Happy Atheist Forum

Community => Life As An Atheist => Topic started by: Bubblepot on January 01, 2011, 12:51:05 PM

Title: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 01, 2011, 12:51:05 PM
I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own. I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here. Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism", which is itself another philosophy; one philosophy opposes another philosophy, and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end. But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Asmodean on January 01, 2011, 12:53:14 PM
Here is my view of atheism:

I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 01, 2011, 12:57:09 PM
Mmm.... well, if you say so. :)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tom62 on January 01, 2011, 02:15:03 PM
Quote from: "Asmodean"Here is my view of atheism:

I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.
:headbang: Yeah!!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 01, 2011, 02:16:36 PM
Allah does not exist, therefore I am an atheist. The end.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: The Magic Pudding on January 01, 2011, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Asmodean on January 01, 2011, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"What do you call an ex unbelief?
It's like in the Periodic Table of Elements. Just add un-s  :pop:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 01, 2011, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "Bubblepot"all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?

I never said unbeliefs come to an end, only philosophies.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 01, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "Bubblepot"all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?

I never said unbeliefs come to an end, only philosophies.
You wrote 'all philosophies'. An assertion for which you have no evidence, and for which you never can have evidence because you would have to be immortal and omniscient to obtain said evidence.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: The Magic Pudding on January 01, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here.

I think my atheism is an unbelief, anyway I wish you well with your questioning Bubblepot.  :)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 01, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I think my atheism is an unbelief, anyway I wish you well with your questioning Bubblepot.  :)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Whitney on January 01, 2011, 04:22:38 PM
atheist is not a philosophy..it does not provide a framework for understanding the world around us. (secular humanism, free-throught etc are atheistic philosophies)

Atheist is simply someone who does not have a belief in gods/deities.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 01, 2011, 04:31:23 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own.

Excellent. Then I hope you are actually open to other points of view. Let's begin:

QuoteI'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy;

I doubt that, since most of the members here are fully aware that atheism is merely the absence of a single class of belief. In that light, it cannot be a philosophy.

Quoteand as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here.

Then let's do so. What particular aspect of not accepting the truth claims of others with regard to the existence of deities would you like to dwell upon? The not believing in deities aspect, or the not believing in deities aspect?

QuoteAtheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism",

Except that it isn't the opposite of theism, merely the absence of it. The opposite would be a categorical claim in itself, and such categorical claims are generally embraced only by those whose faculties for critical thinking are under-developed. Atheism in its rigorous formulation neither erects nor supports any categorical claims of its own, it simply rejects the unsupported claims of others with regard to the existence of a deity.

Quotewhich is itself another philosophy;

Actually, theism is not philosophy. It doesn't contain, nor does it seek, any knowledge, which is what philosophy is. Indeed, it is the antithesis of philosophy, as it categorically rejects the search for knowledge, not least because it thinks it already has the answers. The nearest that theism gets to philosophy is its worthless apologetics, which is not philosophy, although it likes to think it is, and uses some of the same language. This is not philosophy, though, it's theology, and it is about as much use as a fishnet condom.

Quoteone philosophy opposes another philosophy,

Which demonstrates why it isn't philosophy. Philosophy is the search for knowledge, and it can never oppose itself. Adherents to particular schools of thought can certainly oppose each other, but if they're as dogmatic about it as theism is, then it isn't philosophy, because true philosophy must embrace all schools of thought. Interestingly, the one school of thought that most philosophers oppose, in my experience, is the one school of thought that has actually provided concrete results in terms of our understanding of reality, namely empiricism.

 
Quoteand the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Then they aren't engaged in philosophy, but apologetics. When your entire philosophical scope is wasted in supporting a particular worldview, you aren't doing philosophy, because you aren't seeking knowledge about the world. And when you do not alter your position when it is not in accord with what reality is telling us, your philosophy is rotten.

Oh, and your assessment of that Buddhist proverb as 'wise' is, in my opinion, wide of the mark.

QuoteBut if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.

There is only one'philosophy, as I think I've made reasonably clear. As for schools of thought, there is one that is demonstrably superior to all others, because it has provided real and tangible results, and it has done so through a very simple but very powerful principle: That all ideas must be measured against what reality is telling us. That all ideas must be, in principle, open to being falsified. Any idea that is not testable and falsifiable constitutes no more than a rectally extracted blind assertion and, as such, it is worthless in the realm of ideas.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Whitney on January 01, 2011, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"o dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against

just noting that I'm obviously not going to use mod powers to enforce this requirement nor will I be following it...we all know everyone is going to want to debate and just stating opinions isn't really that helpful for truly understanding something.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 01, 2011, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"Right, so we have philosophies of both belief and unbelief;

No. It could be argued that both belief and unbelief can stem from philosophy, but to suggest that they are philosophies is to commit a category error. Philosophy is a great tool for teaching one how to think, but when you allow it to teach you what to think, you're doing it wrong. If your belief actually stems from philosophy, then you've run too far with it. More importantly, though, and as stated in my previous post, if you are employing philosophy as justification for a belief, then you're not just doing philosophy wrong, you're not doing philosophy at all, you're doing theology, or where the belief in question does not involve a deity, apologetics (which is all theology really is anyway).

Quotebut none are particularly more special

Certainly not, although many believers really do think they're special, which is the core of the belief in a lot of cases.

Quoteor interesting

I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that belief is incredibly interesting. Unbelief is not, becaus it's merely the default position with regard to any given truth claim. Belief, though, that is interesting. What is particularly interesting is how people cling to such a useless construct as belief (and I mean any belief, not just those that involve a deity). Where we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, it is entirely without utility, and it really does fascinate me that people think it has value.

Quoteor right than the next.

'Right' is the wrong term. Non-belief in the face of absolutely no evidence whatsoever is certainly more correct, from the perspective of the aforementioned school of thought that is the only one that has ever been demonstrated to actually work. This is precisely why it isn't interesting, and why belief is more interesting.

QuoteAnd thanks :)

And you're welcome.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 01, 2011, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: "Asmodean"Here is my view of atheism:

I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.

^ This, there is no philosophy behind atheism, when it comes to claims that define our reality, existence, etc i'm an empiricst, i'm an atheist simply because no one has produced a modicum of empirical data that proves a higher being is real and our creator. Didn't take a long philosophical self reflection to determine an atheist, I simply followed like 15 seconds of logic and came to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 01, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
I am an atheist, a weak atheist.
My philosophy is that of empirical evidence. Show me proof and I will tell you it is fact. I am open to unproven theories, they are the root of progressive thinking, but they must be backed up by empirical evidence to become anything more than just an interesting thought.

However my philosophy does not apply to all atheists. Strong atheists do not require empirical evidence.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Heretical Rants on January 01, 2011, 10:15:41 PM
There are many different philosophies that lead to atheism.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 02, 2011, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: "Tank"You wrote 'all philosophies'. An assertion for which you have no evidence, and for which you never can have evidence because you would have to be immortal and omniscient to obtain said evidence.
This demonstrates a lack of intelligence of what's actually being said on your part. I merely quoted a Buddhist proverb.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Excellent. Then I hope you are actually open to other points of view. Let's begin:
So long as you can prove to me that you're worth my time by making rationalistic discussion, yes.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I doubt that, since most of the members here are fully aware that atheism is merely the absence of a single class of belief. In that light, it cannot be a philosophy.
Are you speaking on behalf of other members of this forum?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Then let's do so. What particular aspect of not accepting the truth claims of others with regard to the existence of deities would you like to dwell upon? The not believing in deities aspect, or the not believing in deities aspect?
Both of those, and many others, as there are more characteristics that embody the philosophy of atheism than these two that you mentioned. However, this discussion isn't just limited to my own dwelling-upons; everyone is free to do so, as I said in my opening post. This is a discussion where all are welcome.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Except that it isn't the opposite of theism, merely the absence of it. The opposite would be a categorical claim in itself, and such categorical claims are generally embraced only by those whose faculties for critical thinking are under-developed. Atheism in its rigorous formulation neither erects nor supports any categorical claims of its own, it simply rejects the unsupported claims of others with regard to the existence of a deity.
The word atheism is short for "anti-theism"; and despite this very simplistic definition, you say atheism is *not* the opposite of theism? Does it support it then?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Actually, theism is not philosophy. It doesn't contain, nor does it seek, any knowledge, which is what philosophy is. Indeed, it is the antithesis of philosophy, as it categorically rejects the search for knowledge, not least because it thinks it already has the answers. The nearest that theism gets to philosophy is its worthless apologetics, which is not philosophy, although it likes to think it is, and uses some of the same language. This is not philosophy, though, it's theology, and it is about as much use as a fishnet condom.
And since atheism is the opposite of this, you're implying that atheism, on the other hand, is the ultimate seeker of knowledge; that atheists are the most knowledgeable and intellectual people in the world. And since atheism is the opposite of theism, and theism is the opposite of philosophy, then atheism is synonymous with Philosophy. So what you're really saying here (though I'm not sure if you yourself actually realize the implications of your words when they're looked at from a skeptical viewpoint) is that atheism is not merely *a* philosophy, it *is* philosophy. I'm sorry but I disagree with you there. Atheism is not the "one and true way" as you, being atheist, might like to believe. It is merely one of many belief systems; one of many philosophies. It is no more superior to any other philosophy than the dung of a cow might be to that of goat.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Which demonstrates why it isn't philosophy. Philosophy is the search for knowledge, and it can never oppose itself. Adherents to particular schools of thought can certainly oppose each other,
This is a contradiction. You're saying that philosophy cannot oppose itself, yet different philosophers can oppose each other. So am I to believe that there are to different kinds of philosophy opposing each other, both under some greater philosophy that doesn't go back on itself? Would that philosophy be your atheism, as you keep implying?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Then they aren't engaged in philosophy, but apologetics.
So atheism and apologetics are synonymous?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Oh, and your assessment of that Buddhist proverb as 'wise' is, in my opinion, wide of the mark.
What mark?

Quote from: "hackenslash"There is only one'philosophy, as I think I've made reasonably clear.
That being atheism, I presume.

Quote from: "hackenslash"As for schools of thought, there is one that is demonstrably superior to all others, because it has provided real and tangible results, and it has done so through a very simple but very powerful principle: That all ideas must be measured against what reality is telling us. That all ideas must be, in principle, open to being falsified. Any idea that is not testable and falsifiable constitutes no more than a rectally extracted blind assertion and, as such, it is worthless in the realm of ideas.
Are you talking about apologetics here?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: "Asmodean"I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.
It's not the end, it's not even the beginning of the end.  But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.*  

Quote from: "Tank"Allah does not exist, therefore I am an atheist. The end.
Allah is a god isn't he?  Why narrow it down?  (For effect, I know.  But why - really?)

Quote from: "Whitney"Atheist is simply someone who does not have a belief in gods/deities.
With respect, 'simply' is a bit of an over-simplification.  It's not quite as simple as that really.  Someone who denies the existence of god is also an atheist, and can legitimately object to being categorised 'simply' as someone who does not have a belief in gods/deities.  One is an absence of belief, the other is a belief.  The distinction is important, and not very simple.

Quote from: "hackenslash"What is particularly interesting is how people cling to such a useless construct as belief (and I mean any belief, not just those that involve a deity). Where we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, it is entirely without utility, and it really does fascinate me that people think it has value.
Why did you believe you needed to use the word 'cling'?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"there is no philosophy behind atheism, when it comes to claims that define our reality, existence, etc i'm an empiricst, i'm an atheist simply because no one has produced a modicum of empirical data that proves a higher being is real and our creator. Didn't take a long philosophical self reflection to determine an atheist, I simply followed like 15 seconds of logic and came to that conclusion.
Through what philosophy did you decide on empiricism as the best approach?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism", which is itself another philosophy; one philosophy opposes another philosophy, and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end. But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
I don't see atheism as the opposite of theism, nor its counterpart.  The word atheism wasn't invented by sticking the a- prefix on the front of theism.  I know that the etymology of a word doesn't necessarily determine its meaning for people, but it's fairly important to me that athe-ism is a derivition of atheo in greek.  The -ism has only been added in english, therefore much later on, and athe-ism is to me the set of ideas around the proposition that god is not.  I don't even think that the concept of belief is an essential component of atheism.   When I use the term atheism about myself, I mean I 'take the stance that', 'assert that', 'take as a starting point that' there aren't any gods at all.  But I usually try to take trouble to explain the individual words I'm using each time, not mistake the words themselves as stores of a point of principle, I tend to find when people do that that the underlying motive is to force the conversation to a rigid set of conclusions, a process I tend to think kills off conversation.

*Quote: (Churchill, 1942 - talking about something else)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 02, 2011, 04:55:31 PM
And these responses, Existentialist, show more intelligence than other responses I've seen so far, on this thread and others.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 02, 2011, 05:54:53 PM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"So long as you can prove to me that you're worth my time by making rationalistic discussion, yes.

That's a two-way street, and thus far all the traffic has been in one direction only.

QuoteAre you speaking on behalf of other members of this forum?

I am repeating what they themselves have said on previous occasions, so I think I am in a reasonable position to speak for other members of the forum on this point, yes.

QuoteBoth of those, and many others, as there are more characteristics that embody the philosophy of atheism than these two that you mentioned. However, this discussion isn't just limited to my own dwelling-upons; everyone is free to do so, as I said in my opening post. This is a discussion where all are welcome.

There is no philosophy of atheism. There are many philosophical positions regarding atheism, but none of them are essential to atheism itself, which is merely the absence of bleief in deities.

QuoteThe word atheism is short for "anti-theism";

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Anti-theism is a distinct position in itself, and has nothing to do with belief in a deity. Atheism isn't short for anything, and its etymology is well-understood. It stems from the greek a (without) theos (god), and simply means 'without god'.

Quoteand despite this very simplistic definition, you say atheism is *not* the opposite of theism? Does it support it then?

The opposite of theism would be a categorical belief in the non-existence of deities. That is more than is necessary and sufficient for atheism. It would certainly be described as atheism, but it carries characteristics that are extraneous to that which is sufficient and necessary.

QuoteAnd since atheism is the opposite of this,

It does you no good to reassert this point as if it's uncontroversial while it is actually under challenge. You have not yet established this, merely asserted it. You have also been given clear reasons why this assertion doesn't hold water.

Quoteyou're implying that atheism, on the other hand, is the ultimate seeker of knowledge;

I imply no such thing. I am categorically stating that atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Anything you add to that is a strawman of my position, and constitutes dishonest discourse. Please continue, if you wish your tenure here to be brief.

Quotethat atheists are the most knowledgeable and intellectual people in the world.

I never implied that either. Perhaps you would be better off starting your own forum, where you can argue with yourself to your heart's content, since you aren't erecting any useful arguments against the position of anybody responding to you here.

QuoteAnd since atheism is the opposite of theism,

It isn't.

Quoteand theism is the opposite of philosophy,

Err, who said that? If you got that from my post, then perhaps I should be offering you some remedial English lessons, because only with very poor reading comprehension could you infer that from anything I have written here.

Quotethen atheism is synonymous with Philosophy.

No, it isn't synonymous with anything, except the absence of belief in a deity.

QuoteSo what you're really saying here (though I'm not sure if you yourself actually realize the implications of your words when they're looked at from a skeptical viewpoint) is that atheism is not merely *a* philosophy, it *is* philosophy. I'm sorry but I disagree with you there. Atheism is not the "one and true way" as you, being atheist, might like to believe. It is merely one of many belief systems; one of many philosophies. It is no more superior to any other philosophy than the dung of a cow might be to that of goat.

I never asserted any of that, nor inferred it. You still seem to be arguing against yourself. Let us know how that works out.

QuoteThis is a contradiction. You're saying that philosophy cannot oppose itself, yet different philosophers can oppose each other. So am I to believe that there are to different kinds of philosophy opposing each other, both under some greater philosophy that doesn't go back on itself? Would that philosophy be your atheism, as you keep implying?

Would you like to try reading that again, or would you rather just continue arguing with yourself? I never implied any such thing.

