gods exist.
Atheists don't believe that a god or gods exist.
Those two positions are exclusive and exhaustive, they cover all available possibilities.
Agnosticism however is a position with regards to the question of "do you KNOW that a god or gods exist?"
Knowledge being a subset of belief.
Agnostics either claim that we/they simply don't know if a god or gods exist.
OR more strongly,
They claim that it's not possible to know if a god or gods exist.
As knowledge is a subset of belief, you can be an agnostic theist, if you believe that a god or gods exist but don't
claim to know that they do. And you can also be an agnostic atheist, if you either lack a belief in the existence of
gods or believe that gods don't exist, but don't claim to know that gods don't exist.
It should also be noted that a persons position can vary depending on the god concept in question.
For example: You might claim to KNOW that the god of the bible as espoused by Christians doesn't exist,
and be a gnostic atheist with respect to that god. While at the same time simply believe that all other currently
proposed god concepts are non-existent, and be an agnostic strong atheist with respect to those god concepts.
And then simply lack a belief in all other possible god concepts being existent and be an agnostic weak atheist
with respect to those god concepts.
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat about the: Believes there is no god or gods? What are they called?
The prefered meaning for the three words for this thread are:
Theist: believes in god.
Atheist: everybody else.
Agnostic: believes the question of whether or not there is a god is unanswerable. May still hold a belief in god or not and thus be both agnostic and theist or agnostic and atheist.
Atheism as defined above is not a religion and it is not an attempt to answer the question 'is there a god'.
Yes Agnostics believe the question of whether or not there is a god is unanswerable or more precisely, has no answer. Only well-formed questions have answers.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHMy atheism boils down to one word, "Nah."
A god is a supernatural supreme being with any imaginable set of other properties.
Atheism and Theism are lumped together on one side as they answer the ill-formed question, "Is there a god?" and so are both religions. Agnosticism is the extreme other side. Agnosticism is philosophy on religion. This is how I define the three.
Does your ism, however you define it, answer the ill-formed question?
Would you really equate 'Nah' as a religion?
Don't mean to sound disrespectful, but i think you have misunderstood both atheism and agnosticism.
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf nah is an unfounded belief about supernatural matters. What better definition of a religion than an unfounded belief about supernatural matters?
My atheism boils down to one word, "Nah."
Would you really equate 'Nah' as a religion?
Don't mean to sound disrespectful, but i think you have misunderstood both atheism and agnosticism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
If nah is an unfounded belief about supernatural matters. What better definition of a religion than an unfounded belief about supernatural matters?
Just as one example.
However, lack of belief, of belief in the lack, of gods is NOT an unfounded position.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHAtheists.
What about the: Believes there is no god or gods? What are they called?
EVERYONE who doesn't have a belief that a god or gods exist, is an atheist.
This includes those who lack a belief in gods, and those who believe in the lack of gods.
It's not that complicated.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHI don't think my 'nah' is unfounded or a belief, but rather a rejection of a belief that to me is unfounded. My 'nah' doesn't come with a replacement philosophy. Indeed, it frees me from religion.
If nah is an unfounded belief about supernatural matters. What better definition of a religion than an unfounded belief about supernatural matters?
16 Aug 15
Lack of belief in gods, is not the same as, belief in the lack of gods. Lack of belief in gods is not an answer to a question and so is not unfounded. Lack of belief in gods is quite Agnostic.
It isn't that complicated. "Does god exist?" is an ill-formed question. Any answers are then ill-formed answers. "Belief in the lack of gods" is an answer to an ill-formed question.
Why is "Does god exist?" an ill-formed question?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryH
Lack of belief in gods, is not the same as, belief in the lack of gods. Lack of belief in gods is not an answer to a question and so is not unfounded. Lack of belief in gods is quite Agnostic.
It isn't that complicated. "Does god exist?" is an ill-formed question. Any answers are then ill-formed answers. "Belief in the lack of gods" is an answer to an ill-formed question.
Why is "Does god exist?" an ill-formed question?
Lack of belief in gods, is not the same as, belief in the lack of gods
We know, this is also tautological.
Nobody here is claiming two different things are the same thing.
Lack of belief in gods is not an answer to a question and so is not unfounded.
Actually it IS an answer to a question, just not the question you irrationally insist upon.
It IS an answer to the question of "whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
If you hold such a position you reply "no, I lack a belief in gods".
There question asked and answered.
Lack of belief in gods is quite Agnostic
Only if you lack an understanding of what agnosticism is/means. Also what atheism, and theism means...
"Does god exist?" is an ill-formed question.
Quite possibly. However it's not the only question one can ask.
Any answers are then ill-formed answers.
WRONG. You can provide perfectly valid and cogent answers to ill formed questions.
"Belief in the lack of gods" is an answer to an ill-formed question.
It might be, it might not be, that will really depend on the atheist in question.
However it's certainly not necessarily true.
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you are saying that a being that is outside of the natural universe and beyond your examination does not exist, then this is unfounded. You can be free of religion by understanding that considering any of the supernatural is considering all of it.
I don't think my 'nah' is unfounded or a belief, but rather a rejection of a belief that to me is unfounded. My 'nah' doesn't come with a replacement philosophy. Indeed, it frees me from religion.