Still no answers to the questions. Just insults...as diversions...because you people know I am correct.

Sure...you use "ATHEIST" as a descriptor...but...

...you do not have a "belief" that there are no gods...

...and you do not have a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

You just use "ATHEIST' as a descriptor because they know it is a departure from the "I before e except after c." Or because the dictionary requires you to do so.

You actually have convinced yourselves that I am wrong...and you are telling the truth???

C'mon!

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink:

:up:

DingoJones
1.6k
↪180 Proof

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink: — DingoJones

Yup...you are both obsessed with me.

I get a kick out of it.

:lol:

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods. — Baden

Correct me if I am mistaken, but these do not seem to be equivalent. Not believing in god is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The latter entails the former, but not vice-versa.

I understand the colloquial term of atheism is nebulous and often just means "I doubt the existence of god." I live my life as if there were no god, because action requires decision, and also I just sort of feel like there is no god. I have a hunch, an inarticulate collection of considerations that influences how I view the world. Perhaps others have more than hunches, but I am not one of them.

When I participate in philosophy I try not to present my hunches. I try to be more precise and would call myself an agnostic, because while I can come up with reasons to doubt the existence of god, I can also present reasons to think god may exist. I do not think atheism is an appropriate term here, even though I do not have a belief in god.

Would you consider me an atheist?

I try to be more precise and would call myself an agnostic, because while I can come up with reasons to doubt the existence of god, I can also present reasons to think god may exist. I do not think atheism is an appropriate term here, even though I do not have a belief in god.

Would you consider me an atheist? — darthbarracuda

Define the "god" you're refering to, then share both grounds for believing and not believing. (Be sure to avoid conflating 'belief that' with 'belief in'.)

Would you consider me an atheist? — darthbarracuda

I certainly would not...and would, in fact, argue that YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST.

Ultimately, an atheist is someone who designates himself an "atheist."

Internet atheists argue that they designate themselves "atheists" simply because they lack a belief in any gods.

But it is obvious more is at play. EVERY person I know or have known of who uses atheist as a descriptor**...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

That is the real reason they use the descriptor.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. (I also lack a "belief" that no gods exist.)

**One guy here in the forum is trying to sell the idea that he designates himself to be an atheist...BUT he does not "believe" there are no gods...and he does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suspect that is bullshit. But...he may actually be an exception to the rule. Not sure why he would want to be known as an atheist if he truly feels that way...but...

Correct me if I am mistaken, but these do not seem to be equivalent. Not believing in god is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The latter entails the former, but not vice-versa. — darthbarracuda

@Frank Apisa

Precisely. This is why Atheism is not a belief that no no Gods exist. It isn’t a belief at all.

Precisely. This is why Atheism is not a belief that no no Gods exist. It isn’t a belief at all. — Pinprick

Sorry, P...but I disagree. STRONGLY.

Nobody uses the descriptor "atheist" unless the person has a "belief" that no gods exist...or the person has a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

"belief" is at the core of atheism.

You realize I am correct...right?

ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but not all people who lack a "belief" that any gods exist are atheists.

Imagine that there are only two types of fruit; apples and oranges. Someone holds up one of them and declares that it is an apple. I can deny that statement without making any affirmation in any way. I don’t have to then declare that it is actually an orange. This is Atheism. Agnosticism would deny that the object is neither an apple nor an orange. Theism affirms that it is an apple. Now, that being said, if I investigate the matter and then come to the conclusion that it is an orange, so be it, but doing so isn’t a necessary condition for denying that it is an apple. Following this analogy, my question is does Antitheism simply deny that the apple is not a specific type of apple? So that the Antitheist could still believe that the person is holding an apple, just a specific type (red delicious let’s say).

↪Frank Apisa Imagine that there are only two types of fruit; apples and oranges. Someone holds up one of them and declares that it is an apple. I can deny that statement without making any affirmation in any way. I don’t have to then declare that it is actually an orange. This is Atheism. Agnosticism would deny that the object is neither an apple nor an orange. Theism affirms that it is an apple. Now, that being said, if I investigate the matter and then come to the conclusion that it is an orange, so be it, but doing so isn’t a necessary condition for denying that it is an apple. Following this analogy, my question is does Antitheism simply deny that the apple is not a specific type of apple? So that the Antitheist could still believe that the person is holding an apple, just a specific type (red delicious let’s say). — Pinprick

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying there, P...but here is the operative point I am trying to make...and it has ONLY to do with why people use the descriptor "atheist":

I have never known of ANY person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" that there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suggest that either of those "beliefs" (please substitute the word "guesses" or "supposes" or "thinks" if the word "believes" bothers you)...

...one of those "beliefs" IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for anyone who wants to use "atheist" as a descriptor.

Are you of the opinion that there are a significant number of people who call themselves "atheists" who...

1) Do not "believe" that there are no gods

2) And who "believe " it is just as likely (or more likely) that there is at least one god than that there are none?

That would mean...

...the person lacks a "belief" that there is a GOD (at least one god)

...the person lacks a "belief" that there are NO gods

...and the person HAS a "belief" or supposition that it IS JUST AS LIKELY (or even more likely) that a GOD exists as that no gods exist...

...yet still wants to identify as an atheist?

That just does not make any sense for that to be the case.

Imagine that there are only two types of fruit; apples and oranges. Someone holds up one of them and declares that it is an apple. I can deny that statement without making any affirmation in any way. I don’t have to then declare that it is actually an orange. This is Atheism. — Pinprick

Okay - more or less.

Agnosticism would deny that the object is neither an apple nor an orange.

No. 'Agnosticism' either denies that it's known whether or not there's 'fruit' or 'which is an apple' and 'which is an orange' or, asserts, categorically, that either (or both) of these distinctions are unknowable.

Theism affirms that it is an apple.

Okay - more or less.

Now, that being said, if I investigate the matter and then come to the conclusion that it is an orange, so be it, but doing so isn’t a necessary condition for denying that it is an apple. Following this analogy, my question is does Antitheism simply deny that the apple is not a specific type of apple?

No. 'Antitheism', as I understand it, claims that "fruit" is a concept which lacks a referent - it's an empty name or untrue claim - and, therefore, by implication, also claims that so-called "apples" and "oranges" are merely fictional fruits.

So that the Antitheist could still believe that the person is holding an apple, just a specific type (red delicious let’s say).

No. She'd believe that whatever he's holding is "not fruit; therefore, not an apple".