The knowings and Unknowings of our Existence

[TMA_1]

...

this is a new low acriku.lol you are living in your own world on this one, most people have disagreed, but that doesnt matter because of course your right. ::)

I believe you told earthnuker to grow up, maybe that is what you need to do. good gravy.

[nemafakei]

Try again from basics.

Any statements etc can be either true or false.

A person can believe that a statement, X, is

1. More likely to be true

2. More likely to be false, or

3. Completely unknown

A person cannot believe that both 1 and 2 are correct, so the options for each of True and False are satisfied by these three possibilities.

If you beleive a X is definitely true, you also believe it is most likely to be true. Such an opinion belongs to category 1.

If you are hesitant, but still feel the balance of evidence leans towards a X being true than false, you believe it is more likely to be true, even if just marginally. You don't have to say 'I know X is true', or 'I believe X is true'. Such an opinion belongs to category 1.

If you have not assessed the evidence, or simply cannot choose between the evidence at all, your opinion falls into category 3: you simply can't say.

(And just as true is to category 1 in the above, so also is false to category 2).

Do you agree that any given person can approach a statement in any of these three ways?

[TMA_1]

exactly nema.

[Acriku]

First off, you're excluding people who aren't even aware of statement X. Nema, to apply your "basics" to atheism, there is a term for atheists who believe any gods are not true, in which a positive assertion is being made, called "strong" or explicit atheism. The specific term for the neutral word atheism can be called "weak" or implicit atheism. Atheism being a general term, is inconsistently analogous to your "basics" because you delve into specificities. 

Finally, there's no need to appeal to that analogy if my side can be simply demonstrated with word dissection. A - without, theism - belief in a god(s). It's really that simple. Nowhere does it say that you must believe gods to be false. It's a very general, very neutral word.

Alas, I found a good dictionary/encyclopedia for you to look at TMA - called Wikipedia. Look at these excerpts from here:

Therefore, the literal meaning of the term is without a belief in a god or gods. In common speech and argument one encounters various ways of using the term, some of which seem to directly contradict the root meaning.

It may be taken literally to mean lack of belief in gods ("implicit atheism") or quite often, it may be used to mean that and to additionally layer over that a specific belief in the non-existence of gods ("explicit atheism".)

As the concept of belief is quite distinct and disjoint from knowledge, the agnostic view does not replicate the literal meaning of atheism; nor does it state a position in a middle ground. This is easily understood when consideration is given to the fact that one may hold a belief without any specific knowledge at all (e.g., belief in elves, flying saucers, ghosts, etc.) while one either holds a belief in a god or gods, and hence is a theist, or one does not, and hence is an atheist - without a belief in a god or gods. Knowledge is irrelevant in making the distinction of holding, or not holding, this belief. One could certainly be an atheist-agnostic, or a theist-agnostic; the stance of agnosticism itself does not address the issue of belief.

My favorite quote ^ because it says exactly what I've been saying this whole time. So there you go TMA. Read the URL for more information on atheism if you care to.

[GUNWOUNDS]

acriku how can you be a theist-agnostic ?

I saw that in your quote.. could you expand on that?

[SurlyPIG]

I believe what he is trying to say is that one can be agnostic, in that they don't know for sure whether or not there is a God, but still choose to believe in God out of faith.  His point all along is that the word gnostic refers to knowledge and certainty, whereas theist refers to belief and faith.

[TMA_1]

If I could have a dollar for every root word the english language has raped, I would be rich.lol We arent greeks, and dont speak the language, so obviously language morphs over time. The meanings of the past change with language. Not only this, athiesm was similar in the ancient world. For instance if you did not believe in the roman pantheon, you were an athiest. Not because you didnt believe in anything, but because you DIDNT BELIEVE in the roman pantheon.

this should be simple, but apparently it isnt.

[Acriku]

If I could have a dollar for every root word the english language has raped, I would be rich.lol We arent greeks, and dont speak the language, so obviously language morphs over time. The meanings of the past change with language. Not only this, athiesm was similar in the ancient world. For instance if you did not believe in the roman pantheon, you were an athiest. Not because you didnt believe in anything, but because you DIDNT BELIEVE in the roman pantheon.

this should be simple, but apparently it isnt.

