By people who believe in another religion. 9/11 and the recent mosque/synagogue shooting were NOT done by atheists.
That’s for the person making the claim to do
OK, so am I
OK, so am I, but depending on whether you believe in the god as defined you must be either an atheist agnostic (if you don’t have a belief) or a theist agnostic (if you do).
The “agnostic” element is in *addition *to the “theist” or “atheist” position and yes, it would very much depend on what evidence is put forward and how the god is defined.
And who mad ethe game?
And if you just “believe” in the big bang, then you are taking it on as much faith as a theist.
the difference is, is that the fundamentals behind how the universe came into being and led to us are things that can be studied and understood with empirical evidence, not something that can be said about god.
If you want to understand how nothing creates something, then take a whole bunch of high level math and physics.
If you want to understand how god made the universe, just believe.
Yeah, except I don’t blame the universe, I blame stupid, selfish, greedy pieces of crap that most people are.
No. The ground state is neither having nor not having a belief. You can’t not have a belief in something you don’t even know you should have an opinion on. That’s not “not having a belief”, that’s ignorance. Not the same thing. Or you really do then end up with such obviously ridiculous statements as “Rocks don’t have a belief in God”. Having belief or not having belief are both active positions in relation to propositions. Once again, neither is the ground state.
Note I’m not saying “not have a belief” is the same as “have a belief not”. Agnostics can also be said to “not have a belief”, while not “having a belief not”. But noncognitivists don’t fit in either of those camps.
Huh?
Maybe we’d better start by having you define what you think the words mean.
If you do believe in the god, you’re neither an atheist nor an agnostic; you’re a theist.
An agnostic is saying they don’t know. It’s not an addition to the theist or atheist position; it’s a third position.
I am saying that for some definitions of ‘god’, I don’t see any logical way that sort of god can exist, so to the extent I can be sure of anything I’m sure no such god exists. For other definitions, I don’t know whether that type of god exists or not. I’m not a theist about any of them.
To answer the original question: I don’t find my worldview(of which being an atheist is a very small part) to be depressing. What depresses me is some religionists misconceptions and beliefs about what they think that worldview is, and what they do and/or say in response to these misconceptions.
I will accept your mea culpa in the spirit in which I expect it was offered. I will suggest that some of your ongoing problems parsing things I’ve posted may be due to you approaching certain subject matter with a simplistic assumption, and therefore not being geared towards complex theoretical elaborations. That still leaves room for some of it to be due to me not writing things as clearly as someone else might have done.
common usage is that “atheist” is one who disbelieves or lacks belief in a god. “agnostic” is one who thinks that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of god. So you see that atheism/theism is about belief, agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge. Agnosticism is commonly used to mean “I don’t know” as well.
You can be a theist and an agnostic.
You can use it like that if you want but you haven’t said what the state of your belief is for a god. Do you believe or not? If it is “I don’t know” then you don’t believe.
then you would be an atheist in respect of that god and in fact probably a gnostic atheist.
and being ignorant of a concept means, practically, that you do not hold a belief in it. It is ignorance and an absence of belief.
Maybe it is the word “belief” that bothers you.
If I write down, clearly, a complicated sum or equation, you can read it but don’t understand it, and tell you the answer is 7 woudl you agree with me that it is true?
If I scribble down an unintelligible sum, show you it, tell you that the answer is 7 and ask you if you think that is true, what would you say?
If I do the same and don’t even write it down but hold it in my head and ask you the same question, what would you say?
If I imagine it and don’t even tell you the answer and ask you if it is true, what would you say?
There is no answer you can give to any of those questions and no position you can take that puts you outside of either agreeing with me that it is true, or not.
Um, sort of?
I mean, I like the idea of an afterlife, but if there’s any type of eternal torment as a possible outcome, no way. Rather go to oblivion.
Disbelief in their god doesn’t make one a positive atheist - you have to claim to know the nonexistence of all gods. I’m with you on the anger part, but that has nothing to do with whether one is a positive atheist either.
To be a positive atheist you have to claim you know that Russell’s tea pot is not in orbit around Saturn. I don’t think many college students, when pressed, will make that or a similar claim about god.
I sometimes think that, if gods there be, they don’t sit around wondering why the world they made for us isn’t enough. We have to sit around and create magical sky pixies and worship them.
Say I tell you about the god of a planet 100 million light years from us. I don’t give any evidence it exists, I may be writing an sf story.
I’m sure you don’t believe in that god. That would be silly.
I’m pretty sure that you’d say that you don’t have a belief that this god does not exist, since that would be almost as silly given the lack of evidence.
You can say, as I would, that you lack belief in this god. Which makes you an atheist with respect to this god. Assuming you are using the standard definition of atheism as used by atheists.
I’ve read philosophy with the definition you give. It is mostly written by theists, who atheism less robustly in order to rebut it, their proofs of the existence of gods not having worked out very well. It is not as bad as “positive atheist” but still a strawman.
Here is a sentence from the Stanford cite
Which isn’t even a good definition of theism. Many theists do not claim to know for certain god exists, but believe based on faith. By this definition they are not really theists.
Later on in the article the author gives the definition of atheism we’ve been using, but rejects it.
First, one can certainly create a proposition around whether a lack of belief is justified. But even if the author is correct the fact that strong atheism is a subset of atheism in general does not mean that it doesn’t include propositions based on its definition, and so the claim that the general definition of atheism excludes strong atheism is nonsense.
No, but lashing out and telling others that their god doesn’t exist is a positive atheist.
Not many college students, no, but college students is where you will find the vast bulk of your positive atheists. Nearly everyone I’ve ever met that claimed that they were certain that there was no god was in the age group.
They do not make a good or even coherent claim, but they will try.
I think that Russel’s teapot is as much for atheists to realize the limitations of their claims as it is to explain to theists why we cannot disprove what we do not believe in.
Once again: No, it isn’t.
The way you’re using it, yes. I’m using it in the “opinion on the truth value of a proposition” sense,
No, why would I? You’ve presented insufficient evidence for me to take your word. I have no opinion on its truth value - I am agnostic.
If I know you’re a maths prof, my opinion would probably change. But that’s more evidence than you’ve presented.
That it looks like gibberish, and it’s pointless to even have the conversation.
That the conversation got even more pointless…
…and even more so.
Nope. Only in one scenario am I even expressing an opinion on the truth value. In the other three, I’m expressing an opinion on the coherency of your proposition, not the truth value of the proposition itself.
You really don’t seem to understand what incoherence implies when talking about truth values of propositions. It’s as meaningless as asking what happens before the Universe exists…
OK, if there isn’t an absence of belief, there must be belief. Where is it?
I’ve readily admitted to being atheistic about silly gods.
None of the leading lights of theological noncognitivism and ignosticism are/were theists. Sherwin Wine was a secular Jew, Michael Martin and George H. Smith all some flavour of non-theist, Theodore Drange and A.J.Ayer actively rejected being labelled as either atheists or agnostics, the former explicitly preferring theological noncognitivist.
This argument smacks of some logical fallacy, I’m just not certain what to call it…
Modal and multi-valued logics just don’t exist in your world, do they? No, there doesn’t have to be a belief or an absence. I’ve already outlined 2 other possible states.