Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Could you quote where I made the two assertions you are referring to?
You seem to be posting a reply to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... yet you didn't post under it. Yet that was a post in reply to one where you quoted Huxley on what agnostism meant. As I quoted in my post you wrote:
---
Huxly: "Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
I am in agreement with Huxly. I would never say something as silly as "Reality is one with one or more deities." or "Reality is one without any deities." How in the hell would you know such a thing?
---
Indicating from the quote that Huxley was regarding it to be about knowledge or belief. The clue is his use of the words "believes" and "believe" in the sentence you quoted. I don't know whether you were intentionally being dishonest, or simply failed to comprehend the sentence. If the latter, then I hope I have helped you comprehend what you were quoting.
Furthermore I am not arguing any strawman position. I am just pointing out that there are multiple definitions of what an atheist is. I clearly distinguished two, the one I referred to as the "official" and the one I referred to as the "common". The issue is why favour a definition that effectively means a person that takes either position (2) or (3), rather than a definition that means a person that takes position (2)? I was assuming people that take position (3) (like Huxley) tend to refer to themselves as asgnostic and use the "common" definition of atheist. Though maybe you are the exception because you wrote that you agree with Huxley, and Huxley was suggesting that a person is not justified believing in position (2) without any scientific grounds to do so. But I am not sure because you did not answer the question about whether you took position (3), and you did not mention whether you thought that people on this forum that take position (2) are silly (given that you stated you agreed with Huxley, and that in the Huxley quote you supplied Huxley was saying "know or believe" which seems in line with position (3) lack of belief being an agnostic position as I had stated)?
Ironically it is you that *is* creating a strawman argument, seemingly trying to suggest that I am taking the "official" of atheism, and suggesting it implies a belief. I am clearly not though. The "official" version would imply that the atheist takes either position (2) or position (3) (which I have repeatedly explained), and position (3) explicitly holds no belief in either statement (A) or (B). Whether you are creating the strawman with dishonest intent or not I am not sure, because your comprehension skills would I thought have seemed poor for a 10 year old (you seemingly not understanding that Huxley was also talking about belief for example, though blatant dishonesty could also explain that).
Why is it that you keep failing to post under the post (it is as though you don't want people to be able easily see how the conversation has been going, because surely you know how the site is supposed to work)?
How do you feel the discussion is going by the way, do you feel you have been able to follow it?
pray
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Agnosticism
Noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
This obviously depends on how a deity is being defined, but if it is an unfalsifiable claim then I must be agnostic about it, though of course I would not believe a claim about which nothing can be known, and therefore no evidence can be demonstrated. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.
Flamenca wrote: "when an atheist says that kids are born atheists, they are referring to the fact that to become a believer you need to be indocrinated, and if you are not, you remain an atheist, meaning "who lacks belief". Atheism doesn't require brainwashing; religions do."
I mostly disagree with this. Indoctrination is a snarl word that means "teaching things you disagree with."
Moving on, you are not born religious or non-religious, but personality type does play a major role in how you religious you are when you grow up. Athiesm is not to behave like an animal, it is to consciously reject religion. You cannot become an atheist without being exposed to religious ideas. If there was no religion, people would simply be nothing. If I've never heard of Big Foot before, I cannot be aBigFoot (not a Big Foot believer). For all you know, if I were to be exposed to the arguments for the existence of Big Foot, I might be predisposed to believe. If you try to convince me, and I am unconvinced, then I'm aBigFoot.
@Glacier
I think you simply reject the notion of "implicit atheism".
If you have no concept of Big Foot, I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not have a belief in Big Foot. So yes, you would qualify as a "not a Big Foot believer".
@Glacier: I used the word "indoctrination" in this sense (Cambridge dictionary online): "to often repeat an idea or belief to someone in other to persuade them to accept It".
And remember it's the lack of belief in a magical superpowerful being what joins us, regardless of how we got to become godless.
Fair enough, In his Book "Living with Stupidity in the 21st Century" Scott Adams makes many good points including the fact that indoctrination is a good thing when we are indoctrinating out kids with things that are good for them like "don't hit, lie, cheat, steal, etc." Bad indoctrination is when we indoctrinating out kids into things that are bad for them.
@Glacier, I'm fine with that distinction. Thanks for clarifying. Of course, in the comment you disagreed with, I was referring to the "bad indoctrination" type.
