ATHEISM Explained

Dream on.

Libertine: EVIDENCE, ETYMOLOGY, LINKS, etc.

Soulless: Ad Hominem, Appeal To Ignorance, Sophistry and host of other logical fallacies.

But, you have my "grand permission" to grant yourself a "victory", if that's what you call it. *lol*

Now, go have yourself a party...

 

Really now...believing in God, and NOT believing in God are categorically equivalent notions when they are compared. They use the same epistomological and referential structures. They only attain some 'difference' or 'separation' if additional and specific attributes are assigned to one or both of the objects 'pointed to', in the categorical sense.

It is important to remember, that ALL is simply hierarchies of 'self-referential' structures.......layer upon layer of notions, which, when individually are decomposed, become equivalent, arithmetically and by meaning, to their exact opposite, when they are defined using the next more general subspace representation.

Do not argue about whether there is a God or not. The argument is empty and not substantive when considering the notions at it's source.

If you want to argue about something, argue about the inherent paradox associated with duality and singularity...that is.....each one seems to require the other as a reference to establish its opposite.

 

Alright, I'll do what you cannot, due to your pride.
I admit my ignorance and that my entire argument was false and wrong, you are truly the epitomy of all that is logic and reason Libertine. And so I set you free. Though one must admit that is how it looked...

That sure looks to me like the lame excuses of one who knows they are defeated but wants not to admit it and so seeks a route of escape without losing face.

 

Libertine,

In reference to our volley on approximately page 9 of this thread which is copy/pasted following:

Libertine,

So, it appears, that you are saying the an atheistic view is your present view but that you are open to new evidence. I will add that evidence can, often, be illusive in the sense that it is necessary that an accumulation of evidence be collected and analyzed before new potential insights and or conclusions can be drawn. Compounding the difficulty, here, with the question at hand, is that one of the primary 'front-end' sensing instruments is the human/animal mind/body.

David

I think for any reasonable atheist the first view is a given, there was no need to express it. But what I am trying to approach, here, is about phenomena that is, most often, originally observed internal to the brain; meaning, for example, that some human 'spiritual' experiences are, potentially, a manifestation of energies originally recieved by abilities to sense that are not of the 'five senses' and are not easily shared "on demand" as is the phenomena that we can commonly agree upon as existing that is recieved via the 'five senses'; and, so, there is an inherent difficulty in collecting and sharing data. However, I will add, that with improvement in electronic-based sensing and associated technologies, such as medical, computer, data processing and communication technologies, that we will begin to substantiate validity to some of the human "intuitions" that have been expressed for thousands of years. And, if this comes to pass, I believe that we will see that significant portion of these "intuitions" are riddled with emotion-based distortions.

Peace,

David


.

 

You're right, I worded that wrong. My apologies.

What I meant to say was, they must refute it in order to have an atheistic opinion.

Except, your etymological definitions were not precise. My post had the most accurate and detailed logical and etymological definitions of what the word meant, based around the privative a's correct usage (which does NOT co-incide with your link's shallower exploration of the word's coming about), which would be "negative" or "opposite" rather than "not" or "without."

(laughs @ throwing darts at your photographs ... not because I'd do it, but because it's awesome that you said that)

Anyway, does this topic matter anymore? Why don't we all stop fighting and face the next truth:

That agnosticism is the way, not because atheism isn't, but because the whole damn thing is just irrelevant to our lives?

(laughs demonically) :X

 

..............dualing random number generators.........

 

There are no substantive differences between 'beliefs', so called 'facts', or even null set notions which purport to leave the questions as 'unanswered' or 'open'.

It is all the same.

 

Then why did you bother posting here?

Please don't tell me it was because you *believed* you could spare us some trouble ... since there is no difference between beliefs and null set notions.

 

Because understanding that all arguments eventually decompose into yes/no dielectic constructs is useful information. It reveals that all so called 'arguments of fact' which attempt to address or identify reduced form or nearly 'primordial' attributes quickly reach that realm of knowledge which has more to do with the nature and structure of consciouness than anything else.

When one tries to navigate that realm, one inevitably encounters polarized isotropic vectors..abstract entities, which send all but the most rigiorous logics into head spins..which lead nowhere...or worse....are 'not even wrong'.

 

Oh My God

this is the most entertaining thread i've seen in awhile


cheers fellas

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

I'll never surrender to the slavery of Agnosticism.

 

By slavery, I'm assuming you mean freedom? :H

(Just as "freedom" in America is actually slavery, they are in fact equal.)

 

http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/oddcouple.htm

Hardly. I fail to see evidence of the claim of "God", thus I remain unconvinced and "without god (or gods)".

If someone could even make theism more REASONABLE than atheism, I'd consider it.

As far as "knowledge" is concerned, I can't have any "knowledge" of something that I have no reason to believe exists in the first place. Or something that I can't even "comprehend".

That's like saying, "Can you prove Uhsadjhfak doesn't exist?" No, because I don't even know what the fuck it is and have no evidence of what you say it is.

However, if you tell me the definition is something self-contradictory, I am likely to make the reasonable assessment of not believing or even disregarding this as nonsense until I have a reason to believe otherwise.

 

Shit, I have a dictionary too...

agnostic - One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibilty that God exists. 2. Noncommital

atheism - 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; IMMORTALITY!

doctrine - 1. A principle or system presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious or philosophical group; dogma. 2. A rule or principle of law, esp. established by precedent. 3. A statement of government policy, esp. in foreign affairs and military strategy. 4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

its like the world subconsciously shoves religion in our faces
even if called myself atheist, i'd still willingly acknowledge the concept of a god
kind of in the same boat with antitheists
so i wouldnt go with that, i'll just go with realist first
why dont we all toke up and shun religion like we're supposed to

 

I agree with you.

