Atheists and Theists

Started by Bardock4232 pages
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, I am inclined to concur with this.

Of course. He is right. But, there is a word for it concerning God. It's called atheism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course. He is right. But, there is a word for it concerning God. It's called atheism.

What the hell?

3 pages back, you were chatting how there is all kinds of different Atheisms and how Im generalising Atheists and how there are this and that kind.

Now you're doing the same, because not all atheists believe that no concept of God equals Atheism.
So you're wrong.

''Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims.''

- Ernest Nagel

(Prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism)

Source - Wiki

My, what an interesting discussion this is turning out to be.

Nagel may disagree with the 'broader definition', but it is still a legitimate use of the term. But neither does the broader definition serve a useful purpose in facilitating meaningful discourse.

I like 'Anti-theism'. Definitely simplifies things.

btw, LB, love that "Nietzsche is dead - God" 😂

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What the hell?

3 pages back, you were chatting how there is all kinds of different Atheisms and how Im generalising Atheists and how there are this and that kind.

Now you're doing the same, because not all atheists believe that no concept of God equals Atheism.
So you're wrong.

''Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims.''

- Ernest Nagel

(Prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism)

Source - Wiki

...what?

Can you please give me the quotes where I apparently changed my arguments. So I can point out to you where you misunderstood them?

And Mr. Nagel can say all he wants. It is defined otherwise. Boo hoo, get over it. It just is not the way you want it.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, one doesn't believe in God; one is unaware of the concept of God.
But one who is unaware of a concept obviously doesn't believe in it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But one who is unaware of a concept obviously doesn't believe in it.

But there is still a factual difference.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...what?

Can you please give me the quotes where I apparently changed my arguments. So I can point out to you where you misunderstood them?

And Mr. Nagel can say all he wants. It is defined otherwise. Boo hoo, get over it. It just is not the way you want it.

I think it was me who claimed she is generalising atheists even though there are so many different kinds.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But there is still a factual difference.
Yes there is, but he's saying those who are unaware of god don't not believe in it. Y'know, it's like saying Apples aren't fruit, although they're different, apples are indeed fruit.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes there is, but he's saying those who are unaware of god don't not believe in it. Y'know, it's like saying Apples aren't fruit, although they're different, apples are indeed fruit.

No, he didn't say that. You should not argue with VVD. Chances are you end up on the downside.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he didn't say that. You should not argue with VVD. Chances are you end up on the downside.
I'm not I'm arguing with you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not I'm arguing with you.

Oh cool. What about?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh cool. What about?
What VVD meant, I am wrong though so lets stop.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What VVD meant, I am wrong though so lets stop.

Done.

what i dont get is how one can believe in nothing. isnt that a miserable way to live?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what i dont get is how one can believe in nothing. isnt that a miserable way to live?
I wouldn't say miserabe, more along the lines of non-existant.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what i dont get is how one can believe in nothing. isnt that a miserable way to live?

If you mean skepticism then no. That is not actually believing in nothing, but doubting everything.

I don't actually know anything that is believing nothing. What are you referring to? Except of course babies whose believes have not formed yet.

ok, tell me this. whats the difference between a person who believes in nothing and a person who doubts everything?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
ok, tell me this. whats the difference between a person who believes in nothing and a person who doubts everything?

That the person who doubts everything believes in a shitload of shit. Like. They might believe that they exist, that the earth rotates, that their name is Jean Paul, that they won't die if they breath, that they will die eventually....but they also believe that they can not know these things and realize it is a believe at most.

Bardock, just so you know, the noun form of the verb "believe" is "belief". Eg. I believe in a belief, not I believe in a believe.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bardock, just so you know, the noun form of the verb "believe" is "belief". Eg. I believe in a belief, not I believe in a believe.

Yes, I know, thank you.