@ Why are you wasting your time. All you are doing is ignoring posts and trying to bounce about with equivocation fallacies, intentional lies, Straw Man positions, and ridiculous assertions about the position atheists take.
HUXLY: Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
@ Indicating from the quote that Huxley was regarding it to be about knowledge or belief.
Obviously you are ignorant of the relationship between knowledge and belief. Beliefs are justified by knowledge. Huxley is correct. The only person being manipulative and dishonest is you.
A man shall not KNOW OR SAY - "Reality is one with one or more deities." A fallacious claim
A man shall not KNOW OR SAY - "Reality is one without any deities." A fallacious claim.
Atheism: A lack of belief in God or gods.
@ I am just pointing out multiple definitions of atheism I just pointed out two.
No you attempted to create a false dichotomy, straw man, to further your agenda.
DEAL WITH THE DEFINITION: Atheists do not believe in God or gods. Atheists do not believe in A or B. Huxly is correct,,, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY WITHOUT FACTS OR EVIDENCE.
@Cognostic
It seems you are not capable of following an easy to understand quote. Knowing something is clearly not the same as believing something. To know something means you are infallible regarding the truth of it. To believe something means that you think the statement is true, but you are not claiming infallibility regarding the truth of it. In the Huxley quote regarding agnosticism
---
It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
---
There is the word "or" between know and believe. That indicates that Huxley is distinguishing them and that what he is saying can apply to either. The quote is somewhat ambiguous, in that it does not make clear whether Huxley intend it imply that an agnostic believes:
A man shall not say he knows that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know.
A man shall not say he knows that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to believe.
A man shall not say he believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know.
A man shall not say he believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to believe.
Or did he intend it to just imply the following meanings:
A man shall not say he knows that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know.
A man shall not say he believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to believe.
Though a charitable reading would I suggest infer the latter.
As for your definition regarding atheists, the definition you supply is just one definition, it is not the only one. Huxley for example uses a different definition for atheists. I pointed this out in my post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... . Pointing this out does not create either a false dichotomy or strawman. It is not a false dichotomy because I do not claim that there are only two definitions. It is clearly not a strawman either, because I make no attempt to paraphrase anyone else's argument (and then end up doing it incorrectly and point out the problems with it). Ironically it is you making a strawman argument, by misrepresenting what I have written.
As for the definition you supplied
---
Atheists do not believe in God or gods
---
you then wrote:
---
Atheists do not believe in A or B.
---
I assume "A or B" refers to the A and B in the post that I supplied a link to. Though for the readers' convenience I will resupply an extract here
---
So consider these two belief statements.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
and
B) Reality is one without any deities.
They are not logical complements of each other, but they are mutually exclusive. Now with regards to belief about those two statements a person (ignoring ones that don't believe in existence and thus deny that there is reality and ones refusing to think about it) could take one of three positions:
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) not know whether to believe (A) is true or whether to believe (B) is true.
---
I wonder whether I was the only one that found it slightly amusing that you (and the one that agreed with you) failed to understand the definition you supplied. It only implies a lack of belief in A. It does not imply a lack of belief in B. Those that take position (2) (a belief in B) and those that take position (3) are both atheists by that definition.
What I was questioning in my original post was that if those that take position (3) tend to refer to themselves as agnostic, why would those that take position (2) favour the type of definition you quoted, rather than a definition which points out they take position (2). I presume you are suggesting that you take position (3) since you seem to have suggested that you did not realise believing B (which is position (2)) was open to an atheist. Could you please make it explicit whether regarding positions A and B you take position (1), (2), or (3)?
@To know something means you are infallible regarding the truth of it. To believe something means that you think the statement is true, but you are not claiming infallibility regarding the truth of it.
Wrong banana breath. There are a billion ways to know something. We once knew the earth was flat. A billion people know God is real. Ancients knew lightening bolts were thrown by Zeus. People all over the world know that if you go outside with wet hair you will catch a cold because they have never paid attention to the germ theory of disease.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. Believing things based on Knowledge is what science does. That's why scientists do experiments, why historians read books, and archaeologists dig in the dirt. Belief is held to the degree it is valid and justifiable. I have one belief about seeing the sun in the morning and another about your ability so understand logic. These things are not believed to the same degree.