Although the modern dictionary definition like Webster's New Twentieth Century (Unabridged), and the lexicographers describe Atheism as "The belief that there is no God." Worse yet, this brief line is then followed by a quote from Francis Bacon: "A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's mind to religion." And it gets worse. The same dictionary describes the Atheist as "one who believes that there is not God," and then quotes Young, saying "By night an atheist half believes a God." Real unbiased source, eh?

I'll take the etymology of the word over the "interpretation" of the modern dictionary theists anyday.

 

"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
[Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. [Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", p. 3.

The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. [Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.

 

But see, this is the thing.

If someone asks you "Do you believe in God," there are only three valid ways you can answer this question:

Yes (affirming your belief)

No (affirming your disbelief)
and
I don't know (suspending judgment)

If you answer either of the first two, you have a belief or disbelief (which is a belief against something). If you answer the last one, you are agnostic, as you have no beliefs or disbeliefs regarding the topic.

This is wrong though. Just as a person can know what a unicorn is without having a reason to believe that they exist, a person can likewise know what a deity is. You obviously do have knowledge of what a "god" is.

And that is ALSO not called atheism, that's called logical positivism; the idea that any talk of god is complete nonsense and can't even be responded to, the equivalent of asking "what colour is three?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

If so, why are you disregarding the use of the privative a? Please answer this question, as you haven't done so before.

Ugh, this source is ABSURD, and here's why:

Quote: "According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

Your source even SAYS OUTRIGHT that it is a NEGATIVE view, as in, OPPOSITE, not just "not" or "without," and in the SAME SENTENCE loses its train of thought and derivates from its original logic.

And this source is EXTREMELY misled.

In the ENGLISH language, the prefix "a-" can mean "without."

However, the word atheism is not derived from adding a to the word theism in English. It's derived from Greek adding a to the word theos.

There is a HUGE difference between the a- prefix in English (which is NOT an alpha privativum) and the a- prefix in Greek (alpha privativum).

EXACTLY. The original Greek prefix is not the same, and no matter how much you or this author WANTS it to mean the same as the English, it does not. Those words, amoral, atypical, and asymmetrical, are NOT Greek-derived words with a privative a.

 

Remarkable!

You have dismissed five different expert sources and the link I provided by American Athiests in order to have it your way.

Regardless, I have provided what I need to sustain my point. Although, there may be more sources and even more "slippery words" out there, you are correct in one way, but not in the other. I am correct in my viewpoint. Here's yet another source: this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm : DEFINING ATHEISM IT SAYS:

"The technical problems of defining "atheism" may be divided into two categories: (1) etymological and (2) epistemological. (For the purpose of this discussion, I shall accept the common definition of "theism" as "belief in a god or gods.")

1. It is sometimes claimed that the chief etymological problem in defining "atheism" is how to construe the prefix "a." Should we regard it as a term of privation meaning "without," or should we regard it as a term of negation meaning "no"?

If we choose the privative meaning of "without," then "a-theism" will mean "without-theism" -- i.e., "without (or lacking) belief in a god or gods." This clearly supports the definition of atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

What if we construe the prefix "a" negatively to mean "no"? This has been preferred by those who wish to define atheism as the outright denial of God's existence. But consider: even the negative sense of "a" doesn't, by itself, give us this definition. "A-theism," with the negative "a," translates into "no-belief in a god or gods." Here again, we have an essentially privative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

Atheism as outright denial can be achieved only if the negative "a" is used, not to qualify the entire meaning of "theism," but only part of it -- i.e., "a-theism" means "belief in no god or gods." In this interpretation, atheism is construed, not as the absence of a belief, but as a particular kind of belief.

The case for atheism as a kind of belief -- the belief in the nonexistence of God -- was championed by no less a figure than J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought. Robertson argued that any "ism," including atheism, implies that we are dealing with a positive belief or doctrine, not a simple privation. Contrary to Robertson's view, "-ism" can mean something other than a doctrine or belief; it can mean "a state or condition" as well. Thus, the privative definition of atheism is still possible. Atheism as the absence of belief can denote an "ism" -- a state of mind in which theistic belief is absent."

Say, how many years did you take of the Greek language? Because I took three years of it (and Hebrew), but I am using other sources here so that you don't have to "take my word for it".

Dr. William Ramsey (Greek scholar and archaeologist): "The "alpha privative" is a prefix negation "away". It means "not", "without", or "lacking".

Of course, it is a negative (I never denied that), but obviously, as you can see here it is in the sense of "not"-- prefix of negation, O.E. un-, from P.Gmc. *un- (cf. O.Fris., O.H.G., Ger. un-, Goth. un-, Du. on-), from PIE *n- (cf. Skt. a-, an- "not," Gk. a-, an-, O.Ir. an-, L. in-), a variant of PIE base *ne- "not" (cf. Avestan na, O.C.S., Lith. ne "not," L. ne "that not," Gk. ne- "not," O.Ir. ni, Corn. ny "not").

According to the thesaurus, "away" in the same context as "not" finds one with these two words: "lacking" and "without". How about that!

Surely, you will concede now that, at the least, both of us have been correct. This way you don't have to be wrong at anytime (except for claiming that I was wrong the whole time). And I am certain that will make you feel a little better.

But, alas...I suppose you'll try to worm your way out of this one as well instead of admit anything of "wrongness" in even the smallest degree. You remind me a lot of the way I was at your age.

 

simply, i feel religion is based more out of spirituality derived from philosophy n vice versa instead of spirituality alone. so i think the whole idea is crazy aside any scientific circumstances. and i find spirituality to be a person's own interpretation of everything they've come to know associated with spirit itself