QuoteSo atheism and apologetics are synonymous?

No, theology and apologetics are.

QuoteWhat mark?

Wow, do you need lessons in vernacular English as well? It's a figure of speech.

QuoteThat being atheism, I presume.

No, that being the search for truth.

QuoteAre you talking about apologetics here?

Very good. Why do I get the feeling you're possibly one of my many stalkers? Is that you, Armageddo?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 02, 2011, 05:57:27 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Why did you believe you needed to use the word 'cling'?

There was no belief or need involved, it simply seemed an appropriate word to employ at the time.

QuoteThrough what philosophy did you decide on empiricism as the best approach?

Not through any particular philosophy, merely by understanding the simple principle that it works, while others only wibble.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Asmodean on January 02, 2011, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Asmodean"I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.
It's not the end, it's not even the beginning of the end.  But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.*
Wrong. My view of atheism as a "philosophy" does, actually, end completely with the lack of belief in gods.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Are you speaking on behalf of other members of this forum?
In what he said, he speaks at least for one other here.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 06:47:37 PM
Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"Why did you believe you needed to use the word 'cling'?
There was no belief or need involved, it simply seemed an appropriate word to employ at the time.
It 'seems' to me that you have found a good device there by which you need never again say you believe anything - a synonym, seemingly!

Quote from: "hackensash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"Through what philosophy did you decide on empiricism as the best approach?
Not through any particular philosophy, merely by understanding the simple principle that it works, while others only wibble.
I believe you... oops, sorry, I mean it 'seems' to me you are genuine in your statement: you did not employ anything containing any philosophical process to arrive at the decision that empiricism was the best approach.  I wonder if it 'seems' to you that I am being genuine when I say this.  I admit, you might believe that I am not telling the truth.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 02, 2011, 08:13:45 PM
Existentalist, I don't know what philosophy that could be, if any at all. I simply thought about it, found there was no evidence therefore it's likely BS, simple as that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 08:21:19 PM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Existentalist, I don't know what philosophy that could be, if any at all. I simply thought about it, found there was no evidence therefore it's likely BS, simple as that.

So you think that thinking about things, examining the evidence and deciding it's BS is a good approach to determining what your view is of them?

If that's the case, how did you reach this conclusion?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 02, 2011, 08:46:09 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Existentalist, I don't know what philosophy that could be, if any at all. I simply thought about it, found there was no evidence therefore it's likely BS, simple as that.

So you think that thinking about a thing, examining the evidence and deciding it's BS is a good approach to determining what your view is of them?

If that's the case, how did you reach this conclusion?

Wait, before I answer that, what do yuo mean by them? I hope you aren't thinking I judged a group of people because that's something I try not to do.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 08:59:16 PM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Wait, before I answer that, what do yuo mean by them? I hope you aren't thinking I judged a group of people because that's something I try not to do.

Sorry it's my error - I corrected my post around the same time you posted so sorry I caused the confusion.  It should read, "So you think that thinking about things, examining the evidence and deciding it's BS is a good approach to determining what your view is of them? "  Them being the things you are thinking about.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 02, 2011, 09:17:28 PM
If there is not a shred of evidence for it, yes, I do. Anytime a claim is made before me i'd like to see something that gives some sort of credibility to the claim.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 02, 2011, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"It 'seems' to me that you have found a good device there by which you need never again say you believe anything - a synonym, seemingly!

Which bit of 'belief is useless' is escaping you here? I'm pretty sure I've covered that. I don't do belief.

QuoteI believe you... oops, sorry, I mean it 'seems' to me you are genuine in your statement: you did not employ anything containing any philosophical process to arrive at the decision that empiricism was the best approach.  I wonder if it 'seems' to you that I am being genuine when I say this.  I admit, you might believe that I am not telling the truth.

Actually, I have no opinion or belief whatsoever regarding your honesty or lack thereof, not least because I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 09:50:55 PM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"If there is not a shred of evidence for it, yes, I do. Anytime a claim is made before me i'd like to see something that gives some sort of credibility to the claim.

Thanks.  The question is, what's the reason you've come to that way of deciding things?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 02, 2011, 09:52:59 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"If there is not a shred of evidence for it, yes, I do. Anytime a claim is made before me i'd like to see something that gives some sort of credibility to the claim.

Thanks.  The question is, what's the reason you've come to that way of deciding things?
Logic? Reason? Rational thinking?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 02, 2011, 10:11:38 PM
As the Legendary Sandwich put it, that's the best way I can define said line of thinking. I've always thought that way ever since I could remember, even as a small child. When my grandparents tried to indoctrinate me into christanity, I asked them "how do we know God is real?" They responded he just is. I asked them to prove it, they coudn't therefore I concluded it's a load of crock.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"If there is not a shred of evidence for it, yes, I do. Anytime a claim is made before me i'd like to see something that gives some sort of credibility to the claim.

Thanks.  The question is, what's the reason you've come to that way of deciding things?
Logic? Reason? Rational thinking?

With respect - and I'm sorry if I'm taking you too literally, those are questions, not answers.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 02, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"With respect - and I'm sorry if I'm taking you too literally, those are questions, not answers.
:|

Yes, you are taking me too literally. Just remove the question marks and replace them with commas and/or periods, and you should be fine.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 11:18:28 PM
Quote from: "hackenslash"Which bit of 'belief is useless' is escaping you here? I'm pretty sure I've covered that. I don't do belief.

...

Actually, I have no opinion or belief whatsoever regarding your honesty or lack thereof, not least because I couldn't care less.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you in any way.  But yours does appear to be a particularly interesting position.  You told me that belief is a useless concept, and that people 'cling' to beliefs.  Then I asked you why you believed that 'cling' was the right word and you said you didn't believe it was, just that it 'seemed' to be the appropriate word to use.  Please accept my apologies if the way I explored this was a little indirect but basically I believe you used the word 'seem' as a substitute for the word 'belief'.  I'd therefore ask you if you think this is the case.  I can see that there might be a number of ways of avoiding the question - like getting irritated, for example, and being dismissive and saying you've already the covered the issue when you haven't.  But I'm asking you to answer my question for intellectual reasons, not personal ones.

It seems to me, and I believe, that maintaining a philosophical position that "I don't believe anything" is incredibly difficult to do, and bound to break down within one or two replies.  I admire the attempt.  But here is my question and I'd be really appreciative if you'd answer.  Aren't you just not using the word 'belief' but still using the concept of 'belief' by substituting words like 'it seems to me'?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 02, 2011, 11:22:32 PM
I'd like not to believe anything, but I think I'd be dishonest if I said so.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"As the Legendary Sandwich put it, that's the best way I can define said line of thinking. I've always thought that way ever since I could remember, even as a small child. When my grandparents tried to indoctrinate me into christanity, I asked them "how do we know God is real?" They responded he just is. I asked them to prove it, they coudn't therefore I concluded it's a load of crock.

What happened to your parents?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 02, 2011, 11:32:08 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"As the Legendary Sandwich put it, that's the best way I can define said line of thinking. I've always thought that way ever since I could remember, even as a small child. When my grandparents tried to indoctrinate me into christanity, I asked them "how do we know God is real?" They responded he just is. I asked them to prove it, they coudn't therefore I concluded it's a load of crock.

What happened to your parents?


My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 02, 2011, 11:39:53 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you in any way.

No need to apologise. What makes you think I'm the least bit offended?

QuoteBut yours does appear to be a particularly interesting position.  You told me that belief is a useless concept, and that people 'cling' to beliefs.  Then I asked you why you believed that 'cling' was the right word and you said you didn't believe it was, just that it 'seemed' to be the appropriate word to use.  Please accept my apologies if the way I explored this was a little indirect but basically I believe you used the word 'seem' as a substitute for the word 'belief'.  I'd therefore ask you if you think this is the case.

Then you would be wrong. The way I use language, especially employing a wide variety of words, has nothing to do with belief, it is merely the use of linguistic devices. The word didn't just seem to be the right word, it was the right word, because it's a perfect description of how people treat their beliefs.

QuoteI can see that there might be a number of ways of avoiding the question

Why would I want to avoid the question?

Quote- like getting irritated, for example, and being dismissive

What makes you think I'm irritated? I have been nothing but charming. If I have been dismissive, that's because it is my opinion that what has been said is only worthy of dismissal, and I give every reason for being so.

Quoteand saying you've already the covered the issue when you haven't.

Oh? Then perhaps it was a different hackenslash who said:

QuoteWhere we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, it is entirely without utility, and it really does fascinate me that people think it has value.

That covers it nicely, thanks.

QuoteBut I'm asking you to answer my question for intellectual reasons, not personal ones.

I have answered the question.

QuoteIt seems to me, and I believe, that maintaining a philosophical position that "I don't believe anything" is incredibly difficult to do, and bound to break down within one or two replies.

We'll see. The tiing is, belief is such a broadly applicable word that it applies to a massive range of concepts, almost all of which have better words to describe the degree. In that light, belief itself becomes nebulous and without utility. What some may call 'justified true belief', I call 'knowledge'. There is that which I know, there is that which I don't know, and there is that which I accept as the best current model that fits the data. That covers pretty much all the ground excpe the utterly useless area concerning things that I simply assert as true with no good reason for doing so. This is the only area of belief not covered in the above, and it is an area I have absolutely no use for. Thus, the entire construct of belief has zero utility, and I don't do it.

Many have tried and failed dismally to break this argument down, including some really keen minds, but you're welcome to try. I promise you that this isn't merely some glib statement. I literally do not do belief.

QuoteI admire the attempt.  But here is my question and I'd be really appreciative if you'd answer.  Aren't you just not using the word 'belief' but still using the concept of 'belief' by substituting words like 'it seems to me'?

Nope. Phrases like 'it seems to me' are merely linguistic devices. Read above.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 02, 2011, 11:50:48 PM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.

Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 02, 2011, 11:59:04 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.

Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?
This is starting to sound like an Achronos argument. The statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. It is completely and utterly necessary. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.

Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?

My parents are actually christian, they decided to let us choose for ourselves. As for my reason, I don't understand the question, I came to logic because logic dictated so, it's how I think, literally, don't know a better way to explain that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kylyssa on January 03, 2011, 12:13:49 AM
I decided to base my life on reality.  Are you
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.

Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?

Reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything because they produce consistent results.  The common practice of relying on wishful thinking does not work for me.  If I act on reality rather than what I wish were the case, I stand a significantly higher chance of having a satisfying outcome.

What logical reason is there to choose fantasy and wishful thinking over reality?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you in any way.
No need to apologise. What makes you think I'm the least bit offended?
It was just a 'tone' thing to do with your earlier reply to me - must have been a misreading on my part, born of my imperfect experience, a 'seeming', if you like - you seemed offended.  Obviously if this wasn't the case and there's no need for me to apologise, I withdraw the apology.  
Quote from: "hackenslash"Then you would be wrong. The way I use language, especially employing a wide variety of words, has nothing to do with belief, it is merely the use of linguistic devices. The word didn't just seem to be the right word, it was the right word, because it's a perfect description of how people treat their beliefs.
But it did seem to be the right word, even if it was perfect.  'Seem' was the word you used.  What's the difference between something 'seeming' to be right to you, and you 'believing' it's right.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Nope. Phrases like 'it seems to me' are merely linguistic devices. Read above.
So what's the difference between 'it seems to me' being a linguistic device, and 'I believe' being a linguistic device?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 01:02:39 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is starting to sound like an Achronos argument. The statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. It is completely and utterly necessary. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything.
Sorry I don't know what Achronos argument is.  I don't see the necessity for likening my 'argument' to someone else's - and if you're saying it's 'starting to sound like', aren't you jumping to a conclusion before you've digested the full facts?  That's got to be a departure from the requirement for adequate evidence.  Logic, reason and rational thinking should be able to deal with my argument (whatever it is) or anyone's argument without being compared to someone else's - and I'd have thought it would take just one or two posts, not go on and on.

If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything.  So why the necessity to bring in necessity?  If logic, reason and rational thinking led to a conclusion that was not 'necessary', then by this new argument they would fall down.  And why the need to bring in practicality ("we wouldn't be able to do anything")?  You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical.

And where do your feelings fit into all this?  What happens when you get a gut feel that something or someone is a problem, but you can't put your finger on it, you can't explain in logical, reasonable and rational terms why you feel something is wrong, but then it turns out you were right.  Do you discard that emotion, and take no notice of it?  What happens when you fall in love with someone?  Maybe you don't, maybe they just fall in love with you because of your pointy ears.  I feel and believe, and it seems to me, that there is a lot that's not being said about this doctrine of logic, reason and rationality.

I'm not denying that rationality is a significant contributor to human survival and human thriving.  But there is an emotional side to humans too.  I'd be interested in how that fits in with the whole 'if it's not logical, it's not right' approach to getting through the day.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 01:15:34 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This is starting to sound like an Achronos argument. The statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. It is completely and utterly necessary. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything.
Sorry I don't know what Achronos argument is.  I don't see the necessity for likening my 'argument' to someone else's - and if you're saying it's 'starting to sound like', aren't you jumping to a conclusion before you've digested the full facts?  That's got to be a departure from the requirement for adequate evidence.  Logic, reason and rational thinking should be able to deal with my argument (whatever it is) or anyone's argument without being compared to someone else's - and I'd have thought it would take just one or two posts, not go on and on.

If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything.  So why the necessity to bring in necessity?  If logic, reason and rational thinking led to a conclusion that was not 'necessary', then by this new argument they would fall down.  And why the need to bring in practicality ("we wouldn't be able to do anything")?  You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical.

And where do your feelings fit into all this?  What happens when you get a gut feel that something or someone is a problem, but you can't put your finger on it, you can't explain in logical, reasonable and rational terms why you feel something is wrong, but then it turns out you were right.  Do you discard that emotion, and take no notice of it?  What happens when you fall in love with someone?  Maybe you don't, maybe they just fall in love with you because of your pointy ears.  I feel and believe, and it seems to me, that there is a lot that's not being said about this doctrine of logic, reason and rationality.

I'm not denying that rationality is a significant contributor to human survival and human thriving.  But there is an emotional side to humans too.  I'd be interested in how that fits in with the whole 'if it's not logical, it's not right' approach to getting through the day.
First, lighten up. I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.

Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.

"If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."
Uhh...no.

"You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."
Uhh...no.

Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 01:28:26 AM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"My parents raised me in a secular home, there was no mention of religion.
Children tend to believe what their parents believe.  What are your reasons as an adult for deciding that logic, reason and rational thinking are the best ways to come to a conclusion about anything?
My parents are actually christian, they decided to let us choose for ourselves.
No mention of religion?  Christian parents?  They never talked about religion in the house?  That's distinctly odd.  They must have been in some really weird sect.  

