"Atheism is a world view"

[Nearly Sane]

Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

No atheist can deny the possibility of a god existing, but in the absence of any evidence to support one, we find it more sensible not to believe in any of the gods man has invented.

Just to note that while ignosticism has been described as 'another matter' here, in relation to the question above, I as an ignostic atheist, would say that the question of the possibility of god existing is not truth apt and isn't something I would take a position on.

[Leonard James]

Just to note that while ignosticism has been described as 'another matter' here, in relation to the question above, I as an ignostic atheist, would say that the question of the possibility of god existing is not truth apt and isn't something I would take a position on.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

[Shaker]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.

Yes, I just had a look back at that.

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own sake?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby

[Leonard James]

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?

Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

This makes no sense at all.

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Alien - is your 'aThorism', the denial of the existence of Thor, or a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.

I suspect you might bristle at the notion that you were denying the existence of Thor and probably see that as a biased and pejorative definition.

So Thorism is a belief in the existence of Thor. AThorism is a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.

Just as theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods and atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

[Leonard James]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby

Although there is no evidence for the existence of either a supernatural creator god or an invisible pink unicorn, I think the former is marginally more possible, whilst still being very remote.

[Outrider]

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).

Given that reality, it would probably be sensible if people presumed agnostic atheism until and unless someone specifically made the positive assertion.

By the same token, it would probably be sensible if people didn't presume Biblical literalism, but there's a tendency towards that as well.

O.

[Andy]

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).

No, it's always lack, but not always denial.

It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.

[Alien]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Yes, I agree that it does still include "not believing in gods", but it claims more than just that. The Stanford dictionary says that atheism say, "There are no gods/God" rather than just not say that there is a God/gods. The Stanford definition is what is called elsewhere, "Strong atheism."

[Alien]

Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

No atheist can deny the possibility of a god existing, but in the absence of any evidence to support one, we find it more sensible not to believe in any of the gods man has invented.

That is incorrect. An atheist can do that, but I take it you are saying that they should not do that.

[Alien]

...Denial is a pejorative term

Whatever are you on about? Good grief.

and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').

Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

I suggest you take it up with Stanford University's Philosophy Department then.

[Outrider]

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).

No, it's always lack, but not always denial.

It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.

Agreed, which is why I suggested that people should err on the side of agnostic atheism until they're given a reason otherwise.

O.

[Alien]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.

Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists.  What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?

[Alien]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.

Yes, I just had a look back at that.

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own sake?

As I have said above, I agree with Andy's post, but you don't seem to have understood the Stanford definition.

[Alien]

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?

Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.

Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?

[Andy]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.

Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists.  What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?

What has the Stanford Uni definition got to do with how we are defining it, and how you have agreed to how we define it? Only you keep bringing Stanford up, which you've just said is how you understand strong atheism to be defined, rather than just atheism.

[Leonard James]

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?

Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.

Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?

Everybody's! If it's conclusive, nobody can deny it.

[Alien]

Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

This makes no sense at all.

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

As has been said a number of times before, there are two ways of looking at the negation of theism, i.e. "athei-ism" and "a-theism", i.e. the belief that there is no God/gods and a lack of belief that there are is a God/gods respectively, i.e. strong atheism and weak atheism respectively. Different people and different groups use the term "atheism" differently. Hence the need sometimes for clarification.

Alien - is your 'aThorism', the denial of the existence of Thor, or a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.

Both.

I suspect you might bristle at the notion that you were denying the existence of Thor and probably see that as a biased and pejorative definition.

What a very silly statement.

So Thorism is a belief in the existence of Thor. AThorism is a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.

If used as a parallel with atheism, there is both strong and weak athorism.

Just as theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods and atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

Is that meant to follow on as a result of what you wrote above, because it does not. There are two distinct meanings of "atheism" in use in English. I gave links to 4 non-Christian sites which explain the difference meanings.

Why are you lot so het up about it?

[Alien]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby

Although there is no evidence for the existence of either a supernatural creator god or an invisible pink unicorn, I think the former is marginally more possible, whilst still being very remote.

That's nice for you.

[ProfessorDavey]

...Denial is a pejorative term

Whatever are you on about? Good grief.

Of course it is - the manner in which that 'definition' is framed suggests a default assumption that there is a god and therefore that someone who doesn't belief must therefore be in denial. Someone who is in denial is usefully assumed to be someone who is unable or unwilling to accept the truth, not someone who simply has an alternative and equally valid point of view or belief.

So I ask again - is your position that you deny the existence of Thor, or that you do not believe in the existence of Thor.

and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').

Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

I suggest you take it up with Stanford University's Philosophy Department then.

Well to be honest I wouldn't have thought that a Philosophy department (however highly regarded the university) is the place where definitions of words are best determined. If this is to be done within an academic institution then that place is, of course, a linguistics department and specifically within the discipline of lexicography.

[Alien]

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).

Given that reality, it would probably be sensible if people presumed agnostic atheism until and unless someone specifically made the positive assertion.

That seems fair enough on this board, but bear in mind that new people pop in from time to time and may use it as some others do out in the outside world.

By the same token, it would probably be sensible if people didn't presume Biblical literalism, but there's a tendency towards that as well.

O.

Fairy nuff.

How should we use the term "Creationist" on these boards? Someone who believes in creation, which would include me, or someone who believes in a 6-day creation as per a literal understanding of Genesis 1, i.e. as hijacked by certain Christians (aided and abetted by some atheists) over the last few decades.

Are we also to assume the term "Christian" is a true follower of Jesus Christ and that this includes, at least, belief in his deity and a repentance of their sins? If so, would someone please inform jakswan.

[Alien]

If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.

Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).

No, it's always lack, but not always denial.

It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.

Agreed, which is why I suggested that people should err on the side of agnostic atheism until they're given a reason otherwise.

O.

Or just bung in "strong/gnostic" or "weak/agnostic" if there is any doubt about what is meant and particularly in thread titles and opening posts?

[Alien]

Which still means not believing in any gods.

Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?

Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.

Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists.  What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?

What has the Stanford Uni definition got to do with how we are defining it, and how you have agreed to how we define it? Only you keep bringing Stanford up, which you've just said is how you understand strong atheism to be defined, rather than just atheism.

Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?

[Alien]

So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?

Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.

Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?

Everybody's! If it's conclusive, nobody can deny it.

Don't be naive, Len.