So basically, you don't have any argument against my well-supported argument, in which case you have no choice but to agree?

And I believe ACE answered your request enough, GUNWOUNDS, but if you need more I'll respond.

[Acriku]

Oh lookie here, I have yet another supporting article:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/070411.htm

Here are the highlights (with many more in the article):

Atheism doesn't involve the assertion of any particular belief-position.

Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion, an ideology, a metaphysical position, or anything similar.

Atheism also isn't saying "I believe there is nothing." That's not only a Straw Man, it's an absurd Straw Man - anyone who spends just a small amount of time with atheists would know this.

Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in the existence of any gods (outside of people's minds, naturally). It's a simple concept - perhaps too simple for some to really understand.

So what were you saying TMA that my "own people" disagree with me? Take a look at that article and read how I am not warping terms and coming up with new definitions. Your case is rapidly dwindling TMA, and hopefully you'll finally see that I was right all along.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion, an ideology, a metaphysical position, or anything similar.

Whenever you try to convert people to your views (as atheists sometimes do) then that above statement is false.

When someone tries to wear the "badge" of atheism and then tries to convert everyone ... i dont see how it couldnt be viewed as one of the items you listed above.

[Acriku]

You're incorrect. I can attack the illogics of one doctrine without really having my own, or atleast necessarily having my own that is similar in category to the one I am attacking. Also, you're wrong in the sense that when somebody attacks theism and they are atheist then they are doing it "in the name of atheism" for lack of better words, however they aren't doing it as an atheist (or necessarily because they are atheist) but rather they could be doing it because they noticed illogics in the proposed god. Also, how do you convert to the lack of something? Wouldn't you have to replace that something you're converting from, which atheism cannot do since it is the lack of a belief? You can replace it with the positive assertion that there is no god, but then you would not be just an atheist, you're something more specific that includes that philosophy.

However, this argument and yours is irrelevant.

[GUNWOUNDS]

However, this argument and yours is irrelevant to the argument at hand, unless you're conceding to the previous argument and forming a new one.

yes i conceded a long time ago when you brought up the fact that it was possible to be a theist-agnostic...

[GUNWOUNDS]

but if you can add the word agnostic to just about anything then it becomes kinda worthless...

when agnostic is given the connotation "neutral" then it has more utility...

when agnostic is given the connotation "without knowledge" then it loses almost all utility....

all you have done acriku is show how worthless the word agnostic really is...

[Acriku]

but if you can add the word agnostic to just about anything then it becomes kinda worthless...

I don't see how that is. It is simply a characteristic stating that the person does not believe that there is enough knowledge, or simply lacks the belief that there is enough knowledge. This can be attached to anything, depending on how the user wants to use it. If it loses worth to you still, then I can't help that.

when agnostic is given the connotation "neutral" then it has more utility...

Towards what, though? Towards theism and atheism, it simply cannot be a neutral term because it's a characteristic on its own.

[Wolf]

I have no problem with the term Agnostic. Agnostics aren't all people who don't have enough evidence for a certain religion to be true, or simply want there to be a God. People might classify themselves as agnostics when they simply weren't raised in the trappings of a religion they would like to be a part of, and thus, don't have enough experience in that religion to really call themselves a member. There is a distinction between not having enough evidence for a religion's validity and not knowing enough about the religion in the first place. I'm sure this has been touched upon, but Agnostic is a perfectly acceptable term and point of view even though I may not share it. Furthermore, to say that Agnosticism is an "unfair" term because it is "neutral"... well, nothing is totally neutral, and I'll bet you that there are degress of Agnosticism with different views and different ideas about religion. It all really depends on the individual.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I have no problem with the term Agnostic. Agnostics aren't all people who don't have enough evidence for a certain religion to be true, or simply want there to be a God. People might classify themselves as agnostics when they simply weren't raised in the trappings of a religion they would like to be a part of, and thus, don't have enough experience in that religion to really call themselves a member. There is a distinction between not having enough evidence for a religion's validity and not knowing enough about the religion in the first place. I'm sure this has been touched upon, but Agnostic is a perfectly acceptable term and point of view even though I may not share it. Furthermore, to say that Agnosticism is an "unfair" term because it is "neutral"... well, nothing is totally neutral, and I'll bet you that there are degress of Agnosticism with different views and different ideas about religion. It all really depends on the individual.