I would suggest that the Judeo-Christian culture is in fact extremely logical, far from resting on illogical arguments it rests on a very logical set of arguments, for example about the consequences of contradicting or resisting the logical demands of authority.  Far from being a fairy tale, it is the story of deeply-ingrained imperialistic position which started with the Romans and has led us to the dominant position of Western culture we see to day, which by the 20th century had reached such a level of self-confidence that it could discard its deity completely, and just rely on its residual assumptions: logic, rationality, empiricism.  Your secular upbringing sounds much like mine, much like many of us - but is it what we think it is, the last few breaths of a dying faith, or the full maturing of an unstoppable, self proclaimed logical authority that is so powerful it only explains itself in terms of itself?  In which case, isn't the way to overthrow it (because it doesn't seem to be functioning very well), not to embrace logic, but to embrace human feelings, and human subjectivity?   Just a thought!
Quote from: "Ultima22689"As for my reason, I don't understand the question, I came to logic because logic dictated so, it's how I think, literally, don't know a better way to explain that.
So in that case explain the logical process by which you arrived at logic as the best determinant of any course of action.  I'm just not getting any sense of your logic here.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 01:31:34 AM
Logic > emotions
That's all I've really got to say.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 01:40:50 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"First, lighten up.
Oh, come on.  No need to get heavy on me!  I'm light already!
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.
If I had a Euro for every time that the word 'simply' has been used in this thread, I could buy you all a drink!
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.
What's your logic and reasoning for that?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist""If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."
Uhh...no.
Why no?  You said they are correct.  What are they not correct for?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist""You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."
Uhh...no.  Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.
Right so emotions are a determinant of probability when logic, reason and rationality do not provide a solution?  I would have thought you'd say that emotions can't provide a solution, not that they're a back-up.  So what's the logic to emotions providing one?  By what logical process do you trust your emotions?  I don't think there is one, but you've said there is, so what is it?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 01:46:21 AM
Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 01:48:00 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"First, lighten up.
Oh, come on.  No need to get heavy on me!  I'm light already!
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I simply said that your argument sounds like an argument that Achronos has recently used. No need to make a big deal out of it.
If I had a Euro for every time that the word 'simply' has been used in this thread, I could buy you all a drink!
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Second, the entire rest of the post seems to be an entire straw man.
What's your logic and reasoning for that?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist""If the statement that logic, reason and rational thinking are 'correct' are an axiom, then obviously they must demonstrably stack up as the only source of decision-making about anything."
Uhh...no.
Why no?  You said they are correct.  What are they not correct for?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist""You seem to be saying that if logic, reason and rationality led to a solution that wasn't practical, that didn't enable us to 'do' something, then they would by definition not be logic, reason and rationality - that's not logical."
Uhh...no.  Logic and rational thinking would tell you that in a solution where there is no obvious logical solution, your emotions are most likely correct.
Right so emotions are a determinant of probability when logic, reason and rationality do not provide a solution?  I would have thought you'd say that emotions can't provide a solution, not that they're a back-up.  So what's the logic to emotions providing one?  By what logical process do you trust your emotions?  I don't think there is one, but you've said there is, so what is it?
Just because logic and rational thinking are correct doesn't mean that they have to be the only solution to everything, though I would argue that logic and rational thinking would point to your emotional preference in situations where there is no logical outcome.

Should I eat a grape or an orange? I prefer oranges, so logic and rational thinking should tell me that getting an orange would be the better option, unless there are other factors I haven't considered yet. Really, this is simple.

(Time for you to buy me a drink.)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 01:49:27 AM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?
I think it's more complicated than that, but yet, if you want to simplify it like that, that's what it really comes down to. No religions have any compelling evidence for me to believe their claims (not to mention all the errors, contradictions, absurdities, etc.).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.


Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye

I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?
I think it's more complicated than that, but yet, if you want to simplify it like that, that's what it really comes down to. No religions have any compelling evidence for me to believe their claims (not to mention all the errors, contradictions, absurdities, etc.).

Yes it is more complicated than that, i'm just lazy at the moment so I intetionally made a nice simple post that I think explained the bottom line.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 02:18:06 AM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  
No I was joking.  But for Christians to never mention religion - in 18 years?  Or however long you were at home - that's quite a feat!

Quote from: "Ultima22689"As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.
I was talking really about Western culture and its Judeo-Christian origins, rather than christian culture.  But if you don't want to comment I couldn't possibly read anything into that.  To elaborate what I said: logic, rationality and reasoning are what western dominance of world cultures is about.  They derive from Judeo-Christian origins.  My hypothesis is that a house where children are given the freedom by Christian parents to decide for themselves what to think seems to me to be the final relinquishment by the culture of the essential personality of a deity, subject to the retention of the logic, rationality and reasoning base, but  only with the demotion of human emotions (fear, anger, grief).

A re-telling of your scenario with some human emotion added:-

Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye
Guy:  Haven't you noticed that I just put a gun to your head
Me:...oops sorry, yes I see now the Earth is flat

Various manifestations of oops, sorry yes I see now the Earth is flat (ie I'm frightened to think differently) might be

Me: Yes I see I must study physics not philosophy because that would give me a better income  
Me: Yes I see I must not demonstrate against political injustices because the police might smash my head in
Me: Yes I will vote for a reformist party rather than a revolutionary party because the revolutionaries will destroy the economy

All simple logic, apparently

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?
So many of these scenarios seem to contain the word simple, simple, simple...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 02:19:50 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Time for you to buy me a drink.
I'm not buying anyone a drink.  I haven't had my euros yet.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 02:23:11 AM
You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 02:39:03 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

How does rational thinking help you decide whether fight or flee from your enemy?  And bear in mind I don't do simple.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 02:41:26 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

How does rational thinking help you decide whether fight or flee from your enemy?  And bear in mind I don't do simple.
...Are you serious?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 02:48:34 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"Just because one is Christian doesn't mean once concerns themself with bothering to go to church every week and practicing religion all the time. They didn't belong to any sect.  
No I was joking.  But for Christians to never mention religion - in 18 years?  Or however long you were at home - that's quite a feat!

Quote from: "Ultima22689"As for the rest of the whole christianity culture being logical, no comment, i'm not opening up that can of worms, not in the mood in some drawn out debate about a subject that has been beaten to death.
I was talking really about Western culture and its Judeo-Christian origins, rather than christian culture.  But if you don't want to comment I couldn't possibly read anything into that.  To elaborate what I said: logic, rationality and reasoning are what western dominance of world cultures is about.  They derive from Judeo-Christian origins.  My hypothesis is that a house where children are given the freedom by Christian parents to decide for themselves what to think seems to me to be the final relinquishment by the culture of the essential personality of a deity, subject to the retention of the logic, rationality and reasoning base, but  only with the demotion of human emotions (fear, anger, grief).

A re-telling of your scenario with some human emotion added:-

Guy: The Earth is flat.
Me: Really? That's interesting, can you prove it?
Guy: No, I can't but i'm really sure.
Me: No empirical data at all?
Guy: Nope not a lick
Me:....goodbye
Guy:  Haven't you noticed that I just put a gun to your head
Me:...oops sorry, yes I see now the Earth is flat

Various manifestations of oops, sorry yes I see now the Earth is flat (ie I'm frightened to think differently) might be

Me: Yes I see I must study physics not philosophy because that would give me a better income  
Me: Yes I see I must not demonstrate against political injustices because the police might smash my head in
Me: Yes I will vote for a reformist party rather than a revolutionary party because the revolutionaries will destroy the economy

All simple logic, apparently

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't get what is so hard to understand about that process, someone claims something, it may or may not be interesting, I ask for some form of empirical information proving their claim or at least giving said claim some clout, they produce none, I don't believe their claim, it's a simple as that. Someone walks up to me and tells me he has a million dollars in his suit case, I ask him to show me, he refuses, I deduce the man is probably lying. Come on, this is simple critical thinking, common sense, is that so hard to grasp?
So many of these scenarios seem to contain the word simple, simple, simple...

lol wow. Is that supposed to complicate the situation or something? Yeah, that's exactly what I would say because logic dictates I don't want my head to explode or the world to go to shit and I might want to do better in life,  so what was the point of that? Once again, i'm not interested in the culture talk, i'll pass.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 02:50:05 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...Are you serious?
Stop stalling.  Answer the question.  You may repeat something you already said, but every question is genuine and legitimate.  And it sounds from what you're saying like there are no circumstances in which you would allow your emotions to over-ride a logical process.  I think life is nowhere near that simple.  We are presented every day with decisions that cause us fear, anger and grief.  To respond to even a fraction of them with a thought-out rational process would take all year.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 02:51:07 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You seem to not understand what logic and rational thinking are.

Logic is a very powerful, and necessary, tool, but does not have the answer to every question. The rest of the questions can be answered with rational thinking, which may point to emotions or opinions if necessary.

How does rational thinking help you decide whether fight or flee from your enemy?  And bear in mind I don't do simple.
...Are you serious?

I think we're being trolled now.

Existentalist, you are getting simple because this is a very simple concept.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 02:53:49 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...Are you serious?
Stop stalling.  Answer the question.  You may repeat something you already said, but every question is genuine and legitimate.  And it sounds from what you're saying like there are no circumstances in which you would allow your emotions to over-ride a logical process.  I think life is nowhere near that simple.  We are presented every day with decisions that cause us fear, anger and grief.  To respond to even a fraction of them with a thought-out rational process would take all year.
How won't rational thinking help you decide whether to run or flee? You take a look at the circumstances, weigh the possible outcomes, possibly talk it over with others, and then act.

And yes, of course we're not always rational or logical. We're human. We've evolved to make quick, split-second decisions. Does that mean that we shouldn't be logical or rational? Of course not.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 02:58:37 AM
Quote from: "Ultima22689"lol wow. Is that supposed to complicate the situation or something? Yeah, that's exactly what I would say because logic dictates I don't want my head to explode or the world to go to shit and I might want to do better in life,  so what was the point of that? Once again, i'm not interested in the culture talk, i'll pass.
It only complicates it a bit.  But we're faced with hundreds of decisions all the time that are like that - a mixture of evidence, intimidation, self-preservation, anger, loss - so yes I think your scenario is far too simple.  And the scenario was the easiest bit of my post to answer, sorry you keep deciding to avoid the cultural issues I raised, particularly the way I think we're already taught to value logic over emotion as part of our Judeo-Christian education.  The cultural issues are really what this thread are all about, so if you ever feel like coming back to it, please feel free.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 03:01:11 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"...particularly the way I think we're already taught to value logic over emotion as part of our Judeo-Christian education.
Whoa, wait a second. Taught to value logic over emotion? Really? You sure as hell didn't use logic to come to Christianity.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Recusant on January 03, 2011, 03:02:10 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I was talking really about Western culture and its Judeo-Christian origins, rather than christian culture. But if you don't want to comment I couldn't possibly read anything into that. To elaborate what I said: logic, rationality and reasoning are what western dominance of world cultures is about. They derive from Judeo-Christian origins.
It seemed that you were hinting at this in an earlier post, and now you've come out and said it. lol

How do you arrive at the conclusion that logic, rationality and reasoning derive from Judeo-Christian origins?  Historically, I think that we should give credit where it's due, and the credit for contributing these elements of western culture should rightfully belong to the pagan Greeks.  The Jews really didn't excel at logic, rationality or reasoning until they'd come into contact with Hellenic culture.  The Romans had adopted the Greek approach well before Christianity came to dominate the Roman world.  Christians merely took up those intellectual tools because they were already available when Christianity arose.  If you want to argue that we have Jews or Christians to thank for producing these ways of thinking, then I'd like to see some evidence that they actually did so, rather than the Greeks, who were practicing logic, rationality and reasoning while the Jews were still following the absurd dictates of their scripture, and well before Christianity even existed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 03:10:07 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"lol wow. Is that supposed to complicate the situation or something? Yeah, that's exactly what I would say because logic dictates I don't want my head to explode or the world to go to shit and I might want to do better in life,  so what was the point of that? Once again, i'm not interested in the culture talk, i'll pass.
It only complicates it a bit.  But we're faced with hundreds of decisions all the time that are like that - a mixture of evidence, intimidation, self-preservation, anger, loss - so yes I think your scenario is far too simple.  And the scenario was the easiest bit of my post to answer, sorry you keep deciding to avoid the cultural issues I raised, particularly the way I think we're already taught to value logic over emotion as part of our Judeo-Christian education.  The cultural issues are really what this thread are all about, so if you ever feel like coming back to it, please feel free.

As I said to Legendary Sandwich, of course things aren't that simple we're faced with far more complex situations than the above every day.

Avoiding the issue is blatantly ignoring it or playing intellectual gymnastics, I told you plain and simple, I do not care to talk about it, take your snide comments and shove them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 03:14:55 AM
Quote from: "Recusant"How do you arrive at the conclusion that logic, rationality and reasoning derive from Judeo-Christian origins?  Historically, I think that we should give credit where it's due, and the credit for contributing these elements of western culture should rightfully belong to the pagan Greeks.  The Jews really didn't excel at logic, rationality or reasoning until they'd come into contact with Hellenic culture.  The Romans had adopted the Greek approach well before Christianity came to dominate the Roman world.  Christians merely took up those intellectual tools because they were already available when Christianity arose.  If you want to argue that we have Jews or Christians to thank for producing these ways of thinking, then I'd like to see some evidence that they actually did so, rather than the Greeks, who were practicing logic, rationality and reasoning while the Jews were still following the absurd dictates of their scripture, and well before Christianity even existed.
I apologise.  I tend to use the Judeo-Christian label as a lazy shorthand for Christian-Roman imperialism, adopted since its invention as the model for authoritarian state structures and indoctrination.  Your history is correct.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 03:33:00 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Whoa, wait a second. Taught to value logic over emotion? Really? You sure as hell didn't use logic to come to Christianity.

Yes, really.  But to be honest, I don't understand what you mean by 'come to' Christianity.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 03:36:42 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Whoa, wait a second. Taught to value logic over emotion? Really? You sure as hell didn't use logic to come to Christianity.

Yes, really.  But to be honest, I don't understand what you mean by 'come to' Christianity.
I mean become part of the religion.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 03:43:35 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Whoa, wait a second. Taught to value logic over emotion? Really? You sure as hell didn't use logic to come to Christianity.

Yes, really.  But to be honest, I don't understand what you mean by 'come to' Christianity.
I mean become part of the religion.

I'm an atheist.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 03:48:01 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm an atheist.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. When I said "you", I meant in the general sense, not specifically referring to you. That was horrible wording.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 03:51:16 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm an atheist.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. When I said "you", I meant in the general sense, not specifically referring to you. That was horrible wording.

No problem.   Glad I've survived the conversation with my atheism intact.  Off to bed now...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kylyssa on January 03, 2011, 05:03:24 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm an atheist.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. When I said "you", I meant in the general sense, not specifically referring to you. That was horrible wording.
The impersonal "you."  Ah, how I both love and hate it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 03, 2011, 05:50:27 AM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm an atheist.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. When I said "you", I meant in the general sense, not specifically referring to you. That was horrible wording.
The impersonal "you."  Ah, how I both love and hate it.
I tend to use it quite often, assuming that my audience knows what context I meant it in.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bubblepot on January 03, 2011, 08:27:11 AM
Quote from: "hackenslash"That's a two-way street, and thus far all the traffic has been in one direction only.
It's good to have some empathy.  :)

Quote from: "hackenslash"I am repeating what they themselves have said on previous occasions, so I think I am in a reasonable position to speak for other members of the forum on this point, yes.
Really. And which members were these?

QuoteBoth of those, and many others, as there are more characteristics that embody the philosophy of atheism than these two that you mentioned. However, this discussion isn't just limited to my own dwelling-upons; everyone is free to do so, as I said in my opening post. This is a discussion where all are welcome.

Quote from: "hackenslash"There is no philosophy of atheism. There are many philosophical positions regarding atheism, but none of them are essential to atheism itself, which is merely the absence of bleief in deities.
If there's no philosophy of atheism, then what's this site? You can go on about how atheism is this or that, but at the end of the day, it's no different from any other philosophy in the larger scheme of things. That's my personal opinion.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Anti-theism is a distinct position in itself, and has nothing to do with belief in a deity. Atheism isn't short for anything, and its etymology is well-understood. It stems from the greek a (without) theos (god), and simply means 'without god'.
I disagree; anti-theism as everything to do with whether one believes or does not believe in a deity.

Quote from: "hackenslash"The opposite of theism would be a categorical belief in the non-existence of deities. That is more than is necessary and sufficient for atheism. It would certainly be described as atheism, but it carries characteristics that are extraneous to that which is sufficient and necessary.
Here you're mixing up atheism with the philosophy of agnosticism. Atheism is called "anti-theism" for a reason.

