(June 28, 2021 at 6:20 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Consider this proposition, Frank.

There is a 9 foot tall invisible bunny rabbit in your front yard. But not only is it invisible, normal matter passes through it. There is virtually no way for science to detect it.

But it is my belief that this bunny nevertheless exists. Why? Because when I think about your front yard, I'm filled with all kinds of sensations of clover-eating and Easter baskets.

Now, the agnostic position is simply this: it cannot be known. If anyone is going to reject my personal criterion for knowledge (fuzzy feelings) they may say the fact that science not being able to detect the bunny is good reason to think it can't be known whether it exists or not.

So let's say you accept the agnostic argument and agree that it can't be known (or at the very least YOU DON'T KNOW).

One question can still be asked:

Do you believe the bunny exists?

It's a yes or no question, one that agnostics about the bunny can provide an answer to; and we could construct two distinct categories (bunnyist, abunnyist) depending on which answer people give. Simple as that.

Ultimately, I suppose that we could choose other names for such things, and the fact we've chosen these specific names simply boils down to convention. But even if THAT is your position, you still must recognize that the underlying questions (and the answers that accompany them) are still the same. And THAT is the substantive part of the issue, for gods and bunnies alike.

Your hypothetical pretty much solidifies my objection to using "atheist" as "someone without a belief in a god.

You atheists want "atheist" to mean "a" (without) + "theist" (a believer in a god) = WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A GOD.

BUT IT DOESN'T.

Atheist is an older word in the English language than theist. It did not come from "theist." It came from "theos" a god...and means "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = WITHOUT A GOD.

IT DOES NOT MEAN WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A GOD...IT MEANS WITHOUT A GOD.

If there is a god (one of two possibilities) one IS STILL WITH A GOD...even if he/she does not "believe" the god exists.

Yeah, it is used the way the atheists here are insisting...and if used that way, all agnostics (which actually includes all theists also) are atheists.

Really stupid.

New born infants and toddlers who do not "believe" in any gods are not atheists by default. Acknowledged agnostics are not atheists by default. I am not an atheist by default.

Be sensible. Get off the bullshit. Stop insisting that it is binary...and that people like me are de facto atheists because of a mistaken etymology.

(June 28, 2021 at 6:36 am)Frank Apisa Wrote: New born infants and toddlers who do not "believe" in any gods are not atheists by default.

Yeah. We don't call newborns "atheists." But neither do we call them "illiterate"... even though (technically) both terms apply.



edit: we need to be more careful trying to draw essential definitions from etymology, too. It's a good guidepost, but no good for precise conversation. For instance, "antonym" derives from "anti" (Greek for against) and "onuma" (Greek for name). But we should not say that the essential definition of antonym is "against the name."

(June 28, 2021 at 6:43 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(June 28, 2021 at 6:36 am)Frank Apisa Wrote: New born infants and toddlers who do not "believe" in any gods are not atheists by default.

Yeah. We don't call newborns "atheists." But neither do we call them "illiterate"... even though (technically) both terms apply.



edit: we need to be more careful trying to draw essential definitions from etymology, too. It's a good guidepost, but no good for precise conversation. For instance, "antonym" derives from "anti" (Greek for against) and "onuma" (Greek for name). But we should say that the essential definition of antonym is "against the name."

I agree, Vulcan, that we have to be careful with our use of etymology.

However, we can easily call people who do not "believe" gods exist...PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST. No problem there at all.

But to invent a descriptor like "atheist" and then insist that IT applies to all PEOPLE WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" ANY GODS EXIST...is an absurdity to logic and reason. (Your Vulcan logic should be flashing alarm buttons because of that!)

I am saying that atheists should stop that bullshit. It is not necessary to try to make this a binary issue between theism and atheism. It is unnecessary, and an insult to many agnostics, to insist that they be deemed atheists.

(By the way, in several atheist sites I have visited for a short while, MANY ATHEISTS in those places DO insist that infants and toddlers and mentally challenged individuals ARE atheist, because they do not "believe" in any gods. They insist we are all born atheists...and that theists must be hoodwinked into becoming theists.

In any case, I doubt any atheist here really wants me to be one of them. Why do you supose so many are insisting that I must be deemed to be one of them?