And once again: I am the one agreeing with Huxly, not you, You are making all sorts of assertions. "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." READ IT AGAIN UNTIL YOU GET IT.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities. (REJECTED: You are asserting an unfalsifiable claim. HUXLY SAYS YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
B) Reality is one without any deities. (REJECTED: You are asserting an unfalsifiable claim. HUXLY SAYS YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Atheists are people that do not believe in god or gods. We do not believe in A or B. If you make an assertion, you are adopting the burden of proof. Prove A or B and then we can continue.
YOU CAN ASSUME ALL YOU WANT. You are getting nowhere with your Straw Man False Dichotomy BS. READ HUXLY'S QUOTE UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
@Cognostic
I notice again that you did not reply in such a way that it indicated which post you were replying to. Perhaps you would prefer that readers could not easily follow the conversation. For their convenience, I'll mention that you were replying to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
In your reply you wrote
---
There are a billion ways to know something. We once knew the earth was flat.
---
You are wrong. They believed that the world was flat. They may have thought they knew it, but I think the latest consensus is that they were wrong. I suggest you perhaps read section 1 or at least the start of the page https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology . It discusses differences in approaches to how people go about establishing what they consider to be knowledge. But none of them disagree on the following point:
---
False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth.
---
Other than the ambiguity in Huxley's quote that I had pointed out in the post you were replying to, I had understood it. I had also quoted Huxley pointing out that he did not consider himself an atheist, in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag....
Regarding statements A and B you habitually misunderstood. I did not suggest that Huxley would not have rejected a belief in either. I pointed out that those that do (those that take position (3) ) usually identify themselves as agnostics. The point I was making was that you had not understood the definition of atheism that you put forward. The definition of atheism that you put forward was
---
Atheists do not believe in God or gods
---
you then wrote:
---
Atheists do not believe in A or B.
---
But the definition simply means that an atheist does not believe in A. Not as you thought that it meant that an atheist did not believe in B. You simply did not understand the definition that you supplied about atheism. As I pointed out last post. Maybe read that post and this one again until you understand this point, so that when you reply you don't avoid addressing this.
You've been told repeatedly, and by multiple posters that atheism is not an assertion or a belief. yet you insist in asking atheists if they 'believe' a universe without deities exists, do you think we won't notice the clumsy attempt to reverse the burden of proof by dishonestly trying to change the lack of belief in a deity into a belief no deity exists? It's hardly a new technique, religious apologists use it all the time.
"ou simply did not understand the definition that you supplied about atheism."
It's you who is offering an erroneous definition of atheism. It's in the dictionary and it has been quoted for you.
Atheism
Noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
It is not a belief of any kind, despite your repeated attempts to insist people must choose between two definitions you have created that either imply a theistic belief, or a **belief the "universe exists with no deities".
I do not believe any deity or deities exists, as no one has demonstrated any objective evidence to support the claim, and this is not a belief about the universe, or any kind of belief. Can you really not understand this after it has been explained so many times to you?
You seem to be ignorant that it is the case that there is more than one definition of atheism, even though I have repeatedly pointed it out. Huxley for example did not consider himself an atheist, yet with the definition you supplied he would have been. I would have thought that that would be a clue to you that other definitions exist (however much you don't want them to). Pointing out that certain definitions appear in dictionaries doesn't show anything. Consider https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheism for example.
I had replied to an earlier post from you but the reply seems to be in a odd place now http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... . Since it was short, I will just quote it again (it was a reply to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... )
------------------------
You wrote:
---
Positions 1 and two are mutually exclusive, but positions 1 and 3, and positions 2 and 3 are not.
---
I was perhaps slightly lax in my writing of position (3). I had written the position as
---
3) not know whether to believe (A) is true or whether to believe (B) is true.
---
I should have written it as
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is .
So with this new writing positions (1) and (3) are mutually exclusive as are positions (2) and (3).
So given this re-written position (3) could you point which position you take (1), (2) or (3)?
------------------------
So given that re-written position (3) could you point which position you take (1), (2) or (3)?
I wonder whether this is another question that you will not answer.
Notice the question doesn't depend on which definition of atheism is used, because it doesn't even mention atheism. Though those that take position (2) and those that take (3) both qualify as atheists given the definition you supplied.