Quote from: "hackenslash"It does you no good to reassert this point as if it's uncontroversial while it is actually under challenge. You have not yet established this, merely asserted it. You have also been given clear reasons why this assertion doesn't hold water.
And already debunked you, which is why I still refer to atheism as the opposite of theism here unless you can prove otherwise. Which is why:

Quoteyou're implying that atheism, on the other hand, is the ultimate seeker of knowledge;
Despite the fact that you say:
Quote from: "hackenslash"I imply no such thing.
And probably believe it as well.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I never implied that either. Perhaps you would be better off starting your own forum, where you can argue with yourself to your heart's content, since you aren't erecting any useful arguments against the position of anybody responding to you here.
It looks like I've boxed you into a bit of a logical corner here, and you seem to be desperately defending your position, if only by hinting you want me to leave. However, may I remind you, that I did not start this thread for debate; we're merely voicing our opinions. If you like you're welcome to stop debating right now- I have absolutely nothing against your assertions about atheism so long as you can be fair and understand that they are actually based on opinion, not fact.

Quoteand theism is the opposite of philosophy,

Quote from: "hackenslash"Err, who said that?
But that's the thing: you did. You said that theism is the opposite of philosophy since philosophy seeks knowledge and theism refuses to seek knowledge; thus, philosophy and theism are opposites. Atheism, being the opposite of theism, must, then, be philosophy. This is the only conclusion I can reach when I follow your "logic". Do you disagree with your logic? If so, please explain why.

Now I've skipped a few of your quotes where you basically deny everything groundlessly, as I've already shown why you're wrong above.

Quote from: "hackenslash"No, theology and apologetics are.
This contradicts what you said before, based on the implications of what you've said that I already pointed out above. Explain the contradiction to me please.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Wow, do you need lessons in vernacular English as well? It's a figure of speech.
No, really. What mark? The least you can do is explain it.

Quote from: "hackenslash"No, that being the search for truth.
By which you mean atheism, so my point still stands.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Very good. Why do I get the feeling you're possibly one of my many stalkers? Is that you, Armageddo?
It wouldn't be the first time some have been surprised at my sharp responses. But this is beside the point.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 03, 2011, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"
Quote from: "hackenslash"I am repeating what they themselves have said on previous occasions, so I think I am in a reasonable position to speak for other members of the forum on this point, yes.
Really. And which members were these?
Me for another. Someone else already stated that it matches them. hackenslash isn't really speaking for anyone here, just expressing that many others on this forum have already gone over this many times.

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 11:32:39 AM
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.  Theism came later than atheism.  

The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 03, 2011, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.  Theism came later than atheism.  

The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincenttully.com%2Fimages%2F5aside%2Fgoal_steel.jpg&hash=a1d7a476503ff280c3ca3ab62507ede29b17ff63)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 12:39:45 PM
Wonderful.  Discussion by pictures - how very enlightening!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 03, 2011, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Wonderful.  Discussion by pictures - how very enlightening!
:D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 03, 2011, 03:17:00 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.
I cite specifically the word "atheist" (even had it in quotes), and then you bring up that the word "atheo" already existed in Greek before my said time frame. I don't see the connection. Perhaps you can explain how saying a different word from a different language has anything to do with the word I was referring to.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Theism came later than atheism.
I can see how my wording may have brought out the nit picker in you, I do understand this and would never claim otherwise (unless I found compelling evidence to do so).

Quote from: "Existentialist"The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.
I don't need to be prepared for people to disagree, so far I haven't seen any basis for it meaning anything other than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Not one source I've found that defines and describes Greek prefixes has stated that the "a, an" prefix means anything other than "without, not, absence of... etc."

Here are a few:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0907013.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0907013.html)
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/18.htm (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/18.htm)
https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots ... s_afx1.htm (https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx1.htm)

Maybe you have some source(s) that show that every book, site or whatever I've ever seen that describes the Greek prefixes are just incorrect. I'm more than willing to drop what I've found to be the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an" because I'm not attached to it at all.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 03:53:19 PM
You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?  Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.  The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism.  The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.  This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.  I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative, so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.  It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 03, 2011, 04:05:37 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?  Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.  The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism.  The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.  This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.  I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative, so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.  It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.

 :D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 03, 2011, 04:48:10 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?
No, I see that connection. Perhaps you can explain why you're bringing it up.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.
Well actually, in French it was "atheisme" but that's only if we want to provide an accurate account.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism. The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.
Whose fundamental argument is this?

Quote from: "Existentialist"This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.
It is just nitpicking, because I did not clearly explain that the word "theist" was not recorded in use until after the word "atheist" was. I clarified myself on this point, and you continued to nitpick at the same thing while ignoring my correction.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative[...]
If I say that X is not 4, that doesn't mean that X is the negative of 4, it just means that X is anything but 4. If I say that a basket is without oranges, that doesn't mean that the basket has a negative amount of oranges (or that it has apples instead), just that it has no oranges. In the same way; saying that one doesn't believe in any god or gods (atheism) doesn't mean that one believes there are no god or gods (anti-theism).

Quote from: "Existentialist"[...]so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.
They are entirely relevant when you told me that atheism does not mean "the absence of theism" when every source I've ever seen shows that that is what the Greek prefix "a, an" means.

Quote from: "Existentialist"It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.
Incorrect, (aside from you being inaccurate about the French word), I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: "Davin"I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.
Thank you for your response.  You are correct about the adding of -isme, rather than -ism in French.  However, my description of the development of the word 'atheism' is accurate: first Greek as atheos, then Roman as atheos, then French as atheisme (thank you), then English as atheism.  The formation of the word atheism can be traced back through this route.  Subsequent to the first use of the English word 'atheism', the word 'theism' was used in English for the first time.  

The reason I said this was in answer to your post on Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am which said:-
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
My view is that this is an incorrect account of the history of the word 'atheist'.  You have corrected your statement, that in English the word 'theist' came first.  The logical consequence is that it would not have been possible to add the prefix a- to a word that wasn't yet being used in English.    I don't dispute your account of what the prefix a- means: without, lack of, not etc.  You and all the websites you have been researching are correct in this regard.  It seems to me that it is reasonable to describe the words 'without', 'lack of' and 'not' as 'negative' in their meaning.  By this I meant negative linguistically, not mathematically, I admit I hadn't anticipated that you would use it in its mathematical sense.  Clearly it is not possible to have a negative number of oranges, and I didn't mean it to sound as if I was arguing that.  But we needn't have an argument about that anyway because I accept the meanings you have used for the prefix a- : without, lack of and absence are fine - these are accurate descriptions of the meaning of the prefix a- in Greek.

When the word atheism came about in English, the prefix a- had already added to its root word 'atheos' by the Greeks, so no prefix was added in English, nor French, nor Latin.  What was added was the suffix -ism, which as you correctly point out had already been added in the French form 'atheisme'.  Therefore in short, if we are talking about the etymology of the word atheism, it is correct to read it as atheos[ism], not as [a]theism.  (The 'o' has been dropped from atheos, obviously.  I don't mean you to read it as a zero!)  

It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.

'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 03, 2011, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.
Thank you for your response.  You are correct about the adding of -isme, rather than -ism in French.  However, my description of the development of the word 'atheism' is accurate: first Greek as atheos, then Roman as atheos, then French as atheisme (thank you), then English as atheism.  The formation of the word atheism can be traced back through this route.  Subsequent to the first use of the English word 'atheism', the word 'theism' was used in English for the first time.  

The reason I said this was in answer to your post on Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am which said:-
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
My view is that this is an incorrect account of the history of the word 'atheist'.  You have corrected your statement, that in English the word 'theist' came first.  The logical consequence is that it would not have been possible to add the prefix a- to a word that wasn't yet being used in English.    I don't dispute your account of what the prefix a- means: without, lack of, not etc.  You and all the websites you have been researching are correct in this regard.  It seems to me that it is reasonable to describe the words 'without', 'lack of' and 'not' as 'negative' in their meaning.  By this I meant negative linguistically, not mathematically, I admit I hadn't anticipated that you would use it in its mathematical sense.  Clearly it is not possible to have a negative number of oranges, and I didn't mean it to sound as if I was arguing that.  But we needn't have an argument about that anyway because I accept the meanings you have used for the prefix a- : without, lack of and absence are fine - these are accurate descriptions of the meaning of the prefix a- in Greek.

When the word atheism came about in English, the prefix a- had already added to its root word 'atheos' by the Greeks, so no prefix was added in English, nor French, nor Latin.  What was added was the suffix -ism, which as you correctly point out had already been added in the French form 'atheisme'.  Therefore in short, if we are talking about the etymology of the word atheism, it is correct to read it as atheos[ism], not as [a]theism.  (The 'o' has been dropped from atheos, obviously.  I don't mean you to read it as a zero!)  

It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.

'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.

This actually makes sense, not really interested in contributing too much but ism, ty, etc usually do imply some sort of system of philosophy or belief. There are some militant atheist out there who rally around some sort of banner of atheism, perhaps a  distinction should be made.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 03, 2011, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.
I did not say that theist came first, you took what I said removed the colloquial meanings and took the first sentence as very literal. Not only did you take some funky wording and ran with it, but you even claimed that it was my fundamental argument. My main argument in the post you quoted isn't that the word "theist" came before the word "atheist" (I think that is very unimportant), it's the very common (to theists) misconception that "atheism" means more than just the lack of a belief in a god or gods. They tend to add things like calling it a worldview, a set of ideas, saying that it means that one claims there is no god, that it's a religion... etc. as if trying to pigeonhole an atheist to defend views they don't hold or just for use as a straw-man. You're the first person I've seen that thinks that the order in history that the words were recorded in has some huge significance that must be cleared up before addressing your incorrect assertion that "atheism" doesn't mean "the absence of theism."

Quote from: "Existentialist"'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.
So it should be read as "atheo" (lack of god) "ism" (belief) instead of "a" (lack of) "theism" (god belief)? That is an interesting thought, however etymology isn't just the order in history in which the parts of a word were added, it's also how the parts of the word are used, and the Greek prefix "a, an" is the "lack of" whatever it is attached to, not the "lack of" the first part of whatever it is attached to. You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: "Davin"You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.
My only point is that people who say that the word atheism was invented by adding the prefix a- to the word 'theism' aren't necessarily right.

I've already said more than once that as far as I'm concerned, anybody can invent a word or re-invent an existing word and attach any meaning they want to it.  In my experience the dire warnings of chaos that pour forth when I state this basic commitment to free speech rarely come to pass, because people are genuinely interested in getting their meaning across.  If you want to add the greek prefix a- to the word 'theism' and call it atheism then you are free to do so, I'm just saying don't claim some false authority from it from etymology.

The word atheism as you constructed it is not the same as my construction, but you are free to use it.  When I say I am an atheist, I mean I take the stance that there is no god.  God doesn't exist.  There's nothing wrong with that.  There's also nothing wrong with exploring the full philosophical consequences of a consistently atheist position.    Having established what one sees as those full consequences, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that "my atheism means that..." an outlining some philosophical, personal, political or other ideas.  Atheism, like socialism, existentialism or empiricism, or many other -isms (but not all) can have a huge set of attached ideas.  If it didn't, there'd be no need for atheist internet forums like this one.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 03, 2011, 08:53:57 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.
My only point is that people who say that the word atheism was invented by adding the prefix a- to the word 'theism' aren't necessarily right.
I agree.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I've already said more than once that as far as I'm concerned, anybody can invent a word or re-invent an existing word and attach any meaning they want to it.  In my experience the dire warnings of chaos that pour forth when I state this basic commitment to free speech rarely come to pass, because people are genuinely interested in getting their meaning across.  If you want to add the greek prefix a- to the word 'theism' and call it atheism then you are free to do so, I'm just saying don't claim some false authority from it from etymology.
Never have claimed any authority let alone a false one. I gave the citations to some source material on the subject and never had said that it's that way because I or someone else said so and I or they are professionals of some kind and therefore should be trusted.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The word atheism as you constructed it is not the same as my construction, but you are free to use it.
Obviously. The point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"? What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636) (http://books.google.com/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=greek+english+lexicon&source=bl&ots=T-0cfoxJch&sig=V75t9CXDj7oCXYM1enaWp-tI17Q&hl=en&ei=LC4iTYGFJ4G0sAO8rKCZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?

Quote from: "Existentialist"When I say I am an atheist, I mean I take the stance that there is no god.  God doesn't exist.  There's nothing wrong with that.   There's also nothing wrong with exploring the full philosophical consequences of a consistently atheist position.    Having established what one sees as those full consequences, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that "my atheism means that..." an outlining some philosophical, personal, political or other ideas.  Atheism, like socialism, existentialism or empiricism, or many other -isms (but not all) can have a huge set of attached ideas.  If it didn't, there'd be no need for atheist internet forums like this one.
I don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 03, 2011, 11:24:06 PM
Thanks Davin once again.  When you said
Quote from: "Davin"Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
You were incorrect, because you based that view on the false authority of etymology itself by saying
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism
I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)  I'm sure we can agree you were incorrect, so we need not keep arguing about the same ground using slightly different words!  I'm happy for you to continuing arguing if you feel you want to.

QuoteThe point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"?
An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning.  However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history which is false, it's reasonable for me to point out that it's false.  
Quote from: "Davin"What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636) (http://books.google.com/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=greek+english+lexicon&source=bl&ots=T-0cfoxJch&sig=V75t9CXDj7oCXYM1enaWp-tI17Q&hl=en&ei=LC4iTYGFJ4G0sAO8rKCZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?
It might have meant that in ancient times, I haven't looked at your link nor the contextual record to work it out.  Atheo isn't a word that's used nowadays, we use atheism, and it doesn't mean the lack of running.
QuoteI don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.
I'm afraid I can't stop doing something I haven't even started.  Please supply some evidence that I'm "trying to change the meanings of words".  I think atheism means the denial of the existence of god.  It may not be a majority view on this forum, but it is a commonly-stated definition of atheism, so I haven't tried to 'change' anything, let alone a meaning.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 04, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks Davin once again.  When you said
Quote from: "Davin"Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
You were incorrect, because you based that view on the false authority of etymology itself by saying
Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism
I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)  I'm sure we can agree you were incorrect, so we need not keep arguing about the same ground using slightly different words!  I'm happy for you to continuing arguing if you feel you want to.
I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism. You want to change the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an" to mean that it is the lack of the first part "theos" and not the last part "ism." While this may make you all happy inside, there is no precedence of any kind to accept that usage of the prefix. The prefix is attached to the the whole word, not just the bits you want it to be attached to. You accepted the sources I provided but continue to disregard what they say on the matter, which is humorous in it's inconsistency. I suggest either dropping your support of the sources I provided or drop your definition of the word that is counter to the sources I provided. It doesn't bother me to continue to point to where I was wrong, you can do so as much as as you wish, however if you have a problem arguing the same ground, maybe you should stop bringing up my first post. I really don't mind if you do, it's just funny for you to keep referring to and quoting the first post I made in this thread, then point out that we're arguing the same ground.

Quote from: "Existentialist"
QuoteThe point I'm making is that your definition is different than any definition that the word should mean, especially from the etymology of the word. If one could trace back the word to something that meant the lack of gerbils, would you take the "etymological" stance that it means that "atheism is the lack of gerbils in the belief of a god or gods" just because it existed before the word "atheo"?
An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning.  However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history which is false, it's reasonable for me to point out that it's false.
Despite reading and quoting my first post in this thread several times, it appears that my points made in it are escaping your ability to comprehend. " However, if someone is trying to claim as you did that the meaning of the word atheism is the 'absence of theism' based on a centuries-old etymological history[...]" I have not ever said anything similar to this, you are the one who is bringing up "centuries-old etymology"... well at least with baseless assertions. I've provided a few sources that lead to the conclusions I've come to, while all I've seen from your side of the argument is just your opinion. So who's position is false: the position that has evidence to back it up or your side with mere speculation?

Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"What about the etymology of the words theo and theoreo, both of which existed before the word atheo? Theo and theoreo Greek -> English Lexicon (θέω Pg 521 and θεωρέω Pg 636) (http://books.google.com/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=greek+english+lexicon&source=bl&ots=T-0cfoxJch&sig=V75t9CXDj7oCXYM1enaWp-tI17Q&hl=en&ei=LC4iTYGFJ4G0sAO8rKCZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Does that mean that atheo is the lack of running, viewing and contemplating? Thereby making atheism the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplating?
It might have meant that in ancient times, I haven't looked at your link nor the contextual record to work it out.  Atheo isn't a word that's used nowadays, we use atheism, and it doesn't mean the lack of running.
I'm glad you understand that, and also, "An etymological analysis can only inform us about a word, it can't dictate to us the meaning." when you you're also saying something like, "I've said why this was an incorrect argument (the a- had already been added by the greeks to their word theos, meaning God, thus... 'not of god', 'not of theism'.)[.]"

