(February 1, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Blackout Wrote: Wizard, the definition of "atheism is a lack of belief in gods" is the definition of agnostic atheism. If this is, however the only definition of atheism, then I'm not an atheist, because I don't fit the lack of belief label. Gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism are both two forms of atheism, but both are atheism. what I'm saying is that the definition of atheism is both, it's not just a lack of belief in gods; it's either a lack of belief in gods or the belief no gods exist, depending on the individual. If semantically atheism is just a lack of belief, then I am not an atheist by that definition

Your still not getting it, the atheism part of agnostic and gnostic atheists is still the same. Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheist both do not believe in gods, the difference is a gnostic claims to know and an agnostic doesn't claim to know, but the fact that they are atheist means they both lack the belief. Theism and Atheism address what you believe and Gnosticism and Agnosticism address knowledge.

A Gnostic Atheist assumes a burden of proof because he is claiming to know. An Agnostic Atheist does not assume a burden of proof because hes not claiming knowledge. But the burden of proof shifts on the fact of whether they are Gnostic or Agnostic, you can not get to a position of knowledge from just atheism.

(February 1, 2015 at 5:30 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Blackout Wrote: Wizard, the definition of "atheism is a lack of belief in gods" is the definition of agnostic atheism. If this is, however the only definition of atheism, then I'm not an atheist, because I don't fit the lack of belief label. Gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism are both two forms of atheism, but both are atheism. what I'm saying is that the definition of atheism is both, it's not just a lack of belief in gods; it's either a lack of belief in gods or the belief no gods exist, depending on the individual. If semantically atheism is just a lack of belief, then I am not an atheist by that definition

Your still not getting it, the atheism part of agnostic and gnostic atheists is still the same. Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheist both do not believe in gods, the difference is a gnostic claims to know and an agnostic doesn't claim to know, but the fact that they are atheist means they both lack the belief. Theism and Atheism address what you believe and Gnosticism and Agnosticism address knowledge.

In this sense I also lack belief, but it goes further. That doesn't mean we should define atheism as being just a lack of belief because atheism can be more than that. Defining atheism just as a lack of belief in gods doesn't represent all atheists in the world

(February 1, 2015 at 5:34 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 5:30 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Your still not getting it, the atheism part of agnostic and gnostic atheists is still the same. Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheist both do not believe in gods, the difference is a gnostic claims to know and an agnostic doesn't claim to know, but the fact that they are atheist means they both lack the belief. Theism and Atheism address what you believe and Gnosticism and Agnosticism address knowledge.

In this sense I also lack belief, but it goes further. That doesn't mean we should define atheism as being just a lack of belief because atheism can be more than that. Defining atheism just as a lack of belief in gods doesn't represent all atheists in the world

Yes actually it does because someone who doesn't believe in a god is an atheist, that is the only requirement to being an atheist.

That is the minimum requirement, but not all atheists fit that definition - Therefore it isn't enough. It excludes some people

(February 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: That is the minimum requirement, but not all atheists fit that definition - Therefore it isn't enough. It excludes some people

What!? Ok name one atheist that believes in god? Guess what they wouldn't be an atheist. People who don't believe in god are atheists plain and simple, atheists can be a number of other things and have many positions on many different topics but when it comes to believing in god they share the same position. Atheist is a label for those who don't believe in god anything outside of that is there own business.

(February 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: That is the minimum requirement, but not all atheists fit that definition - Therefore it isn't enough. It excludes some people

Huh? All atheists fit that definition by definition because that's the definition.

(February 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: That is the minimum requirement, but not all atheists fit that definition - Therefore it isn't enough. It excludes some people

No, actually, it doesn't. Lacking belief in god and claiming knowledge of god's non-existence are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that god does not exist, then you must necessarily lack a belief that s/he does as well.

(February 1, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: That is the minimum requirement, but not all atheists fit that definition - Therefore it isn't enough. It excludes some people

No, actually, it doesn't. Lacking belief in god and claiming knowledge of god's non-existence are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that god does not exist, then you must necessarily lack a belief that s/he does as well.

Yeah I got the semantics wrong.

But when someone asks me to define my atheistic position/state of mind, I will happily say that I reject god claims (and additionally that I reject supernatural claims as well)

(June 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

I think most of us are all prone to hyperbole when it comes to debating the existence/non-existence of deities, and this is understandable as it is often representative of the many ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc. we set-out our stalls to.

We have some interesting theory but no one can really say they have the definitive reason for the evolution of the notion of god or gods. On thing I am fairly certain of is that is it not as arbitrary as many of us would like to think. Bobby Henderson's satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster was a wonderful device in it's proper context (as a device used to illustrate his point to the Kansas State Board of Education in the matter of teaching intelligent design in schools) but it does seem to have been adopted as a mascot for those who think the creation of gods is purely arbitrary, which is to massively oversimplify the issue.

Whether religious people like their gods human, eight-armed, elephant or jackal headed, or full non-human animals, one fact is fairly certain, all of them have lasted thousands of years - which for any human ideology is really quite extraordinary. So, it is reasonable to assume something is afoot, quite what we don't yet fully understand but I think it is incumbent upon those of us in a position to be truly disinterested to enquire.

What is for certain is that it is almost certainly not 'illogical' or idiotic', misinformed and ignorant it may be but we cannot blame our ancestors for not knowing about certain things any more that you would want your descendants thinking you were a total moron for the things you believe that they may eventually prove to be otherwise.

I am of the opinion we need to stop ancestor bashing (as the originators of these entities) and make better informed enquiries.

MM

(June 9, 2014 at 3:15 am)Godschild Wrote: Why are some so stupid to believe there's such a thing as dark matter, it can't be seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted,

GC

The same way we know air is there when blowing up a balloon - there are various techniques you can use to detect the effects of dark matter - here.

Quote:This technique is now powerful enough to produce maps of the dark matter distribution in the Universe.