You seem to be ignorant that it is the case that there is more than one definition of atheism, even though I have repeatedly pointed it out. Huxley for example did not consider himself an atheist, yet with the definition you supplied he would have been. I would have thought that that would be a clue to you that other definitions exist (however much you don't want them to). Pointing out that certain definitions appear in dictionaries doesn't show anything. Consider https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheism for example.
I had replied to an earlier post from you but the reply seems to be in a odd place now http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... . Since it was short, I will just quote it again (it was a reply to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... )
------------------------
You wrote:
---
Positions 1 and two are mutually exclusive, but positions 1 and 3, and positions 2 and 3 are not.
---
I was perhaps slightly lax in my writing of position (3). I had written the position as
---
3) not know whether to believe (A) is true or whether to believe (B) is true.
---
I should have written it as
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is .
So with this new writing positions (1) and (3) are mutually exclusive as are positions (2) and (3).
So given this re-written position (3) could you point which position you take (1), (2) or (3)?
------------------------
So given that re-written position (3) could you point which position you take (1), (2) or (3)?
I wonder whether this is another question that you will not answer.
Notice the question doesn't depend on which definition of atheism is used, because it doesn't even mention atheism. Though those that take position (2) and those that take (3) both qualify as atheists given the definition you supplied.
@ You seem to be ignorant that it is the case that there is more than one definition of atheism, even though I have repeatedly pointed it out.
You seem to be ignorant that there are hundreds of definitions of atheism though it is continually pointed out. Furthermore, all atheists have one thing in common; a rejection of a single proposition posed by theists. "God Exists." Atheists do not believe this. THAT'S IT. GAME OVER. NOTHING MORE. END OF STORY.
@Huxley for example did not consider himself an atheist, yet with the definition you supplied he would have been.
ATHEISM MEANS - NOT BELIEVING IN GOD OR GODS. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Atheism is a position on belief. Huxly can consider himself anything he wants. Agnosticism does not answer the question "What do you believe." Knowledge is a subset of belief. Having no knowledge leads one to a lack of reasons for belief or lack of belief.
Positions 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. They are each claims about the reality of the universe.
1. God exists. This is an unfalsifiable claim that atheism rejects, generally on a lack of knowledge; however, it can be rejected for all sorts of other reasons. Buddhists can reject the claim and believe in reincarnation or Karma. (BELIEVE). They are atheists (Some not all.) A biologist may reject the claim for no other reason than he holds a different opinion (BELIEF). You are intentionally mixing belief claims with knowledge claims in an attempt to prove a point. Atheism is not on a continuum with Agnosticism. They are separate claims on separate issues.
The Atheist position from your first assertion "God Exists" is non-belief.
2. Is the claim that "God does not exist." This is an unfalsifiable claim about reality of which you have no
evidence or information. What are you talking about when you make this assertion. There are a million gods. Which one are you referring to. The statement has no meaning at all. How are you going to prove a negative?
**** I don’t believe that there are an even number of stars. But I also don’t doubt that there are an odd number of stars. Lack of evidence for A isn’t evidence of its opposite B. Without evidence or justification I need not believe either claim.
KNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge is gained through facts. This is true. But what we perceive as fact changes. This is why science changes. This is why we have Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. This is why we have Einstein's theory of gravity and Newtonian Gravity. FACTS are not set in stone. Justified true belief is based on facts. This is a small category of Belief. Most of what we believe, as evidenced by your continuing posts, is held without actual factual evidence or support. Facts bring validity to belief. In this one can see belief as the interpretation of facts or opinions held about facts. You appear to be confounding "Truth" with "Knowledge" and this is not the case.
I assume you were replying to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
I realise there are lots of definitions of atheism, I pointed it out. I also pointed out that there are definitions which differ from the one you supply.
Regarding positions (1) and (2), I assume you mean the positions mentioned in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... . Just to recap for the readers and while doing so to modify position (3) to avoid confusion:
Consider 2 belief statements
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
and
B) Reality is one without any deities.
They are not logical complements of each other, but they are mutually exclusive. Now with regards to belief about those two statements a person (ignoring ones that don't believe in existence and thus deny that there is reality and ones refusing to think about it) could take one of three positions:
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is .
Do you acknowledge that people that hold either positions (2) or (3) are atheists by the definition of atheism that you put forward? And as such you were wrong to claim that atheists do not believe in A or B, because given the definition you put forward an atheist can believe in B.