I'm sure we can agree that you are incorrect, using you're own reasoning. Or we can follow your reasoning and come to the conclusion that atheism means "the belief that there is no running, viewing and contemplation." After all, the "a-" was attached to the word that means "running" before "-ism" was added to it. Or we can just both agree that your unique process, is as ridiculous as it sounds.

Quote from: "Existentialist"
QuoteI don't see anything wrong with people holding different beliefs, ideas and/or concepts, just stop trying to change the meanings of words just because you personally want it to mean a specific thing.
I'm afraid I can't stop doing something I haven't even started.  Please supply some evidence that I'm "trying to change the meanings of words".  I think atheism means the denial of the existence of god.  It may not be a majority view on this forum, but it is a commonly-stated definition of atheism, so I haven't tried to 'change' anything, let alone a meaning.
Enjoyably you have, instead of accepting the meaning of the prefix as every source states the usage of the prefix, you have decided that the prefix means something very different. There is another Greek prefix that when used in place of the Greek prefix "a, an" means what you merely asserted "atheism" means... which is "anti, ant".
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 04, 2011, 11:57:35 PM
Quote from: "Davin"I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.
You said:-

Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
I hope you don't mind if I go through what you said there, point by point explaining my full position â€" the Devil is in the detail, as they say!  As this is becoming a very long quest for the incontrovertible truth, which I don't think either of us are going to find, I have decided to stop suggesting that either of us is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ because it’s obvious to me we’re not going to agree what is correct or incorrect.  I therefore hope it is useful for me to go through your statement and say what I agree with and disagree with.  

1) The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist."  - Disagree (you have also now stated that you disagree with your own original statement on this, and not just about the date - thank you for your acknowledgement of this.  Just to reiterate my view, the word theist did not appear in English until a long time after the word atheist so it is difficult for me to see how the prefix a- could have been added to a non-existent word at the time the first appearance of the word atheist in English.
2) Theist is derived from "theos" - Agree
3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos.  Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears.  This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.
4) The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" - Agree
5) So when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." - Disagree because this is an incomplete statement for the following reasons:-
a. Atheist can be an adjective or noun that describes the state of being "without god" as you have said, but also -
b. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who does not believe in gods" (with associated adjectival form)
c. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who believes there is no god" (with associated adjectival form)
d. Atheist can also mean anything anybody wants it to mean (please see my defence in 7d before responding to this)
6) Atheism is the same - Agree, if you mean that the way that the way 'atheism' is constructed is the same as the word 'atheist'
7) it just means absence of theism  Disagree because 'just'  implies no other meaning is possible, the following meanings could apply:-
a. Atheism can mean "absence of theism" which is the meaning you have chosen for it above, but also -  
b. Atheism can also mean "absence of belief in gods"  
c. Atheism can also mean "the belief or position that there is no god"
d. As far as I am concerned, atheism can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.  This is the basis on which I am prepared to concede that atheism could mean your preferred definition, "absence of theism" which is why I have said that it is possible to have the definition in 7a.  Your preferred definition has a lot going for it - it is internally logical, it seems to make sense in terms of some usages of the word atheism, but on balance to my mind it is incomplete in terms of describing the usages of the word atheism.  So while I would not seek to prevent you or others from using the word atheism to mean ‘absence of theism’, I would not to choose to use it to mean this and would prefer a dictionary definition - "denial of the existence of God".
8) That's it.   - Disagree  if by "That's it" is meant "there is no other definition that is valid," then "That's it" is far from being a statement I could possibly agree with in this context (see 7b, 7c and 7d)  
9) Don't try to make the word mean any more than that - Disagree.  A command telling someone that they should not decide meanings to the word atheism other than 'absence of theism' is dictatorial and too restricting.  It would mean compulsorily discarding standard dictionary meanings (e.g. "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God") in favour of a less commonly used meaning which you have proposed, “absence of theism.”

On the subject of references to external websites, I haven't felt the need to make any such references in this discussion, since my arguments have been internally logical throughout and I think that most people should be able to follow them and point out any flaws within them.  I took some time to look up the three websites you referred to and they said nothing to indicate that a greek prefix such as a- necessarily applies to the whole word it prefixes.  As far as I’m concerned we’re just exchanging opinions here.  If you can provide any arguments that might cause me to want to change the statements I have made in this post, I would be only too willing to consider them.

EDIT: I know you brought up a number of other issues in your previous post, but I thought it important to answer you first sentence first, which is what I have devoted this post to.  I haven't had time to deal with the second sentence tonight - to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get time, but I hope you appreciate the effort I've made in starting at the beginning.  Thanks Davin.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 05, 2011, 07:17:17 AM
A couple of things.

To begin, existentialist's arguments concerning the etymology are all correct. The cited definition, however, while acceptable as a definition, is not rigorous.

Atheism can be (and is, by most dictionaries in at least one of the senses stated) defined as 'absence of belief in a deity. I would argue that this is the only definition that is rigorous for two reasons. Firstly, it is the only definition that constitutes the two definitional features of being sufficient andp/i] necessary to describe atheism. That is to say that, for somebody to be described as an atheist, it is sufficient that they merely lack an active belief in the existence of a deity, and it is necessary that they at least lack an active belief in a deity. If they do not lack an active belief in a deity, they cannot be described as atheist, and if they do, they can. Secondly, the definition of atheism as absence of belief in a deity is the only definition that applies to the full set of all atheists. There is no atheist that does not lack an active belief in a deity. In that light, this is the only robust and unambiguous definition.

Any definition that does not apply to the full set of that which it describes cannot be said to be a definition. All other definitions only partially apply, and must therefore be considered unrobust. All other features that can be ascribed to an atheist are therefore extraneous to that which defines them as atheist. This includes an active belief in the non-existence of a deity, and certainly includes any such features as critical thinking, disbelief in the supernatural in general, and anything else that might be attributed. All that is both sufficient and necessary is the absence of a single class of belief.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 05, 2011, 07:38:49 AM
Thank you hackenslash for saying that my arguments concerning etymology are correct.  However, in the way I put my argument in my previous post, I avoided use of the terms 'correct' and 'incorrect'.  I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism, and I think to do so would be to claim the authority of an independent figure, which none of us us, and which nobody is.  I think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.  I don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.  To my mind a definition is a thing that defines, it brings a concept into focus, in which case describing an atheist as someone who believes there isn't a god is satisfactory.  I don't think any definition of any word is 'robust' - all words really need to be treated as needing the context of sentences around them to become meaningful, a word doesn't have any life of its own in isolation from other words, and if it is set out on its own for some reason (eg a survey) it is usually in the context of its terms already having been set out in some way, e.g. 'Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?'  It is tempting but probably unhelpful for me or anyone to seek the 'correct' ground on this matter, however the term 'correct' is constructed: eg robust, accurate, sound etc.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 05, 2011, 08:09:15 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism,

And yet I just did the very thing that you think is not possible, and I did it in a logical and robust manner, which means simply that you're wrong.

 
QuoteI think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.

You think that robustness is a new concept? Are you serious?


Oh, and this:
QuoteI don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.

Contradicts this, which comes immediately after it:
QuoteTo my mind a definition is a thing that defines

If a definition is a thing that defines, then it must apply to the full set, or there are member of a set not defined by its definition. Do you see how ridiculous this is? This is one of the most beautiful examples of hoisting oneself on one's own petard that this commentor has ever come across.


Quoteit brings a concept into focus, in which case describing an atheist as someone who believes there isn't a god is satisfactory.

No it isn't, because it doesn't define. Read back over your own comments, see the contradiction, and learn something about how language actually works.

QuoteI don't think any definition of any word is 'robust'

Then you haven't studied any science, or indeed any proper philosophy, as large areas of them are concerned with precisely that, namely making definitions as precise and robust as possble.

 
Quote- all words really need to be treated as needing the context of sentences around them to become meaningful,

Absolute nonsense. How about the word 'zero'. Does that require context? What about 'water'? I could go on almost indefinitely which make a mockery of your statement here.

Quotea word doesn't have any life of its own in isolation from other words,

Read up for a single statement that shreds this idea.

I'll leave the rest of your post, because the damage to your argument has already been done, and it is terminal. Until and unless you can come up with a good reason why my definition and the reasons given for its rigour are insufficient, you have no argument.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 05, 2011, 01:16:37 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.
You said:-

Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
I hope you don't mind if I go through what you said there, point by point explaining my full position â€" the Devil is in the detail, as they say!  As this is becoming a very long quest for the incontrovertible truth, which I don't think either of us are going to find, I have decided to stop suggesting that either of us is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ because it’s obvious to me we’re not going to agree what is correct or incorrect.  I therefore hope it is useful for me to go through your statement and say what I agree with and disagree with.
No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.

Quote from: "Existentialist"2) Theist is derived from "theos" - Agree
3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos.  Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears.  This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.
This is what is known as "taking something out of context." Let me demonstrate: "And roughly means "with god"" on it's own can appear to be wrong once you cut it from the entire sentence and even capitalize the "a" in the word "and". However the context of the original sentence "Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god"" clearly shows that the thing that roughly means "with god" is the word "theist" and not the word "theos". This is very dishonest of you.

Quote from: "Existentialist"4) The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" - Agree
5) So when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." - Disagree because this is an incomplete statement for the following reasons:-
a. Atheist can be an adjective or noun that describes the state of being "without god" as you have said, but also -
b. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who does not believe in gods" (with associated adjectival form)
c. Atheist can also be a noun that means "a person who believes there is no god" (with associated adjectival form)
d. Atheist can also mean anything anybody wants it to mean (please see my defence in 7d before responding to this)
Another context problem, I didn't say that that is the only thing it means. I appears that you're now resorting to unscrupulous tactics. A little nit picking here, a person can believe there is no god and be an atheist (one who doesn't believe in god), the same way a rectangle can be a square. Because the word also matches a person who believes there is no god, doesn't meant that the word means that, just that the meaning of the word can be applied to a variety of people, some of whom believe things.

Quote from: "Existentialist"6) Atheism is the same - Agree, if you mean that the way that the way 'atheism' is constructed is the same as the word 'atheist'
7) it just means absence of theism  Disagree because 'just'  implies no other meaning is possible, the following meanings could apply:-
a. Atheism can mean "absence of theism" which is the meaning you have chosen for it above, but also -  
b. Atheism can also mean "absence of belief in gods"  
c. Atheism can also mean "the belief or position that there is no god"
Theism can mean belief in gods, atheism is not that. Theism can be the belief that there is a god, atheism is not that. Hell, if theism meant "the belief that pickles dance with gerbils on Tuesday nights," atheism would not be that.

Quote from: "Existentialist"9) Don't try to make the word mean any more than that - Disagree.  A command telling someone that they should not decide meanings to the word atheism other than 'absence of theism' is dictatorial and too restricting.  It would mean compulsorily discarding standard dictionary meanings (e.g. "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God") in favour of a less commonly used meaning which you have proposed, “absence of theism.”
Yes, I am a dictator... this is almost Godwin's Law but not quite.

Quote from: "Existentialist"On the subject of references to external websites, I haven't felt the need to make any such references in this discussion, since my arguments have been internally logical throughout and I think that most people should be able to follow them and point out any flaws within them.  I took some time to look up the three websites you referred to and they said nothing to indicate that a greek prefix such as a- necessarily applies to the whole word it prefixes.  As far as I’m concerned we’re just exchanging opinions here.  If you can provide any arguments that might cause me to want to change the statements I have made in this post, I would be only too willing to consider them.
Aye, the meaning of the prefix is applied to the word it is a part of... not just the bits you want it to be attached to. Never before this have I seen anyone argue that the meaning of the prefix only changes part of the word. So if you have an example, I mean other than "atheist" and "atheism" which you think the meaning of prefix only applies to part of the word, I'd love to see it. I mean it would also be good if you had anything other than merely asserting that the meaning of prefix only applies to part of the word. I know how difficult it must be to not have anything to back up what you merely assert and still hold that it's true in spite evidence to the contrary. Well I don't really, but I imagine that it must be very difficult.

"A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem of a word. Particularly in the study of Semitic languages, a prefix is called a preformative, because it alters the form of the words to which it is affixed." Notice the wording of the definition is that it alters the form of the words to which it is affixed, not that it only changes part of the word based on which parts were historically written and/or used first.

Quote from: "Existentialist"EDIT: I know you brought up a number of other issues in your previous post, but I thought it important to answer you first sentence first, which is what I have devoted this post to.  I haven't had time to deal with the second sentence tonight - to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get time, but I hope you appreciate the effort I've made in starting at the beginning.  Thanks Davin.
I don't much care either way, I just thought it was funny that you seemed to be complaining that we're going over the same ground while, once again, bringing up the same ground. The whole purpose of continuing the discussion is for the entertainment value. Taking me out of context, the thinly veiled dictator reference, the absence of supporting evidence and the tone from the word choices and context... etc. are all very funny. Even the continuously bringing up my first post in this thread has been amusing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 05, 2011, 07:52:33 PM
Thanks again, hackenslash for responding.  I'm afraid I disagree with a number of your arguments.

Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't believe that it is possible or helpful at this stage for any of us to accurately take an objective stance towards the definition of atheism,
And yet I just did the very thing that you think is not possible
I disagree.  I do think it is possible for somebody to say something is correct or incorrect.  I do not think it is possible for someone to be correct or to be incorrect.  Correct and incorrect are concepts that depend on objectivity, and while somebody may be able to say they are correct, this is different from being correct, which to my mind is strictly speaking neither possible nor helpful in this conversation, since we are all subjective beings who are separated from an objective viewpoint.

Quote from: "hackenslash"and I did it in a logical
I disagree.  Your logic was rather superficial, being based on the idea that somebody saying they are being objective is the same as them being objective.

Quote from: "hackenslash"and robust manner
I disagree.  From my point of view you statements seem to break down very quickly in the light of what I have already said in this post.

Quote from: "hackenslash"which means simply that you're wrong.
I disagree.  I have identified a number of points of disagreement and I think I have already expressed my view of the concepts of 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by implication 'right' and 'wrong' in this argument.  

Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I think the same applies to the new concept you've introduced of 'robustness'.
You think that robustness is a new concept?
I meant it is a new concept to this conversation.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Are you serious?
Yes I am, and to be honest I feel that this question is usually asked more for effect in seeking to discredit another's sincerity than to establish seriousness.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Oh, and this:
Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't agree that a definition is only a definition if it encapsulates all the possible or major separate definitions of it.
Contradicts this, which comes immediately after it:
QuoteTo my mind a definition is a thing that defines
With respect I do not see the contradiction in those two statements.  Feel free to describe what the contradiction is, I don't think you've fully explained it.

Quote from: "hackenslash"If a definition is a thing that defines, then it must apply to the full set, or there are member of a set not defined by its definition. Do you see how ridiculous this is? This is one of the most beautiful examples of hoisting oneself on one's own petard that this commentor has ever come across.
Thanks but I do not see on what basis you think that if a definition defines, then it must apply to 'the full set'.  Conflicting definitions need not be consistent with each other, as I think the lists I gave to Davin in my previous reply indicate, when you look at them.  The definition that atheism means, 'Denial of the existence of God' is not consistent with the definition that atheism means, 'Disbelief in the existence of God'.  One is narrower than the other.  It could be said that disbelief of the existence of God includes the denial of the existence of God, but this does not mean that the denial of the existence of God can include the disbelief in the existence of God, which is a weaker concept.  Ridiculousness and the hoisting of petards don't come into it.  Contradictions are often present when comparing different definitions, this does not mean that any one definition is right, or that definitions must apply to 'the full set'.