(June 28, 2021 at 7:06 am)Frank Apisa Wrote:

(June 28, 2021 at 6:43 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Yeah. We don't call newborns "atheists." But neither do we call them "illiterate"... even though (technically) both terms apply.



edit: we need to be more careful trying to draw essential definitions from etymology, too. It's a good guidepost, but no good for precise conversation. For instance, "antonym" derives from "anti" (Greek for against) and "onuma" (Greek for name). But we should say that the essential definition of antonym is "against the name."

I agree, Vulcan, that we have to be careful with our use of etymology.

However, we can easily call people who do not "believe" gods exist...PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST. No problem there at all.

But to invent a descriptor like "atheist" and then insist that IT applies to all PEOPLE WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" ANY GODS EXIST...is an absurdity to logic and reason. (Your Vulcan logic should be flashing alarm buttons because of that!)

I am saying that atheists should stop that bullshit. It is not necessary to try to make this a binary issue between theism and atheism. It is unnecessary, and an insult to many agnostics, to insist that they be deemed atheists.

(By the way, in several atheist sites I have visited for a short while, MANY ATHEISTS in those places DO insist that infants and toddlers and mentally challenged individuals ARE atheist, because they do not "believe" in any gods. They insist we are all born atheists...and that theists must be hoodwinked into becoming theists.

In any case, I doubt any atheist here really wants me to be one of them. Why do you supose so many are insisting that I must be deemed to be one of them?

Because you have claimed to actually be an atheist. Why would you claim to NOT be that which you actually are?

Are you somehow ashamed of yourself?

(June 28, 2021 at 7:06 am)Frank Apisa Wrote: It is not necessary to try to make this a binary issue between theism and atheism.

There is a difference between believing that God exists and that God does not exist like there's a difference between collecting stamps and not collecting stamps.

Like if you believe in God in Germany you have to give 10% of your paycheck to Church.

And atheists did not invent that difference nor naming people according to their beliefs.

(June 28, 2021 at 7:28 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Like if you believe in God in Germany you have to give 10% of your paycheck to Church.

Wrong. Twice

#1
You have to pay as long as you are a member of the catholic or protestant church. Actual belief is not checked.

#2
Its not 10%, its 10% of your income tax, which depends on your income (progressive income tax), but is in the 20% ballpark. That makes church tax 10% of 20% of your income: 2%

Addendum:
Its easy to leave church. Takes about 10mins in the townhall, no questions asked, no pressure applied whatsoever

(June 28, 2021 at 7:49 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You have to pay as long as you are a member of the catholic or protestant church. Actual belief is not checked.

Well, isn't a belief in God implied?

(June 28, 2021 at 7:49 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Addendum:
Its easy to leave church. Takes about 10mins in the townhall, no questions asked, no pressure applied whatsoever

Yeah, but you also have to pay 70 Euros as a fee.

(June 28, 2021 at 8:07 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(June 28, 2021 at 7:49 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You have to pay as long as you are a member of the catholic or protestant church. Actual belief is not checked.

Well, isn't a belief in God implied?

(June 28, 2021 at 7:49 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Addendum:
Its easy to leave church. Takes about 10mins in the townhall, no questions asked, no pressure applied whatsoever

Yeah, but you also have to pay 70 Euros as a fee.

As to your first question. My brother joined a Catholic church to get a break on Catholic school tuition for his son who needed the extra care of a smaller class as compared to the local public schools. Though we were raised Catholic, my siblings and I are not believers.

(June 28, 2021 at 8:07 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, but you also have to pay 70 Euros as a fee.

Iirc it was 25€ or so.

(June 27, 2021 at 4:48 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote: 1) I do not "believe" it. I do not do "believing."

2)  There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

3)  If you are unable to see that...I really do not care.

If number 1 is true, number 2 must be false, and vv. If 3 is true than the entire premise of this thread you created is false.

....but all I’m asking is -why- you believe 2, or think 2, or are of the opinion 2, or feel 2. I don’t care what you call it, I will obviously call it anything up to and including a ham sandwich. I simply want to hear that no 2 explained. Is there any explanation for why you hold that position that you are capable of expressing?

It’s manifestly obvious, to my understanding, that you strongly whatever no 2. Why?