By definition. If you asign any non-trival meaning to the term ‘gods’ then the phrase “there are no gods” is true.
If you assign the meaning ‘cows’ to ‘gods’ (as many people do) then I grant you that the phrase “there are no gods” is false.
If you assign the meaning ‘a real entity which has no characteristics other than we don’t know anything about it’ to the phrase ‘there are no gods’ (as many people seem to do on the SDMB remarkably frequently) then the phrase is also false. I struggle to care in that case.
And I suggest you look in any dictionary and see how it is currently defined. Seizing upon an archaic definition is just a cheap trick.
wiki (just for the hell of it)
Well, as you’re a fellow atheist and you’re trying to tell me I’m wrong, I guess that already happened. Of course, you’re still wrong, but ah well. This is what I meant about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, it generally helps to have a general understanding of what you’re talking about before you find a tidbit and declare victory.
The etymology is actually very simple.
[
](Atheism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
You want an etymological dictionary in specific (although of course you don’t cite one), okay…
[
](atheist | Etymology, origin and meaning of atheist by etymonline)
Gee, fancy that, you’re still wrong.
Actually, it was derived exactly as I correct stated. Ya big atheist.
In other words, you have no way to refute the point being made, so you try to make it go away by acting dismissive.
From an epistemological perspective, WHY are invisible pink bunnies different from God? What justification do you have for treating them differently? Consider these two statements:
“Invisible pink bunnies exist.”
“God exists.”
Both of these statements make ontological claims. These ontological claims may be true or false. As an agnostic, you’re unwilling to assign a truth value to the second statement. But you seem to have no trouble at all assigning a truth value to the first. What justification do you have for making that distinction?
One of the appealing features of atheism is that allows for the application of the same epistemological standard to all hypotheticals.
Present theistic evidence that would lead to such a conclusion.
I see. We’re discussing the possible existence of “blank” where blank, an ethereal concept with no distinguishing characteristics, can be said to exist or not. And further, whether it qualifies as a “god.”
And this exercise in futility, if indulged in, gets us exactly where?
[ul]
[li]What is “Reality of Existence” and how does it pertain to this discussion?[/li][li]Define these “gods” that may exist beyond a mere intellectual concept. [/li][li]What particular knowledge, as pertains to this topic, eludes some of us?[/li][li]Name names. IOW, who are these individuals who posses knowledge beyond your grasp.[/li][/ul]
Nope. You’re going to run into the same problem pretty much everywhere the term is used.
There it is yet again. A claim of certain knowledge about the impossibility of gaining certain knowledge.
So how can you possibly know you’re right in making it if you’re also saying it is impossible to reach said conclusion?
Huxley, you have a problem.
I am not the one with the problem…
Really?, because every thread I’ve been in (and I haven’t been in threads for a while) people don’t agree with my definition of God either. Atheists on this board want to define God with the attributes Christians tend to give him. Not those of someone who is Shamastic, Deist or Animist or even someone who is polytheistic.
This thread has the comedic potential to come somewhat close to the recent Mister Obvious thread, although I don’t think it can really challenge that one. I do wonder, of course, if Frank’s method can be exported to other silly bits of memetic wrangling.
I didn’t say most people agree with your definition of God. I said, “We usually have no trouble discussing religion and belief on these boards because of the word “God.”” That is true. We know people have belief in different gods and it’s almost never difficult to discuss religion, specific religions, theism, etc. because of the word. The same can’t be said when there’s a discussion of agnosticism. It’s difficult to know what one means when he says he’s an agnostic because of reasons I already brought up, such as different definitions and then casual and strict definitions of what it means to know’ something.
I don’t recall atheists wanting to do any such thing. It’s true when talking to religious people on this board, we’re usually talking about the Christian/Judaic/Islamic type God, especially when the ‘g’ is capitalized. If not, the person that brought the a god that is shamanistic. polytheistic, etc. usually won’t capitalize it and there’s no confusion.
Well, I haven’t been involved in God discussions here lately, because the lack of acknowledgment of god as a concept other than the omnipotent omnipresent personified God was severely lacking…but that would be before your join date. Most of the discussions around here back then were waylaid by atheist patting themselves on the back for the lack of foolish belief. Not being remotely Judeo-Christian in belief (although culturally I’m certainly Christian), they didn’t apply to me.
If you say so.
Here’s about 3,700 gods I certainly don’t believe in:
Welcome to Godchecker - your Guide to the Gods
I am now going to ask Frank apisa to present some that aren’t on that list that I should consider and why.
Thanks in advance.
So let me get this straight. Some people believe in a Judeo-Christian god whose existence is unknowable. But you reject the belief that that god is unknowable, to instead be not sure if you don’t believe in another form of god which is also unknowable.
Well, that’s a bold statement. And an incorrect one, I would submit. By now, we know enough to say without reservation that God ain’t.
But back to the OP proper, I find it amazing we’ve gone 3 pages now.
It’s pretty simple, really.
If, like me, you understand that there is no God or gods, then you are an atheist, but not agnostic.
If you think God might be real, but you don’t know, then you’re an agnostic, but not an atheist.
And if you’re of the opinion that it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists, but you don’t happen to hold any belief in God (perhaps you just never think about it) then I reckon you’re both.
I don’t understand what all the dust-up is about here.
The problem with trying to define atheism as a simple lack of belief is that belief doesn’t work that way.
A binary 100% vs 0% belief system is only useful for talking about purely logical systems.
In reality, you may accept something or act as though something is true temporarily, because it is the best you have at the time, while being open to the possibility that it will later need to be clarified or changed completely. Other than your own existence in some form, there is nothing that can reach 100% certainty.
One may believe that god is the best explanation currently available for phenomenon they have experienced, while being open to the possibility that a better explanation may come along. Or one may believe that god only has a 25% chance of existing, but still pray in the hopes that he does.
“Lack of belief” is not even a well defined idea when applied to god.
I think the problem comes when atheists are told that there is something unique about the God hypothesis that makes it necessary to accept the premise that it might, just, possibly be true, when that same criterion is not applied to the infinite number of other things that may or may not exist.
I’m confused. Why is “lack of belief” not a well defined idea when applied to god? What is it about the god hypothesis vs the hypothesis that aliens have visited the earth, or that apples might fall up tomorrow, or that someone comes into my house every night and replaces all my things with identical things?
It does not make sense until you explain what belief system you are using.
In the context of a binary belief system it does not make sense.
In the context of some other belief system, it may well make sense.
Indeed, under a certain graded belief system you might define an atheist as someone to whom the question of whether god exists is no different than the question of whether apples will fall up tomorrow. “Lack of belief” makes sense there.
But then, someone to whom the god hypothesis did seem fundamentally different would not qualify as an atheist, even if they were far from certain god existed.
Yes, this, precisely. It is not considered unreasonable to say “Santa Claus does not really exist,” but somehow “God does not really exist” is different. As far as I can tell, this is because very few adults have an emotional investment in believing in Santa Claus; but of course this doesn’t speak to any quality of the hypothesis itself.
But I think it’s mainly that emotional and social reality that creates the vague and wishy-washy middle ground that some people call agnosticism. Every sensible person will admit that, in an absolute sense, it is possible for the things they know or believe to turn out to be incorrect or imperfect. It’s just that with an emotionally-charged subject like the existence of a god or gods, some people feel more pressure to emphasize that possibility.