I think what I've said so far really answers the whole of your post, pretty much up to the end of what you said.  To summarise the remainder of your post you mention robustness again, I disagree with your point about context, and to words like ridiculous, petard-hoisting, my alleged educational deficits, you add several concepts like 'nonsense', 'mockery' of me and say that I have 'no argument'.  I prefer to prioritise rational arguments put to me on this and other forums which are not accompanied by suggestions of mockery and ridicule, so I hope you will accept my apology for being unable to find the full length of time required to respond to these specific arguments from you with the same care and attention to detail that I did to the earlier arguments in your post.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 05, 2011, 10:26:32 PM
I find it a fruitless exercise to argue the correct definition of a word. Especially if there is no agreement as with regards to a common source for the definition of words.
Lengthy arguments over the definition of words only detracts from the actual points that have been formulated using the words whose definitions have been argued.

Sometimes it makes sense in formal documents to include a glossary of terms and words so that within the context of the document at least there is a common understanding as to the words being used. This overcomes the differences in the individual reader's understanding of a word and hence the bulk of the effort can be with regards to understanding the point rather than arguing about word definitions.

This is a common problem and hence glossaries is a commonly used solution.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 05, 2011, 10:34:38 PM
Thanks Stevil.  I tend to disagree with you on this - I have found this a very useful discussion, far from fruitless, and it has helped me clarify a lot about what people think of the word 'atheism' - what it means, how they use it, and how attached people can be to their underlying concepts of atheism.  Words are only tools that help people to describe what those underlying concepts are, I think it's quite important to express disagreement when somebody is repeatedly saying a word like 'atheism' can only mean one thing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 05, 2011, 10:36:57 PM
Quote from: "Davin"No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.
Just to recap, the main question for me is whether or not the word 'atheism' means just 'the absence of theism' as you claimed in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717).  You were unambiguous in arguing that this is the only possible meaning of the word because you said in the same post that atheism "just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that" in the same post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717).   It is in the nature of a quote that it is taken out of context, which is why it is important for the person quoting someone to be as true as humanly possible to the original intended meaning of the full statement being quoted, which I think I have been whenever I have quoted you.  To avoid the accusation that I have taken this out of context, I will quote your paragraph again in full.  You said,

Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You went on to re-state your claim that atheism is the "absence of theism" in a subsequent post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=90#p96938) as follows:-
Quote from: "Davin"I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

I think the matter of whether atheism means "absence of theism" is a huge question.  I disagree that the word 'nitpicking' describes my responses.  It is good that you find the debate entertaining and amusing because I would not want you to take it to heart.  I am not disagreeing with detail just for the sake of it.  The whole purpose of my contributions is to make it as clear as I can what I fundamentally disagree with you about, which is your statement, which you have not retracted, that you think that atheism means the "absence of theism" and that it can't mean anything else.  It is because you have continued to stand by this statement that I have felt the need to describe a number of other meanings.  I am sorry you think of my contributions as nitpicking.  I think my arguments are comprehensive.

I am sorry I have not had the time to answer here every point you made in your last post.  I really have run out of time I'm afraid and I now have other priorities.  However I do not think I am avoiding the issues because I do believe that I have already covered everything you have raised throughout this thread.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 05, 2011, 11:12:11 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks Stevil.  I tend to disagree with you on this - I have found this a very useful discussion, far from fruitless, and it has helped me clarify a lot about what people think of the word 'atheism' - what it means, how they use it, and how attached people can be to their underlying concepts of atheism.  Words are only tools that help people to describe what those underlying concepts are, I think it's quite important to express disagreement when somebody is repeatedly saying a word like 'atheism' can only mean one thing.
The problem I have with your approach is that you fight for a definition but you do not offer the source of that definition. Hence how is a person to know whether that definition is used by people other than yourself?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 05, 2011, 11:44:00 PM
I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 06, 2011, 12:49:20 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.
Fair enough. I didn't read your whole conversation, it just seemed similar to the conversation we had a week ago or so. However if you simply provide URL's to some reasonably used word definition repositories to support your case you then won't have to argue.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 06, 2011, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.
It seems like a pointless debate to have, but if semantics matter that much to you, then, eh.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 06, 2011, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.
Just to recap, the main question for me is whether or not the word 'atheism' means just 'the absence of theism' as you claimed in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717).  You were unambiguous in arguing that this is the only possible meaning of the word because you said in the same post that atheism "just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that" in the same post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717).
It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is."

Quote from: "Existentialist"It is in the nature of a quote that it is taken out of context, which is why it is important for the person quoting someone to be as true as humanly possible to the original intended meaning of the full statement being quoted, which I think I have been whenever I have quoted you.
I refer back to this shoddy quoting of what I said that you did as well as the misdirected correction:
Quote from: "Existentialist"3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos. Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears. This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.
You appeared to dishonestly attempt to show that I was referring to "theos" as meaning "with god" when anyone who has a basic grasp of English can tell that I was referring to the word "theist" as roughly meaning "with god" in the sentence: "Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god"." I don't see how claiming that I meant that "theos" meant "with god" is in anyway taking that sentence in it's intended context.

Quote from: "Existentialist"To avoid the accusation that I have taken this out of context, I will quote your paragraph again in full.
You could just not take what I say out of context to avoid accusations that you're taking me out of context. The above is a clear example of taking what someone said out of context.

Quote from: "Existentialist"You said,

Quote from: "Davin"The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You went on to re-state your claim that atheism is the "absence of theism" in a subsequent post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=90#p96938) as follows:-
Quote from: "Davin"I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

I think the matter of whether atheism means "absence of theism" is a huge question.  I disagree that the word 'nitpicking' describes my responses.  It is good that you find the debate entertaining and amusing because I would not want you to take it to heart.  I am not disagreeing with detail just for the sake of it.  The whole purpose of my contributions is to make it as clear as I can what I fundamentally disagree with you about, which is your statement, which you have not retracted, that you think that atheism means the "absence of theism" and that it can't mean anything else.  It is because you have continued to stand by this statement that I have felt the need to describe a number of other meanings.  I am sorry you think of my contributions as nitpicking.  I think my arguments are comprehensive.
Nitpicking is when you're taking something I said that was colloquial that I had already retracted, and still bringing it up. It's consistently prodding at things because of technicalities. You could just say that you disagree with my statement that "atheism just means the lack of theism", and provide your reasoning behind that, however you decided to nitpick at technicalities.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I am sorry I have not had the time to answer here every point you made in your last post.  I really have run out of time I'm afraid and I now have other priorities.  However I do not think I am avoiding the issues because I do believe that I have already covered everything you have raised throughout this thread.
Doesn't bother me, I couldn't care any less if I tried.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 06, 2011, 06:47:37 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks again, hackenslash for responding.  I'm afraid I disagree with a number of your arguments.

Don't be afraid. I won't bite.

QuoteI disagree.

Oh, you disagree, do you? Oh, well then, I should just give up

QuoteI do think it is possible for somebody to say something is correct or incorrect.  I do not think it is possible for someone to be correct or to be incorrect.  Correct and incorrect are concepts that depend on objectivity, and while somebody may be able to say they are correct, this is different from being correct, which to my mind is strictly speaking neither possible nor helpful in this conversation, since we are all subjective beings who are separated from an objective viewpoint.

Was this supposed to be an argument? What you think is of no consequence whatsoever. I gave very specific reasons that the definition is robust, and you must defeat those reasons, or you have no argument. I'm pretty sure I pointed this out already. What I gave was the closest thing to an objective reason for a definition that it is possible to have, by giving a universal application that works for any definition. It doesn't matter that we are subjective beings, because when a definition removes all variables, specifically by applying to the full set that it describes, it is necessarily an objective definition.

QuoteI disagree.  Your logic was rather superficial, being based on the idea that somebody saying they are being objective is the same as them being objective.

Again, you can disagree all you like, yet while you accuse my logic of being superficial, you have provided none of your own in support of your 'argument'.

QuoteI disagree.  From my point of view you statements seem to break down very quickly in the light of what I have already said in this post.

And yet I have already eviscerated what you said in this post, which doesn't remotely address the evisceration. You'll have to do better, because all you have so far is your personal disagreement, which is entirely worthless. Your opinion has only the value of the evidence and arguments you can provide in support of it, and so far all we've had is hot air and lame disagreement.

QuoteI disagree.  I have identified a number of points of disagreement and I think I have already expressed my view of the concepts of 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by implication 'right' and 'wrong' in this argument.  

Again, I don't care what you agree or disagree with, as my argument is on solid ground, and all you have is disagreement. What is the support for this? Nothing.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I meant it is a new concept to this conversation.

What has that got to do with the price of fish in Singapore? It is not a new concept, and if you don't understand the value of this already before it was introduced here, then you have no bloody place in this discussion. Your disagreement is based on not having the slightest clue about how language and discussion work, and you really need to go away and work on that. Find out precisely what value your opinion and disagreement carry in discourse (zero) and find the value of logically and robustly supporting your arguments, which you have utterly failed to do here.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your post, as it's just more repetition of your disagreement with no support whatsoever, and I won't be replying further until you provide some indication that you have more than your personal disagreement to bring to this discussion, because you simply aren't up to it so far. Nobody cares what you think, they only care what you can support. You cannot support your position until you address the support I have given for my definition, which is robust and will stand up to scrutiny. Demonstrate that you actually have something to bring to this discussion other than hot air, and I will be happy to engage further.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 06, 2011, 06:52:57 AM
Just noticed this, and I should respond to it:

Quote from: "Existentialist"To summarise the remainder of your post you mention robustness again, I disagree with your point about context, and to words like ridiculous, petard-hoisting, my alleged educational deficits, you add several concepts like 'nonsense', 'mockery' of me and say that I have 'no argument'.  I prefer to prioritise rational arguments put to me on this and other forums which are not accompanied by suggestions of mockery and ridicule, so I hope you will accept my apology for being unable to find the full length of time required to respond to these specific arguments from you with the same care and attention to detail that I did to the earlier arguments in your post.

I didn't ridicule you, I ridiculed your ridiculous argument, because it is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 07:34:35 AM
Quote from: "Stevil"Fair enough. I didn't read your whole conversation, it just seemed similar to the conversation we had a week ago or so. However if you simply provide URL's to some reasonably used word definition repositories to support your case you then won't have to argue.

Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.  Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.  It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.  I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 07:36:17 AM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.
It seems like a pointless debate to have, but if semantics matter that much to you, then, eh.

Meaning is important to me, yes.  Isn't it important to you too?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: "Davin"It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is.

We're discussing atheism, not asynchronous or atypical.  Asynchronous and atypical don't have an -ism suffix, which makes a lot of difference.  The a- prefix can be attached to anything, such as the root greek word 'atheos' which in part forms part of the word atheism.  Atheism can mean many things other than 'the absence of theism' as you claimed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 07:47:09 AM
Quote from: "hackenslash"What you think is of no consequence whatsoever.

Gee thanks
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 06, 2011, 11:04:40 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.  Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.  It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.  I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.

Well, when I was arguing with you I thought you were a bit crazy and stubborn and had just made up your own definition of the word until I found a page on the internet that referenced (as a side note) a definition that was similar to the definition you were advocating. Once I had seen that page I then stopped arguing with you. Sure someone could argue the validity of the source but the point is that the definition isn't simply your own. Although I hadn't even found a source of your definition I was OK once I had just found a reference to your definition. Otherwise it can be frustrating to talk to a person who has potentially invented their own definition of common words. Language is for communicating between multiple parties after all, if everyone held different definitions then communication would be incredibly difficult.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: wildfire_emissary on January 06, 2011, 11:31:12 AM
Wittgenstein would have loved this thread.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 06, 2011, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Wittgenstein would have loved this thread.
roflol
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 06, 2011, 04:04:03 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is.

We're discussing atheism, not asynchronous or atypical.
I'm discussing the Greek prefix "a, an" which appears on many more words than just atheism and atheist, all the examples give my argument precedence. Just because you don't have any precedence to back up your argument, doesn't mean that I have to give up mine.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Asynchronous and atypical don't have an -ism suffix, which makes a lot of difference.
You seem to think so, will you explain why it makes a lot of difference? More specifically, explain how having the "ist" or "ism" suffixes on a word with the Greek prefix "a, an" changes how prefixes work in order to come to the definition that you claim the words mean? Is it only these two words that are the exception to how prefixes work or are there any other examples? If it's just these two examples, I can't take that convenience seriously.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The a- prefix can be attached to anything, such as the root greek word 'atheos' which in part forms part of the word atheism.
Since you appear to like to argue technicalities: the root Greek word is not "atheos", "a" is the Greek prefix which is on the Greek root word "theos". The Greek prefix "a, an" can be attached to "theos" and "theism" and means the same thing in both cases, in that it means "not theos" and "not theism" respectively.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Atheism can mean many things other than 'the absence of theism' as you claimed.
This kind of statement would be more useful if it had more than just a baseless assertion. Otherwise it's just equal to "nuh uh", which would have saved you some typing and time.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.
How convenient for you, so does that mean you're done arguing?

Quote from: "Existentialist"Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.
Oh please do provide the sources, I don't mind being wrong, I enjoy it. What disappoints me is when someone says I'm wrong when I'm not actually wrong.

Quote from: "Existentialist"It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.
This is what is known as discussion. No one should just accept something on the say so of another. There is no reason for me to accept or deny something I don't understand and doesn't have evidence to back it up. So just some schmuck on a random website to a professor of the Greek language are equally useful/useless depending on what reasoning and evidence they have. In short: no appeals to authority.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.
While I think that you're right that any baseless opinion is just as good as any other, my argument comes from things outside of my opinion. My points have a basis that people can independently verify. I came to my current opinion because of the things I'm providing (the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an", how prefixes work, examples of how the prefix works... etc.), if you're just going to provide baseless assertions, then why even keep responding other than to troll?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 08:24:01 PM
In my opinion

a) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

on the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

I support free speech because I support free speech.  Even if all the internet pages in the world were saying that free speech is a bad thing and should not be supported, I would still support it.  As I believe in free speech, it follows that I must concede everybody absolute freedom to speak freely.  People have absolute freedom to say what they want to me, as far as I am concerned.  If I were to restrict in any way people's freedom to use the word 'atheism' to mean anything they wanted, then I would be contradicting my own support for free speech.  If I were to require everybody who wanted to use the word 'atheism' to mean something which could not be evidenced by another web page, then I would be restricting their freedom of speech.

I have said that Davin's use of the word 'atheism' to mean 'absence of theism' is not a definition I agree with.  By this I mean it isn't a definition that I would use.  When I use the word 'atheist' I use it to mean some close approximation to 'the belief or position that there is no god'.  This does not prevent me from having a conversation with other atheists, it just means that I would probably disagree more with other atheists who claim that atheism means 'absence of theism' - people like Davin, for example, who maintains the position that we shouldn't in his words 'try and make the word mean anything more than that'.

I do not think that my disagreeing with Davin would conflict with my belief in free speech.  Davin is free to say what his opinion about the word 'atheism', I too am free to do so.

My belief in free speech and my beliefs about atheism aren't held in isolation from other beliefs.  I believe everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, I do not use bad language, I do not suggest that what other people think is of no consequence whatsoever, I don't agree with mocking people.

On the subject of free speech I agree that if everybody used their own definitions of words then conversations would be chaotic and unsatisfactory.  In my opinion that is a big 'if'.  I tend to find most people are trustworthy and when they talk or write, they're usually trying to be understood.  This generally means they keep to common meanings.  Where they don't keep to common meanings, I have enough trust that they are trying to get across a meaning that they have thought about deeply and can only get across by using an unusual meaning.  This is a legitimate means of communication for me.  I believe in free speech.

I understand that an empiricist - someone who demands empirical evidence before they positively believe something is true - would not take the same stance as me.  They would be quite insistent that the meaning of any word must be verified by a source.  I realise this is a cause of friction in this conversation, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an empiricist, my position is more that of an existentialist, which is characterised by a more subjective thinking.  For me all things flow from the position that we, as human individuals, have absolute freedom.

On the subject of not believing or accepting the truth of anything which is not supported by evidence, when it comes to concepts, the most compelling evidence for me is always the internal logic and internal consistency of the argument that is being put forward.  External references tend to get in the way.  For example it has been argued doggedly that the greek prefix a- or an- can only ever apply to the whole word it is preceding.  If this is correct then to my mind the suffix -ism must also be applied to the whole word it suffixes.  This is a major logical problem to apply to any word that has an a- prefix and suffix -ism, like for example the word 'atheism'.

 It seems to me it is just as legitimate to apply the suffix -ism to the root 'athe-' as it is to apply the prefix a- to the word 'theism'.  In that case, the rule being argued for cannot possibly be consistent with itself.  I can see that by discounting the word 'athe-' as not being an english word then the only acceptable combination would be to add the prefix a- to the word theism.  The problem is that I don't see why it is legitimate to discount the root word 'athe-', and I wouldn't accept any rule of that kind anyway.

In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Asmodean on January 06, 2011, 08:28:36 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.
...What does "believing in free speech" have to do with the meanings of words..?  :P
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 06, 2011, 08:32:15 PM
I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.

It seems to me that most people have understood what I have said in this conversation, so the problem hasn't arisen.  I agree a common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation, but common meanings can be arrived at by the parties explaining themselves during the conversation, as I did very fully in my previous post today.  Dictionaries may provide information about different usages of words, but even dictionary definitions for the same word can contradict each other, as they do for the word atheist.  Even where dictionaries don't contradict themselves, I don't recognise them as something along the lines of legislation, that forbids a person being free to say what they want.  Where a person is using an uncommon definition which a dictionary may not have referenced, they can still be understood if they explain their own definition at the start of the conversation.  I therefore hope that you banana enjoyably, though I'd recommend wearing something in addition to a tuxedo, for decency's sake.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 06, 2011, 08:55:12 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.

It seems to me that most people have understood what I have said in this conversation, so the problem hasn't arisen.  I agree a common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation, but common meanings can be arrived at by the parties explaining themselves during the conversation, as I did very fully in my previous post today.  Dictionaries may provide information about different usages of words, but even dictionary definitions for the same word can contradict each other, as they do for the word atheist.  Even where dictionaries don't contradict themselves, I don't recognise them as something along the lines of legislation, that forbids a person being free to say what they want.  Where a person is using an uncommon definition which a dictionary may not have referenced, they can still be understood if they explain their own definition at the start of the conversation.  I therefore hope that you banana enjoyably, though I'd recommend wearing something in addition to a tuxedo, for decency's sake.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 06, 2011, 10:07:00 PM
[spoiler:3s4ngcch]
Quote from: "Existentialist"In my opinion

a) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

on the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

I support free speech because I support free speech.  Even if all the internet pages in the world were saying that free speech is a bad thing and should not be supported, I would still support it.  As I believe in free speech, it follows that I must concede everybody absolute freedom to speak freely.  People have absolute freedom to say what they want to me, as far as I am concerned.  If I were to restrict in any way people's freedom to use the word 'atheism' to mean anything they wanted, then I would be contradicting my own support for free speech.  If I were to require everybody who wanted to use the word 'atheism' to mean something which could not be evidenced by another web page, then I would be restricting their freedom of speech.

I have said that Davin's use of the word 'atheism' to mean 'absence of theism' is not a definition I agree with.  By this I mean it isn't a definition that I would use.  When I use the word 'atheist' I use it to mean some close approximation to 'the belief or position that there is no god'.  This does not prevent me from having a conversation with other atheists, it just means that I would probably disagree more with other atheists who claim that atheism means 'absence of theism' - people like Davin, for example, who maintains the position that we shouldn't in his words 'try and make the word mean anything more than that'.

I do not think that my disagreeing with Davin would conflict with my belief in free speech.  Davin is free to say what his opinion about the word 'atheism', I too am free to do so.

My belief in free speech and my beliefs about atheism aren't held in isolation from other beliefs.  I believe everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, I do not use bad language, I do not suggest that what other people think is of no consequence whatsoever, I don't agree with mocking people.
[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]I believe in free speech too. Some one can tell me that "atheism" means "the belief in ninja mothers who kill people while breast feeding", and they have every freedom to do so, however allowing a person to say what they want is not connected to just letting them incorrectly define the meaning of words. I can say "don't try to change the meaning of a word just because you can't understand how language works" fully expecting people to still do so. Not because I'm against free speech, it's more of a warning that I'm just mental enough to sit and argue against incorrect definitions of certain words till the end of time or my death, whichever comes first. I know this may scare some people who don't wish to back up baseless speculation with rational things like evidence, precedence, examples and/or sources, however in the realm of free speech, one is allowed to say what they want and other people are allowed to question it. I'm not preventing anyone from voicing their opinion on the matter, I'm just voicing mine right back while providing the reasoning and precedence behind why I'm sure I know what the word means. I'm also not asking anyone to just take my say so, which is why I provide the evidence and reasoning behind my conclusions.

Sure Existentialist, your such a nice person that you don't believe in using "nuaghtie words" or making fun of someone... you just believe that it's alright to clearly take what another person says out of context, thinly veil dictator ad hominems and never even attempt to provide the basis to your assertions while telling other people they're wrong. Which is, in my opinion, much more rude than saying the word "shit" or telling someone that their reasoning is ridiculous.

I don't eat babies (at least not live ones). I don't do drugs. I don't pal around with terrorists. I don't break my promises to support the troops just because some liberals don't like it. I don't squeegee Microsoft windows and I definitely don't make out with watermelons. People like Existentialist, for example, want people to just take what they say without providing any reasonable precedence for accepting what they say... people like Existentialist want to take away your freedom of speech, people like Existentialist are dictators who want to force meanings down your throat, so vote for me, Davin, because I value your freedoms!

Sorry, just your post really reminds me of a political smear ad.

[spoiler:3s4ngcch]
Quote from: "Existentialist"On the subject of free speech I agree that if everybody used their own definitions of words then conversations would be chaotic and unsatisfactory.  In my opinion that is a big 'if'.  I tend to find most people are trustworthy and when they talk or write, they're usually trying to be understood.  This generally means they keep to common meanings.  Where they don't keep to common meanings, I have enough trust that they are trying to get across a meaning that they have thought about deeply and can only get across by using an unusual meaning.  This is a legitimate means of communication for me.  I believe in free speech.

I understand that an empiricist - someone who demands empirical evidence before they positively believe something is true - would not take the same stance as me.  They would be quite insistent that the meaning of any word must be verified by a source.  I realise this is a cause of friction in this conversation, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an empiricist, my position is more that of an existentialist, which is characterised by a more subjective thinking.  For me all things flow from the position that we, as human individuals, have absolute freedom.
[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]Not really, just if someone is going to claim to know what a word means and also claim that another person is wrong, then I think they need to back up what they say with evidence instead of just baseless speculation. Especially when accusing someone else of being wrong. Especially when the someone else provided evidence, precedence and examples.

[spoiler:3s4ngcch]
Quote from: "Existentialist"On the subject of not believing or accepting the truth of anything which is not supported by evidence, when it comes to concepts, the most compelling evidence for me is always the internal logic and internal consistency of the argument that is being put forward.  External references tend to get in the way.  For example it has been argued doggedly that the greek prefix a- or an- can only ever apply to the whole word it is preceding.  If this is correct then to my mind the suffix -ism must also be applied to the whole word it suffixes.  This is a major logical problem to apply to any word that has an a- prefix and suffix -ism, like for example the word 'atheism'.

It seems to me it is just as legitimate to apply the suffix -ism to the root 'athe-' as it is to apply the prefix a- to the word 'theism'.  In that case, the rule being argued for cannot possibly be consistent with itself.  I can see that by discounting the word 'athe-' as not being an english word then the only acceptable combination would be to add the prefix a- to the word theism.  The problem is that I don't see why it is legitimate to discount the root word 'athe-', and I wouldn't accept any rule of that kind anyway.
[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]First of all, "athe" is not a root word, the root word is "the, theo, theos".
Second of all, you're applying the rules of prefixes to the suffixes. They're two different things, wouldn't that logically mean that they work differently too?
Third of all, what is your reasoning and your precedence for doing so? Just to make it logically inconsistent?

What seems to you is not compelling to me, nor should it be compelling to anyone who wishes to be rational.

Quote from: "Existentialist"In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.
Existentialist claims to support free speech, but really just wants to obfuscate speech until we're all forced to learn Spanish and let the illegal immigrants take over the country...

My name is Davin Creed, and I approve of this message.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 06, 2011, 10:11:09 PM
Given the following definitions

Word    ------                      Definition
pigs       --------                        to have the value of
will       ---------                        used to indicate derivation, origin, or source
dance   ------                         indefinite article - not any particular or certain one of a class or group
when    -------                          the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
I          ------------                          lack; deficiency
fly        ----------                          used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a  or an
naked   ------                         confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
under    ------                        used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial
moonlight   -                   the creator and ruler of the universe

Do you understand what I am saying when I state:
"When pigs fly I will dance naked under moonlight"
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 06, 2011, 10:43:44 PM
I know I said I wasn't going to respond again, but some drivel just needs to be addressed.

Quote from: "Existentialist"In my opinion

What's that saying about something that everybody's got?

Quotea) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

Nonsense. Free speech has bugger all to do with the definitions of words, and this statement demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have any idea of what you're talking about. Definitions, and linguistics in general, are devised to engender clarity. What you have proposed here is only obfuscation, the antithesis of clarity.

Quoteon the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

Note the bolded bits. Can you say 'tautological tautology'? Your b) and d) are equivalent definitions. Disbelief in a deity is the absence of  belief in a deity.

Can't be arsed with the rest. Your argument is defeated and demonstrated to be nothing more than rectally extracted blind assertion, with no support, and no substantive response to the rigorous definitions cited, those being rigorous by dint of having been supported by rigorous explanation. All you have in response is some guff about your opinions, disagreements and other equally vapid and value-free bum-custard.

Please attempt to conduct your discourse with something of greater substance, or your arguments will be open to the same ridicule they (not you) have received here.

I hope you take note of my new signature line, which is in honour of yourself and Achronos.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 11:09:00 PM
Quote from: "Stevil"Given the following definitions

Word    ------                      Definition
pigs       --------                        to have the value of
will       ---------                        used to indicate derivation, origin, or source
dance   ------                         indefinite article - not any particular or certain one of a class or group
when    -------                          the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
I          ------------                          lack; deficiency
fly        ----------                          used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a  or an
naked   ------                         confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
under    ------                        used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial
moonlight   -                   the creator and ruler of the universe

Do you understand what I am saying when I state:
"When pigs fly I will dance naked under moonlight"
My goodness Stevil - you have been working hard!  I think you mean, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."  This may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning.  The challenge really wasn't that hard.  

I see that Davin has also taken up the challenge in his latest post.  This thread could take some time!  So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!

Interestingly, though several people have sought to demonstrate the absurdity of individual freedom to invent definitions for words, the same people don't seem to mind that Davin (another adherent to the model of human objectivity) made up his own unique definition for the word atheism, which he has consistently argued that nobody should contradict .  The only point of my arguing here is to protect Davin's freedom to say that atheism means 'absence of theism', whilst also saying that everybody else too is free to make up whatever definitions they want as well - against Davin's wishes as follows:-
Quote from: "Davin"That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
My own preferred definition is that atheism is 'denial of the existence of god'.  Statistically I think this definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists - that's just an opinion, I have no sources other than my intuition and a general feeling, but I think intuitively most of you would agree with me on your most honest level: there are a large number of people who call themselves atheists who share this definition.  If you disagree, feel free to say so.  

Despite this large number, I think an even larger number of people who call themselves atheists would agree with the definition that atheism means, "disbelief in god".  I suspect this latter contingent of atheists (the largest number) are mostly empiricists - people who need independent evidence to establish a thing called the truth.  Logically such empiricists would also need independent evidence of most things - such as, for example, the definition of a word.  An individual's opinion wouldn't be enough for them in my view.  Mostly they have such opposition to the idea that the individual is actually free, that they would prefer to spend their time exhausting a great deal of time in laborious demonstrations of the dire consequences of chaos and confusion that would prevail if humans exercised their freedom.  They are free to do this as well, I suppose.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 06, 2011, 11:25:43 PM
Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 11:40:54 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.

'Simple' - thanks Thumpalumpacas, welcome to the thread.  If you've been following this thread you'll realise that I get a euro for every time someone tries to claim that something is 'simple'.  The payoff is that I get to buy you all a drink when I've saved up enough - so you won't have long to wait!

Clarity is a concept people achieve voluntarily, I think.  If two people - a writer and a reader - embark on the quest for clarity I think they both need to make an effort to achieve it.  I don't really see that any or all responsibility that automatically falls on one or the other, though they may separately or both choose to accept it.  Alternatively responsibility could actually be forced on either of them by others, such as at school, or on employees of an advertising agency, or a debating society where the chair is extremely heavy-handed.   It all depends.

I have only used common meanings in this thread.  Others haven't - they're the ones who use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings, and who are opposed to the use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings.

It's really not very simple!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 06, 2011, 11:48:01 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.

'Simple' - thanks Thumpalumpacas, welcome to the thread.  If you've been following this thread you'll realise that I get a euro for every time someone tries to claim that something is 'simple'.  The payoff is that I get to buy you all a drink when I've saved up enough - so you won't have long to wait!

Clarity is a concept people achieve voluntarily, I think.  If two people - a writer and a reader - embark on the quest for clarity I think they both need to make an effort to achieve it.  I don't really see that any or all responsibility that automatically falls on one or the other, though they may separately or both choose to accept it.  Alternatively responsibility could actually be forced on either of them by others, such as at school, or on employees of an advertising agency, or a debating society where the chair is extremely heavy-handed.   It all depends.

I have only used common meanings in this thread.  Others haven't - they're the ones who use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings, and who are opposed to the use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings.

It's really not very simple!

Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 06, 2011, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.

Beautifully put. If the Orson had any weight in this place I would award one.

Fuck it, I'll award one anyway>

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq301%2Fhackenslash_album%2FOrsonClaps.gif&hash=a50ec0acf76140a0d7a0b0863323b213c348e309)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 06, 2011, 11:57:16 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.

Thanks Thumpalumpacus.  I read your sentence which wasn't in my language and if I'm not too much mistaken I think your meaning is, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."  This may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning. The challenge really wasn't that hard.

I think you will find also that I was arguing that if people were going to use less commonly agreed words or meanings, the conversation would benefit from those people explaining their definitions first, although if you also did this, I think my interpretation of your meaning would still be the same.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 07, 2011, 12:02:55 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks Thumpalumpacus.  I read your sentence which wasn't in my language and if I'm not too much mistaken I think your meaning is, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."

Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.

QuoteThis may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning. The challenge really wasn't that hard.

Hmm, you seem to have this as a stock answer, then?  Very well.  I'll move on to other, more rewarding conversations.  Sorry to have put a burr unedr your saddle.

QuoteI think you will find also that I was arguing that if people were going to use less commonly agreed words or meanings, the conversation would benefit from those people explaining their definitions first, although if you also did this, I think my interpretation of your meaning would still be the same.

So in other words, your methodology works, except when it doesn't work.  I see.

Hey, PM me if you wish to take this up as a serious discussion.  Otherwise, I'll leave you to your sparring here.  Have a beautiful day.

eta:  That really means "have a beautiful day."
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 07, 2011, 12:16:07 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq301%2Fhackenslash_album%2Fblackhawk_2.jpg&hash=363fabea599390188de53b9d129bf81a25fdf3dc)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.
I see - you actually wanted me to take the sentence at face value?  I thought a better thing to do was to take a guess at your underlying meaning in posting it.  Sorry if I had got this underlying meaning slightly wrong - reading between the lines is an inexact science, but as I alluded to earlier, I think I got the general gist!

If you'd said you wanted me to translate it into English, I'd have copied and pasted it into Google Translate!

Enjoy your other conversations.  Nobody's compelled to participate in this one!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 12:23:38 AM
Oh, hi again hackenslash.  Thanks for the picture.   The topic is atheism.  I was just discussing Davin's definition - 'the absence of theism'.  I seem to have spent quite a bit of time outlining my rationale on why 'denial of the existence of god' is also a legitimate definition in its own right.  

Have you got anything to say - on topic?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 07, 2011, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.
I see - you actually wanted me to take the sentence at face value?  I thought a better thing to do was to take a guess at your underlying meaning in posting it.  Sorry if I had got this underlying meaning slightly wrong - reading between the lines is an inexact science, but as I alluded to earlier, I think I got the general gist!

If you'd said you wanted me to translate it into English, I'd have copied and pasted it into Google Translate!

Enjoy your other conversations.  Nobody's compelled to participate in this one!

You as well.  I'm one of the more boring posters here, in that I'm pretty literal and will write what I mean and mean what I write and all that good stuff.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 07, 2011, 12:48:16 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"I see that Davin has also taken up the challenge in his latest post.  This thread could take some time!  So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!
And how do you determine that the definition you're claiming is the not made up definition:
By evidence? Negative.
By examples? Nope again.
By definitions? No, I have demonstrated that the definitions of the parts of the word do no match the definition you're claiming.
By precedence? No, I've demonstrated that the precedence doesn't point to the definition you're claiming.
By baseless assertion? Yes, and a lot of it.

So while you're claiming that I'm making the definition up myself with baseless assertions, I'm claiming that the conclusion I've come to is correct based off of objective, independently verifiable information. What to trust... mere assumptions that seem right to a person or independently verifiable, objective evidence... for rationalities sake, I suggest at least checking out the side with the evidence.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Interestingly, though several people have sought to demonstrate the absurdity of individual freedom to invent definitions for words, the same people don't seem to mind that Davin (another adherent to the model of human objectivity) made up his own unique definition for the word atheism, which he has consistently argued that nobody should contradict .  The only point of my arguing here is to protect Davin's freedom to say that atheism means 'absence of theism', whilst also saying that everybody else too is free to make up whatever definitions they want as well - against Davin's wishes as follows:-
Quote from: "Davin"That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
Is this some kind of election or popularity contest? Do people have to choose either you or me? I did not know it was that serious. The only reason I'm still arguing is because I suspect Existentialist will never stop responding, and I'm determined to find out if I'm right about that.

Quote from: "Existentialist"My own preferred definition is that atheism is 'denial of the existence of god'.  Statistically I think this definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists - that's just an opinion, I have no sources other than my intuition and a general feeling, but I think intuitively most of you would agree with me on your most honest level: there are a large number of people who call themselves atheists who share this definition.  If you disagree, feel free to say so.
So you think that statistically your definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists... without statistics... how do you spell dishonest? Also don't confuse the meaning of a word with what people who self identify as atheist believe. Clearly a person who believes there is no god still falls under "lack of belief in a god or gods", so too does a person that doesn't believe anything.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Despite this large number, I think an even larger number of people who call themselves atheists would agree with the definition that atheism means, "disbelief in god".
What large number? You just said you don't have data to back it up. Also I'm not going allow an appeal to majority... even a majority you just made up in your head. I suspect that 100% of all atheists accept that "atheism" means "the lack of belief in god or gods", also statistically I think most atheists think that the moon is made of cheese, and that almost all atheists, I assume statistically, do not buy cheese. I'm also assuming that the world will end on December 22nd 2012 because a bunch of dudes made a calendar a while ago.

See how much BS you can try to pass by feeling, seeming, assuming and just making shit up?

Quote from: "Existentialist"I suspect this latter contingent of atheists (the largest number) are mostly empiricists - people who need independent evidence to establish a thing called the truth.  Logically such empiricists would also need independent evidence of most things - such as, for example, the definition of a word.  An individual's opinion wouldn't be enough for them in my view.  Mostly they have such opposition to the idea that the individual is actually free, that they would prefer to spend their time exhausting a great deal of time in laborious demonstrations of the dire consequences of chaos and confusion that would prevail if humans exercised their freedom.  They are free to do this as well, I suppose.
I suspect that those who think they can make up their own definition without supporting evidence and go around calling people who do have supporting evidence wrong, are delusional. Really just irrational. I also suspect that those that go around accusing other people of being wrong but are unable to back it up tend to resort to doing weird things like claiming that those that do have support for their argument are 14th century Englishmen taking over Scotland until some short crazy religious dude starts yelling "freedom" until he's gutted and dies and later the Scottish fight themselves free.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 07, 2011, 01:04:17 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!
I am not saying that you invented the definition of the word Atheism that you choose to use. I am disagreeing with your philosophy that people can just make definitions up and not point to a reasonable source when others disagree.

My last point on this never ending thread is:
Without sauce it will turn to custard
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 07, 2011, 06:25:51 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Oh, hi again hackenslash.  Thanks for the picture.   The topic is atheism.  I was just discussing Davin's definition - 'the absence of theism'.  I seem to have spent quite a bit of time outlining my rationale on why 'denial of the existence of god' is also a legitimate definition in its own right.  

Have you got anything to say - on topic?

I have had plenty to say, in the form of demonstrating your argument to be utter guff. What more do you need?

Given that you accept the definition, and given my outlining why it is the only rigorous definition, for which you have no other response than 'I disagree' (always a fun argument), my work here is done. I already said I'd give more response if you actually posted anything that warranted it. You haven't done so.

Oh, and the picture wasn't for you.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 07:35:22 AM
Quote from: "Bubblepot"I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own. I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here. Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism", which is itself another philosophy; one philosophy opposes another philosophy, and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end. But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.

Sometimes it is useful to post the opening post to get the conversation back on topic.  Bubblepot invited us to voice our thoughts and I have shared mine with you.  I don't agree with Bubblepot that atheism is the opposite and counterpart of 'theism', and I don't agree with Davin that atheism can only mean 'absence of theism'.  I've explained my rationale reasonably thoroughly, I think.  

Thanks for all the new and unique definitions of words that you've all made up, you've been very creative.  I've said what I think your underlying meaning is twice so on the custard remark and any more such examples, you just need to refer back to the interpretations I have given to Stevil and Thumpalumpacus on the last page which I think capture the correct gist.

So what do you think - is atheism the 'opposite and counterpart of theism'?  Can atheism mean only 'absence of theism'?  I'd be interested in your opinions, and would value them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 07, 2011, 07:42:06 AM
Sorry mate I wasn't substituting Custard for anything. It is a common saying where I come from. Turning to custard, means that it turns into a mess. I don't know why so please don't ask me, I actually like custard.

BTW i did play with the spelling of sauce = source though, just thought it would be funnier.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 07, 2011, 03:46:03 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks for all the new and unique definitions of words that you've all made up, you've been very creative.  I've said what I think your underlying meaning is twice so on the custard remark and any more such examples, you just need to refer back to the interpretations I have given to Stevil and Thumpalumpacus on the last page which I think capture the correct gist.
Haha, this must be a troll post -> your argument, as it turns out, stems from your own baseless speculation, other peoples definitions came from sources separate from themselves... so clearly by definition, you made up your definition (the baseless speculation), while other people did not make it up themselves (external sources). So this seems very much like a troll attempt of accusing the people that disagree with you, of doing what you're doing, when they're not doing it.

Another example is that you've clearly not properly addressed any opposing arguments by anyone, and yet still are claiming that you're baseless speculation is correct when it has been demonstrated that it is incorrect. Not to mention that you haven't refuted anyone's arguments against yours (just saying you don't agree is not a refutation), which essentially means that you concede to being incorrect. So avoiding other people's valid points while still claiming "victory" (in the sense that you're accusing others of "making up" the definitions and implying that you're correct), is very trollish.

You claimed to have sources that back up your mere speculation, however you have not provided any. You agreed with my sources being accurate, but disagreed with the definition that one derives from following the sources. Very inconsistent, and very trollish.

And for almost each of your posts responding to me, I've put in effort to respond to each of your points even if it wasn't to refute them, and you've essentially ignored my posts while still goading me. Again, trollish behavior.

Here's an opinion you can value: I think you're being very dishonest and are just trolling.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 09:09:51 PM
Quote from: "Davin"troll... troll... trollish... trolling

So are you still saying that 'absence of theism (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717)' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 07, 2011, 09:21:01 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"troll... troll... trollish... trolling

So are you still saying that 'absence of theism (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717)' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 10:06:12 PM
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"So are you still saying that 'absence of theism (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717)' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?

I just wondered if you would answer my question.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 07, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 07, 2011, 10:53:19 PM
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?

Oh, LegendarySandwich!!!  We were almost there!!!  I'll have to start all over again now!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: LegendarySandwich on January 07, 2011, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?

Oh, LegendarySandwich!!!  We were almost there!!!  I'll have to start all over again now!
:shake:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 08, 2011, 11:07:00 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"So are you still saying that 'absence of theism (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=75#p96717)' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?

I just wondered if you would answer my question.
Quid pro quo.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 08, 2011, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: "Davin"Quid pro quo.

Ok, agreed.  I'll answer your question and then you can answer mine.  What's your question?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 09, 2011, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Ok, agreed.  I'll answer your question and then you can answer mine.  What's your question?
You can start here (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=90) with all the things you avoided addressing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 09, 2011, 02:15:05 AM
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"Ok, agreed.  I'll answer your question and then you can answer mine.  What's your question?
You can start here (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=90) with all the things you avoided addressing.

As I thought, no question from you.  

Oh well it doesn't matter - as LS has intimated, I think this debate has run its course.  Many thanks for your contributions Davin.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 09, 2011, 02:56:30 AM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"Ok, agreed.  I'll answer your question and then you can answer mine.  What's your question?
You can start here (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6510&start=90) with all the things you avoided addressing.

As I thought, no question from you.  

Oh well it doesn't matter - as LS has intimated, I think this debate has run its course.  Many thanks for your contributions Davin.
There were questions from me, I spent time to address all your points, you avoided mine. As for the debate running it's course, that was a long time ago when you stopped responding to my points. I'm now thinking of continuing to respond to actually see if you just keep responding, or to just let it go because it might irritate other people.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 09, 2011, 12:31:36 PM
Would you still say that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 09, 2011, 04:54:04 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"Would you still say that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?

You've wheeled out this horseshit several times now. Would you like to point out where anybody said it? I've been back through the thread and I can't find it. Please cite it or stop implying that somebody has said it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 09, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: "hackenslash"You've wheeled out this horseshit several times now. Would you like to point out where anybody said it? I've been back through the thread and I can't find it. Please cite it or stop implying that somebody has said it.

I don't co-operate with people who use that kind of tone to me.  Ask me politely, and I'll be more than happy to engage you in conversation.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 09, 2011, 09:07:31 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "hackenslash"You've wheeled out this horseshit several times now. Would you like to point out where anybody said it? I've been back through the thread and I can't find it. Please cite it or stop implying that somebody has said it.

I don't co-operate with people who use that kind of tone to me.  Ask me politely, and I'll be more than happy to engage you in conversation.

 :pop:
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: hackenslash on January 09, 2011, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "hackenslash"You've wheeled out this horseshit several times now. Would you like to point out where anybody said it? I've been back through the thread and I can't find it. Please cite it or stop implying that somebody has said it.

I don't co-operate with people who use that kind of tone to me.  Ask me politely, and I'll be more than happy to engage you in conversation.

What tone? And what has tone got to do with the question? Can you actually cite anybody saying that?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 09, 2011, 10:34:27 PM
You knew perfectly well what I meant by tone.  

Just to let you know hackenslash, I won't be responding to your posts for quite a while, and before I do you will certainly need to demonstrate that you can put an argument to me without using foul language or unsavoury farmyard euphemisms.  Goodbye.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ultima22689 on January 09, 2011, 10:53:49 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"You knew perfectly well what I meant by tone.  

Just to let you know hackenslash, I won't be responding to your posts for quite a while, and before I do you will certainly need to demonstrate that you can put an argument to me without using foul language or unsavoury farmyard euphemisms.  Goodbye.

I already lost my cool and left the argument a long time ago however I never go off on anyone without reason so I have to ask, can you be any more of a snide ass? Hackenslash may be using "foul" language but the condescending, snide comments you make are far more foul than any language he has used.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Davin on January 10, 2011, 01:05:48 AM
Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "Existentialist"Would you still say that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?

You've wheeled out this horseshit several times now. Would you like to point out where anybody said it? I've been back through the thread and I can't find it. Please cite it or stop implying that somebody has said it.
I've said something similar, might even be an accurate representation of a small bit of the sentence, but the intent was to show what the Greek prefix "a, an" meant and not specifically the whole word. It's yet another clear example of Existentialist taking what I said out of context. I really don't understand Existentialist except possibly as a troll, because why else would Existentialist go to great lengths to ignore points, declare victory and accuse others of making things up all while ignoring most of the points that are brought up? Further evidence that leads to my conclusion that Existentialist is a troll is that Existentialist has been using some very condescending language, while never supporting his/her/its definition with anything other than baseless speculation (even admittedly).

Because Existentialist went several posts not addressing most of the points I brought up in my posts and then several where Existentialist hadn't addressed any point in my posts while I had been addressing all of the points in Existentialists posts, I think it's only fair that Existentialist addresses at least some of my points before I respond to any question/request from Existentialist. I think it also pretty obvious that Existentialist had avoided every point brought up hackenslash.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stevil on January 12, 2011, 06:53:20 AM
FFS - is this argument still going on

Here is one reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
If only Existentialist were less stubborn.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: McQ on January 12, 2011, 01:35:16 PM
Existentialist will need to address posts made to him, take care of his own "tone", and clean up his own act, or things won't go well. That much is sure.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 12, 2011, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: "Existentialist"You knew perfectly well what I meant by tone.
No he didn't, as you were using it in your own unique interpretation.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Existentialist on January 12, 2011, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: "Stevil"FFS - is this argument still going on

Here is one reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
If only Existentialist were less stubborn.

Thanks for the new posts Stevil, McQ and Tank.  If it's ok by you I'll address the only one that's on topic, Stevil's.  I am sorry you felt the need to call me stubborn.  I prefer 'consistent'.

The Board index description of the Philosophy Forum says that it is about, "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods".  This description is music to the ears of someone like me who claims at least part of his view of atheism comes from existentialist thinking.  Sartre in particular was very disdainful of the supposed importance of proofs of the existence of Gods.  Even if this god's or that god's existence could be proved by empirical methods,it would really make little difference to the thinking of the existentialist.  Human beings are autonomous free thinking individuals as long as they are autonomous free thinking individuals.  The problem, therefore, for the existentialist atheist is not the nature of God nor even whether he exists or not - the problem is human beings, and how they define themselves, and what they do.  God is an irrelevance.

Thank you for posting the Dictionary.com definition of the word 'atheism'.  I have referred to it many times in my life in the internet, and have even posted links to it.  It may be I am being a purist nowadays but you can imagine, given the polite disdain (if there is such a thing - I think there probably is) with which I would treat a valid proof of the existence of God, that independent verification of the meaning of the word atheism really has such little status with me that it actually doesn't prove anything of any import.  Not to me anyway, and there really is no point in my posting something which is of no value to me.  Even if it is of value to others, it would seem rather hypocritical of me.

To a self-defined agnostic atheist, however, whose whole philosophical process is based on the importance of evidence as the primary determinant of a principled position on the existence or otherwise of god, I realise that any evidence, even that from a dictionary, would be terribly important.  However, with respect to all of you agnostic atheists out there, it really isn't that important to me, especially in a subforum that eschews empirical evidence anyway.  I recognise that this may be a source of considerable irritation, and I'm sorry about that, but it is my position.  If you'd like to ask me to elaborate on my views please feel free to do so.  I will remain polite and supportive of your right to challenge me civilly about anything I say.