Regarding knowledge, I had supplied the link https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology and pointed out that while there were disputes about how to determine what is knowledge, that there is no dispute that "false propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth."
What we erroneously thought of as fact can change as can what we erroneously thought we knew. But that would be because what we erroneously thought of as a fact wasn't a fact, and what we erroneously thought of as knowledge wasn't. Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge ) states that it was Plato that first defined knowledge as "Justified True Belief" . Notice that although as I mentioned there are disagreements about what justifies asserting that something is a true belief, there is no disagreement (among philosophers at least) about knowledge necessarily being a true belief. So will you agree at least that all modern philosophers agree with me that knowledge is necessarily a true belief, and none of them agree with you (that that something we believe is a true belief is knowledge even if it isn't a true belief)?
"You seem to be ignorant that it is the case that there is more than one definition of atheism, "
There is a primary dictionary definition which reflects the most common usage. Multiple posters have explained to you they are using that definition when they refer to themselves as atheists.
Why would they care how you or anybody else chooses to define it?
I am an atheist, because I do not believe any deity or deities exist. Your definition is worded as a belief about the universe and deities, and so it does not reflect my position. Or many others on here and they've all told you so.
I don't think anyone can make this any clearer for you. Yet persist in insisting they must choose from two definitions you have selected, when no one is under any obligation to allow you to define their position as atheists.
Get over it...
I'm bored of this chicken egg game. Wallow in your ignorance and pretend you have made a point. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You are not making any sound arguments,. You are playing equivocation, moving the goal posts, setting up false dichotomies, and generally being dishonest.
You avoid the actual issue and now want to engage on some branch out topic of Knowledge and belief. There is no reason to go there. Knowledge is "Justified True Belief." Knowledge is malleable as has been shown. Belief and knowledge change over time as truth is sought.
The issue is your false Dichotomy and erroneous attempt at defining atheism as this or that.
A. A god exists. An unfalsifiable claim. There is no reason to believe this claim.
B. There is no god. An unfalsifiable claim. There is no reason to believe this claim
Atheism is the lack of belief in god for any reason at all the non-believer chooses to make. All atheists have one thing in common, a lack of belief in god.
A lack of belief in God or gods does not assert the opposite - "God does not exist." Just as a lack of belief in "The number of stars are even." does not imply that "The number of stars are odd." Absent any evidence your claims are worthless.
Try staying on topic.
@Cognostic
I assume you are replying to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
I will let your response regarding the issues speak for itself. You apparently (room for dishonesty there) had not understood that an atheist (according to the definition of atheism that you supplied) could take position (2). The reason I suggest that it could have simply been dishonesty, is that the point I am making is that some atheists try to hide that they take position (2).
Could you point out which position you take, (1), (2), or (3)? (for readers new to the conversation, the positions are outlined in the link I supplied above).
Regarding knowledge, you had claimed that people knew that the earth was flat. Are you claiming that the belief that the earth is flat is a true belief?
Your game of mendacious semantics is as pointless as it is dishonest. What an atheist chooses to believe or assert beyond not having a belief in a deity or deities, is irrelevant to the definition of atheism. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. As of course you've been told. This is its primary definition in all dictionaries and reflects the most common usage of the word.
You're risibly trying to trick people into making a claim that is unfalsifiable. It won't work as we're all aware of this trickery theists like to peddle, whilst pretending they're asking something profound.
The universe exists, conscious beings exist. Where's your evidence this requires magic from a deity derived from a bronze age superstition?
Based on the best knowledge of the time, personal observation, people believed the earth was flat. Yes. This was truth for them. Based on empirical evidence. Truth as we know it today is malleable. Absolute truth if such a thing exists, may not change whether we have knowledge of it or not. The issue is, "regardless of what we hold to be true, how do we know it is absolute truth." We don't. That's why, as stated before, our theories change over time. That's why, as stated before, we moved from Newtonian Gravity to Einstein's gravity, That's why we moved from particle theory to quantum theory. This list is endless. As we explore truth, what we hold to be true changes, as does our knowledge and so our beliefs about that knowledge.
Our conversation is not about the relationship between knowledge and truth. Stop diverting.
The only dishonest person is the one making unfalsifiable claims and asserting them to be true. Atheism is a position of non-belief in god or gods. Deal with it.
I assume you are replying to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
Are saying that there was once a time when people believed that the Earth was flat and their belief was true?
You did not reply as to whether you hold position (1), (2) or (3)? (They are all mutually exclusive by the way).
As a reminder of the statements A and B:
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
Possible positions regarding those statements:
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
Atheism doesn't require a belief. Only the absence of belief in a deity or deities.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? I have asked but just keep regurgitating your bare assertions about the op containing evidence. You do know What objective evidence is don't you?
As you well know I have supplied you with the evidence on another thread.
The evidence: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design
The distinction I gave between objective and subjective evidence: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...
The question on that thread that you keep avoiding answering: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
[Are you going to answer that question on that thread?]
[Oh and by the way, theories such as we are being given the experience that we are so that we are free to make moral choices upon which we can be judged are falsifiable, as they imply free will. And that could in theory have been falsified had it not been true. So they are scientific theories (according to the likes of Karl Popper)]
Best if you keep the answers regarding the evidence on the evidence thread, because what type of disingenuous intellectual coward would want to attempt to muddy the waters.
-----------------------------
As for the question you keep avoiding on this thread ( as can be seen in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... ) :
Consider statements A and B
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
Which of the following three positions do you take regarding them (all three positions are mutually exclusive)
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is .
?
[Notice what definition of atheism you use does not come into it]
"As you well know I have supplied you with the evidence on another thread."
No you haven't. you did make grandiose claims to that effect, but no objective evidence though.
---------------------------------------
[Notice what definition of atheism you use does not come into it]"
That's because you've made up two choices that are nothing to do with how atheism is defined.
Atheism
Noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I don't believe any deity exists, which by definition makes me an atheist, this is not a belief no matter how many times you dishonestly try to insist my choices are limited to your absurd choices. It's like asking whether you believe...
1. No deities exist.
2. Zeus exists.
Or do you not know which is true?
-----------------------------
As I said, what an atheist chooses to believe or assert beyond not having a belief in a deity or deities, is irrelevant to the definition of atheism. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. As of course you've been told. This is its primary definition in all dictionaries and reflects the most common usage of the word.
You're risibly trying to trick people into making a claim that is unfalsifiable. It won't work as we're all aware of this trickery theists like to peddle, whilst pretending they're asking something profound.
You are a theist, so you must believe in Zeus then right, as people who believe in Zeus are theists?
That's what you are doing insisting that because a position you have chosen is an atheistic one all atheists must identify with it.
Sheldon, you take over. I think I have written the same post 7 times now. The OP is simply engaging in fallacy after fallacy after fallacy and insisting on his straw man BS. Acting Crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I will leave the OP to his insanity.
Well my last post to you was http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... where as readers can see, especially if they followed the posts back, you had got yourself into a mess. With knowledge (the philosophers were on my side), with the definition of atheism you supplied (you had claimed atheists do not believe B, yet with the definition you supplied some could). And you had repeatedly avoided answering a certain question (same one Sheldon is avoiding answering). Then in the post I am replying to you seem to lie. If you weren't lying: quote from posts on this thread that I have written an example of me making a logical fallacy and an example of me providing a strawman argument. Or even just one or the other, but not the incident where I modified (3) because without the modification and with an uncharitable reading one wouldn't have had to of taken one of the three positions, unless refusing to think about it, or denying existence.
"And you had repeatedly avoided answering a certain question (same one Sheldon is avoiding answering). "
That's a lie again, and again I am happy for anyone to read the thread and see I have answered it more than once.
Answered....
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
Answered again...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and again...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and again...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and yet again...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and those are just the times I have answered your BS loaded question in this thread.
So just quote from one of those where you indicate which position you take (1), (2) or (3), or just state which one it is (surely you are capable of that if you desired to honestly answer). Your first couple of links indicate is that you identify yourself as an atheist, and that your definition of an atheist means that you do not believe any deity or deities exist. Ok, so you have indicated that you do not take position (1). But you have not specified whether you take position (2) or (3). And I for one do not believe that after that many times of faux answering combined with me pointing out the problem with your answers, that you did not realise. So it seems obvious to me that you know that you have not answered, and are dishonest. So can you provide a link which indicated whether you take position (2) or (3) or just mention which one (2) or (3) it is, in your reply.
Pages