Well,

Most agnostics are people who like to think of themselves as

[GUNWOUNDS]

Also, you're wrong in the sense that when somebody attacks theism and they are atheist then they are doing it "in the name of atheism" for lack of better words, however they aren't doing it as an atheist (or necessarily because they are atheist) but rather they could be doing it because they noticed illogics in the proposed god.

When someone says..... "I dont believe in a God because we have no physical evidence to support his existance" ..... then they would be classfied as a particular type of atheist whether they want to admit it or not.

[nemafakei]

"First off, you're excluding people who aren't even aware of statement X"

True. I refine as follows:

Any statements etc can be either true or false.

If they are aware of, and have given any amount of thought to a statement, X, any given person can believe that X, is either

1. More likely to be true

2. More likely to be false, or

3. Completely unknown

A person cannot believe that both 1 and 2 are correct, so the options for each of True and False based on the assumption are satisfied by these three possibilities.

Let option 4 represent the situation in which the person has not considered the statement at all.

If you believe a X is definitely true, you also believe it is most likely to be true. Such an opinion belongs to category 1.

If you are hesitant, but still feel the balance of evidence leans towards X being true than false, you believe it is more likely to be true, even if just marginally. You don't have to say 'I know X is true', or 'I believe X is true'. Such an opinion belongs to category 1.

If you have not assessed the evidence, or simply cannot choose between the evidence at all, your opinion falls into category 3: you simply can't say.

(And just as true is to category 1 in the above, so also is false to category 2).

Do you agree that any given person can either be ignorant of the question of validity of a statement, or approach a statement in any of these three ways, thus resulting in the four options I have given?

"Nema, to apply your "basics" to atheism, there is a term for atheists who believe any gods are not true, in which a positive assertion isbeing made, called "strong" or explicit atheism. The specific term form the neutral word atheism can be called "weak" or implicit atheism.  Atheism being a general term, is inconsistently analogous to your "basics" because you delve into specificities"

Firstly, I'm not so much going into specifics, as deduction from possibilities, which is actually rather generalist.

Secondly, to use the terms "strong" and "weak" is to imply that the "strong" form

is an extension of the "weaken" form, whereas the "weakened" form is, as you say, neutral, and independent of both the "strong" form as well as any religion. Your use of the word implicit in of itself implies to me only that atheism is inferred in what I would call an agnostic (type 3 or 4).

Acriku, I've given the 'word game' as thorough a dissection - *in context of other related words* - which is especially important in discerning such things - as is about possible on this forum. Go back and look at it if you've forgotten.

As to your links, the distastefully named Wikipedia wishes to subsume options 3 and four under the umbrella of atheism, which, as I have pointed out above, is at best logically dubious. However, the question of the use of the terms derivant from agnostic may be worth looking into, due to the more specific meaning: I

[TMA_1]

seems like you are stuck on this issue? unlike nema, I cannot see any merit in the idea, and yes I have thought about it. Maybe nema can explain to me how you are correct. right now I tend to agree with what earthnuker says.

[Acriku]

When someone says..... "I dont believe in a God because we have no physical evidence to support his existance" ..... then they would be classfied as a particular type of atheist whether they want to admit it or not.

They are only atheist because they lack a belief in a god, beyond that is their own agenda.

You cannot make a statement like that and claim that you have no doctrine or beliefs of your own...  In order to attack someone's position without looking like you have a doctrine or belief of your own.. you would have to be extremely vague and ambiguos in your statements.

What I meant was that you don't have to use your own doctrine to convince people of it, as you can just point out logical errors and such while remaining solemn.

For instance if i say that there is enough physical evidence to support the existance of a God and you simply say that "i am wrong".... then you are claiming that there isnt enough evidence for the existence of a God and you would be making a statement that a particular type of atheist would make....

Actually, I've seen much to the contrary. I know a couple theists online that admit that there isn't enough physical evidence to support the existance of a god - that it only takes faith. So, no it wouldn't tip off the person's own doctrine if they say that you are wrong.

"First off, you're excluding people who aren't even aware of statement X"

True. I refine as follows:

I've read your refinement and have discovered what I think to be wrong. You're focusing on positive assertions, such as the person either believes it is most likely to be true, or most likely to be false. This cannot be applied to atheism because atheism is not a positively-asserting term, it's a neutral term. Theism however is a positively-asserting term, describing the positive belief in a god. Atheism isn't the negative belief, it's just the lack of it. It doesn't delve into the realm of whether or not there is a god, it's just a term to describe the lack of believing in a god. So, for your demonstration I'd have to say you are getting more specific than what atheism warrants.

Do you agree that any given person can either be ignorant of the question of validity of a statement, or approach a statement in any of these three ways, thus resulting in the four options I have given?

Yes I agree, but this doesn't involve atheism as I've discussed before in this post. I would generally label each category as follows:

1. Theism.

2. Explicit atheism (where a positive assertion is being made).

3. Agnosticism (wherein this is in a category of its own).

Firstly, I'm not so much going into specifics, as deduction from possibilities, which is actually rather generalist.

What I was saying is that it is more specific than what atheism warrants.

Secondly, to use the terms "strong" and "weak" is to imply that the "strong" form

is an extension of the "weaken" form, whereas the "weakened" form is, as you say, neutral, and independent of both the "strong" form as well as any religion.

Well yes, the "strong" (and I use these terms very loosely, I only mentioned them because sometimes that is what they are called) is a more specific form of the "weak." If someone is a "strong" atheist they fall under the umbrella of "weak" but with more under the umbrella, so to speak.

Acriku, I've given the 'word game' as thorough a dissection - *in context of other related words* - which is especially important in discerning such things - as is about possible on this forum. Go back and look at it if you've forgotten.

I'm not sure what you mean, what thread are you referring to?

As to your links, the distastefully named Wikipedia wishes to subsume options 3 and four under the umbrella of atheism, which, as I have pointed out above, is at best logically dubious.

Your demonstration is irrelevant to atheism itself, so it is not logically dubious.

Maybe a word map can help you understand where I'm coming from:

      THEISM                        ATHEISM

  Holds the belief in a god              Lacks the belief in a god

            |        |                                  |        |

Agnostic Theism  Gnostic Theism        Agnostic Atheism Gnostic Atheism

[nemafakei]

"This cannot be applied to atheism because atheism is not a positively-asserting term, it's a neutral term"

Judging by your last post, I think you really need to explain to me what you mean by "neutral term"; my previous interpretation of what you meant does not coincide with your use in your most recent post.

"I'm not sure what you mean, what thread are you referring to"

Page 3, Reply #69.

As to your word map, do you mean that the gnostics believe that it can be proven that there is/isn't a god, or that they believe that it IS proven, or that the gnostics make a leap of blind faith, whereas the agnostics have tempered judgement, or something different?

[Acriku]

"This cannot be applied to atheism because atheism is not a positively-asserting term, it's a neutral term"

Judging by your last post, I think you really need to explain to me what you mean by "neutral term"; my previous interpretation of what you meant does not coincide with your use in your most recent post.

Being a neutral term means that it does not positively assert a statement. It does not assert that there is a god, such as theism, or that there isn't a god, such as explicit atheism. It is neutrally the lack of belief in a god. It can mean the belief that there is no god if and only if it has added characteristics to the word so it can protray that belief, such as explicit atheism. I don't understand what you mean that there is no coinciding meaning of "neutral" in a couple of my posts, perhaps you can elaborate on which posts those are.

As to your word map, do you mean that the gnostics believe that it can be proven that there is/isn't a god, or that they believe that it IS proven, or that the gnostics make a leap of blind faith, whereas the agnostics have tempered judgement, or something different?

As far as I know the word, it simply means the belief that there is enough knowledge to make a conclusion, whether it be for theism or atheism (or technically explicit atheism).

I looked again at your word dissection, and I will blatantly request for reasons why you defined atheism that way, as it doesn't coincide with its literal translation. It should be pretty easy - theism is the belief in a god, atheism is without the belief in a god.

[nemafakei]

"Being a neutral term means that it does not positively assert a statement. It does not assert that there is a god, such as theism, or that there isn't a god, such as explicit atheism"

So 'Atheism' means option 3/4, yes?

And 'Explicit Atheism' means option 2, and is not actually part of 'