Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
so ??
No matter who who are talking to there is no such things as a weak atheist. it's just a made up nonsense term i've been trying to get you to see that but you refuse. you want to talk directly to him PM him this is a discussion forum and anyone can give their opinion. -
How the ? are you going to flag a definition, that's that ? .
-
Because you're either misinterpreting what's being said or you're trolling and I believe it's the latter. For instance, you don't even believe in the dictionary but you're pulling up definitions without any explanation and in addition to that, the definition given doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument. I suppose you pulled up the definition of "evidence" in an attempt to link it with "knowledge" but that has nothing to do with belief being synonymous with knowledge. Also, you keep repeating the same thing without any argument around it. So in my book, you're trolling and I'm acknowledging it as such. Your spam is ruining the flow of the thread.
-
Because you're either misinterpreting what's being said or you're trolling and I believe it's the latter. For instance, you don't even believe in the dictionary but you're pulling up definitions without any explanation and in addition to that, the definition given doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument. I suppose you pulled up the definition of "evidence" in an attempt to link it with "knowledge" but that has nothing to do with belief being synonymous with knowledge. Also, you keep repeating the same thing without any argument around it. So in my book, you're trolling and I'm acknowledging it as such.
I believe in the dictionary i know it exist but i understanding that the dictionary holds the popular meanings of things but not always the real meanings of things. A dictonary can hold meanings for words that are illogical. I keep saying the same thing but i have given my argument on why there is no such thing as weak atheism many times and as you can see i am not the only one that has a problem with the term, it is nothing more than a ? term. Evidence can be seen as knowledge OR rather evidence is a form of knowledge, knowldege is and can be data. data can be evidence. evidence creates knowledge.
-
Evidence can be seen as knowledge OR rather evidence is a form of knowledge, knowldege is and can be data. data can be evidence. evidence creates knowledge.
This does not mean that belief = knowledge. Check your definition:ev·i·dence
noun
ground for belief
Check this:
The snake is bright red. <--- This is evidence used as ground for someone to believe the snake is poisonous.
The belief, however, is not knowledge although it is based on supposed evidence. -
If you are still confused, think of it this way:
A weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe based on what he/she doesn't have.
A strong atheist is someone who doesn't believe based on what he/she does have. -
"b : the doctrine that there is no deity"Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief.
this is still a much clearer statement than you want to admit.An atheist does not believe in ? .
remember that the terms i am objecting to are the "agnostic atheist" nonsense. to quote myself: "is there a problem with just being an atheist/theist and just not expressing as strong a belief as others?"A weak atheist does not believe in ? because he/she believes he/she lacks sufficient evidence or proof to warrant belief. A strong atheist does not believe in ? because he/she believes he/she has sufficient evidence to disprove ? 's existence. None of this is based on knowledge of whether or not ? exists. It is belief based on available evidence.
and it still comes back to this: if you're an atheist who says "well, i can't PROVE ? doesn't exist, so i'm not really sure," then you don't believe there's no ? . you disbelieve in ? . you're now an agnostic.So an agnostic would believe that ultimate truth, or ? , is unknowable. You could therefore be a theist who believes in ? yet holds the view that ? is unknowable or you could be an atheist who disbelieves in ? based on either insufficient or sufficient evidence (as explained earlier) yet holds the view that the truth of the matter, or ? 's existence, is ultimately unknowable; in other words, it's not 100% knowable based on facts whether or not ? exists.
and what this really comes down is that people are afraid to just say they're agnostic/atheist/theist and go forward with it.
also, everyone's being civil, so chill out on flagging the posts -
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The (b) definition describes atheism as the teaching that no deities exist. The (a) definition describes atheism as disbelief in ? . Require would mean that only the (b) definition would exist. There is also the (a) definition which does not call for belief but rather the absence of belief. That is the difference between strong and weak atheism. Atheism can be either absence of belief in a deity or the belief that no deity exists, as shown in the Webster definition.
Disbelieve
1. : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
Unbelief
1: not : other than : reverse of : absence of
dis-
a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force ( see de-, un-2 . ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief.remember that the terms i am objecting to are the "agnostic atheist" nonsense. to quote myself: "is there a problem with just being an atheist/theist and just not expressing as strong a belief as others?"
No, there's not a problem but that doesn't mean that the terms don't exist and people use them. If you are an agnostic atheist, that means you lack belief in a ? (weak atheism) or either you believe no ? exists (strong atheism) simply because you do not know (agnosticism). Theists believe (theism) and most of them claim not to know (agnosticism); in theism land, they call that "faith". When talking about specific gods like the ? of the Christian Bible, based off descriptions of him and general observations of the natural world, we can disprove this ? and it leads to Gnostic Atheism, where one would claim not to believe based on the fact that they know (gnosticism) that that particular ? is not real. The position of gnostic atheism can also be taken up against the various gods of antiquity across the globe. However, when speaking about a ? in general, most atheists are agnostic atheists, whether strong or weak.Robert Flint wrote: »If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a ? , it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a ? ; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of ? is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism as atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the otherand what this really comes down is that people are afraid to just say they're agnostic/atheist/theist and go forward with it.
^^ Baseless.and it still comes back to this: if you're an atheist who says "well, i can't PROVE ? doesn't exist, so i'm not really sure," then you don't believe there's no ? . you disbelieve in ? . you're now an agnostic.
You're ignoring the fact that knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Theism (belief in one or more deities) and atheism (absence of belief in deities or the belief that there are none) are positions based on belief.
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the ? (s) they believe in. Since agnosticism is a position on knowledge and does not forbid belief in a deity, it is compatible with most theistic positions.
Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
-
What is the point of this much debate regarding semantics?
What term should an agnostic atheist use?
I do not believe it is possible to reach a conclusion whether ? exists or not. We do not have the means to transfer the mere belief in ? into actual knowledge due to ? 's reliance on the supernatural. The term for this is agnosticism.
Given the absence of evidence supporting the existence of ? I find no reason to believe it exists. The term for this is atheism.
I am a strong agnostic about ? and a weak atheist about it. -
^ for starters, i think Janklow likes arguing semantics
-
however, there's something weird going on here when we pretend a theist has a belief and an atheist does not. you could easily say "an atheist believes there is no ? and a theist does not believe this." atheism is taking a defined position.There is also the (a) definition which does not call for belief but rather the absence of belief.
which is completely unnecessary. agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing; if they were, they'd be known synonyms and we wouldn't use them both... but we do. so NOW we're trying to mash two distinct terms together for no reason at all. if you believe no ? exists, you are an atheist. if you THINK no ? exists because you cannot prove it, you are an agnostic.No, there's not a problem but that doesn't mean that the terms don't exist and people use them. If you are an agnostic atheist, that means you lack belief in a ? (weak atheism) or either you believe no ? exists (strong atheism) simply because you do not know (agnosticism).
wait, suddenly we're claiming it as fact that the MAJORITY of theists claim to not know that there's a deity? because this needs to be supported or tossed out.Theists believe (theism) and most of them claim not to know (agnosticism); in theism land, they call that "faith".
have you never read this forum before? because there's been countless arguments of people directly espousing atheist positions and balking at the name.^^ Baseless.
i'm not ignoring your repetition; i'm taking a position that it's inherent pointless to attempt to combine two words meant to define distinctly different positions.You're ignoring the fact that knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge.
to some extent, yes^ for starters, i think Janklow likes arguing semantics
-
you could easily say "an atheist believes there is no ? and a theist does not believe this."
You could but you would be ignoring the fact that the "a-" in atheist is a prefix meaning "without", "lacking" or "absence".agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing; if they were, they'd be known synonyms
Exactly.so NOW we're trying to mash two distinct terms together for no reason at all.
Not for no reason at all. As explained, theism is a position based on belief; gnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Why couldn't you combine them? I'm an American male. American is a nationality; male is a gender.if you believe no ? exists, you are an atheist.
Or if you simply lack belief in gods, you're also an atheist.if you THINK no ? exists because you cannot prove it, you are an agnostic.
Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge so no, agnosticism is where one denies knowledge of the existence of ? ; that ? 's existence is unknown and (probably) unknowable.wait, suddenly we're claiming it as fact that the MAJORITY of theists claim to not know that there's a deity? because this needs to be supported or tossed out.
I'll take Christianity as an example.
We live by faith, not by sight. - 2 Corinthians 5:7have you never read this forum before?
I'm one of the regular posters here.because there's been countless arguments of people directly espousing atheist positions and balking at the name.
Never seen them. While these alleged arguments were taking place, did these posters at any time say that they were afraid to call themselves atheists and move on??
-
If we are arguing semantics what is the difference between
"I believe there are no gods."
and
"I think there are no gods."
Since a belief is an idea I hold to be true and an idea is a thought, a pure construct of the mind. How are the two statements different?
-
i'm choosing to state what an atheist believes in a different fashion. the prefix's purpose is clear in either case.You could but you would be ignoring the fact that the "a-" in atheist is a prefix meaning "without", "lacking" or "absence".
well, saying that would lead me to believe you wouldn't argue so hard to mash them together... but we're seeing that this is not the case.Exactly.
because there is no position on one's belief in ? that cannot be expressed with a stance (atheist/theist/agnostic), so i remain unsure as to WHY we need the pointless frankenterms.Not for no reason at all. As explained, theism is a position based on belief; gnosticism is a position based on knowledge. Why couldn't you combine them?
good for you?I'm an American male. American is a nationality; male is a gender.
...which is another way of saying you think no gods exist.Or if you simply lack belief in gods, you're also an atheist.
so again, in this scenario, you think ? exists, but cannot be sure due to your lack of knowledge, which makes you an agnostic. what was the problem again?Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge so no, agnosticism is where one denies knowledge of the existence of ? ; that ? 's existence is unknown and (probably) unknowable.
one, you're completely misreading this verse. you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a ? ? two... no, i will say it again, you're completely misreading it.I'll take Christianity as an example.
We live by faith, not by sight. - 2 Corinthians 5:7
starting to doubt thisI'm one of the regular posters here.
no, we're talking about people who define themselves in line with atheism and then refuse to accept that label.Never seen them. While these alleged arguments were taking place, did these posters at any time say that they were afraid to call themselves atheists and move on? -
Proof that ? is real is that Atheists are ugly.
-
i'm choosing to state what an atheist believes in a different fashion.
Well let's try not to make things up. You can't switch around the meanings of words to fit your agenda.well, saying that would lead me to believe you wouldn't argue so hard to mash them together.
The definitions of these words don't cancel each other out or create a contradiction so it's not impossible to do that and continue to make sense.there is no position on one's belief in ? that cannot be expressed with a stance (atheist/theist/agnostic), so i remain unsure as to WHY we need the pointless frankenterms.
The bolded is why.
"Gnostic" derives from the greek term "gnostikos" which translates to "learned". Gnosticism is a term relating to knowledge, not belief.good for you?
"American" is a term relating to nationality; "Male" is a term relating to gender. They are two different meanings that do not create a contradiction -- it is possible to "mash" them together in order to be specific about a person, the same way you would with something like "agnostic atheist".which is another way of saying you think no gods exist.
Not exactly the same. Without evidence to support an idea in the first place, you simply lack belief in that idea. If you believe you have enough grounding to make the assertion that there are no gods, that's a slightly different position.so again, in this scenario, you think ? exists, but cannot be sure due to your lack of knowledge, which makes you an agnostic. what was the problem again?
In that scenario, you believe ? exists but you also claim ? 's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That's agnostic theism.
Someone could be agnostic by claiming that ? 's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That has nothing to do with whether or not they personally believe in the existence of ? . Anyone who claims that ? 's existence is unknown/unknowable could then follow that claim by stating "but I believe in ? 's existence" or "but I don't believe in ? 's existence" making them either theist or atheist; specifically an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.one, you're completely misreading this verse. you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a ? ? two... no, i will say it again, you're completely misreading it.
If that's the case, most Christians misread it because I've repeatedly heard that Christianity requires faith. You wouldn't need faith if you had proof, knowledge, or as the Bible verse reads, "sight" ie. "seeing" that something is true.starting to doubt this
oh?no.
Well then let's not jump to conclusions. -
no one is making things up, hence the reason i said i was stating it differently.Well let's try not to make things up. You can't switch around the meanings of words to fit your agenda.
i think you found the part where we don't agree. agnostics and atheists are not the same thing.The definitions of these words don't cancel each other out or create a contradiction-
repeating this doesn't really change the fact that agnostic IS a position on your religious belief: you do not believe you can know whether or not ? (s) exist."Gnostic" derives from the greek term "gnostikos" which translates to "learned". Gnosticism is a term relating to knowledge, not belief.
gender and nationality are, of course, two different things. agnostic and atheist are positions on the same thing."American" is a term relating to nationality; "Male" is a term relating to gender. They are two different meanings that do not create a contradiction -- it is possible to "mash" them together in order to be specific about a person, the same way you would with something like "agnostic atheist".
without evidence, you can either choose to believe you cannot know (agnostic) or take a theist/atheist position.Not exactly the same. Without evidence to support an idea in the first place, you simply lack belief in that idea. If you believe you have enough grounding to make the assertion that there are no gods, that's a slightly different position.
if you believe ? exists, you're a theist. working out the specifics of your religious beliefs is another matter, but does not require you to say "well, i am an agnostic at the same time."In that scenario, you believe ? exists but you also claim ? 's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That's agnostic theism.
citing faith over proof is not the same thing as saying you don't know there's a deity, it's saying you're not basing your religious beliefs on some societal standard of proof.If that's the case, most Christians misread it because I've repeatedly heard that Christianity requires faith. You wouldn't need faith if you had proof, knowledge, or as the Bible verse reads, "sight" ie. "seeing" that something is true.
yeah, especially since some of us have been around for a while.oh?
how about i base my conclusions on having read the arguments in question? "we're talking about people who define themselves in line with atheism and then refuse to accept that label."Well then let's not jump to conclusions. -
citing faith over proof is not the same thing as saying you don't know there's a deity, it's saying you're not basing your religious beliefs on some societal standard of proof.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen ? , but ? the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Paul put his faith in Jesus; Christians of that time knew that no one had seen ? , as admitted by the author of the gospel of John. Paul felt that through his relationship with Christ, whom he put his faith in, ? was known. Hence the reason he claimed "we live by faith, not by sight".i think you found the part where we don't agree. agnostics and atheists are not the same thing.
Maybe if we focus on this, we can get further.agnostic IS a position on your religious belief: you do not believe you can know whether or not ? (s) exist.without evidence, you can either choose to believe you cannot know (agnostic) or take a theist/atheist position.if you believe ? exists, you're a theist. working out the specifics of your religious beliefs is another matter, but does not require you to say "well, i am an agnostic at the same time."
Is it not true that you can claim ? 's existence to be unknowable yet remain a theist or an atheist??
-
@oceanic. You can't be agnostic and a theist. An agnostic lends to skepticism of the existence of a deity and is not really invested in the idea...as for a theist, they may not know that a deity exist, but believe that this deity can be known. And as @janklow said, the specifics of religious beliefs is another matter.
-
...I like to think that agnostics are indifferent when it comes to the existence of a deity. The agnostic doesn't really have concerns about whether it is true or false. The agnostic looks at both the theist and the atheist and question the commitment of their stances.
-
the point remains that living by faith, not by sight is not a statement that ? is unknowable.Paul put his faith in Jesus; Christians of that time knew that no one had seen ? , as admitted by the author of the gospel of John. Paul felt that through his relationship with Christ, whom he put his faith in, ? was known. Hence the reason he claimed "we live by faith, not by sight".
pretty sure i am saying noIs it not true that you can claim ? 's existence to be unknowable yet remain a theist or an atheist??
-
-
the point remains that living by faith, not by sight is not a statement that ? is unknowable.
The point was never there. If you "know", you don't need "faith". Period. Paul said "not by sight" but faith.
-
looks like you could have saved yourself a lot of time here if you'd have cut to the chase earlierThen we wont agree because my answer to that is "yes".
i am sorry that you misread the Bible verse and it didn't work out for you. Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "? is unknowable" argument?The point was never there. If you "know", you don't need "faith". Period. Paul said "not by sight" but faith. -
looks like you could have saved yourself a lot of time here if you'd have cut to the chase earlier
I didn't ask you to say anything to me. I guess you wanted to know my opinion so I gave it to you.i am sorry that you misread the Bible verse and it didn't work out for you. Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "? is unknowable" argument?
Yes; like I said, belief is "faith based".. You would not need faith if you had, in your words "tangible" proof or evidence. That is what Paul said.
Not only did Paul say it, but the writer of John 1:18 agreed in claiming that "no one has ever seen ? ".
This discussion has been closed.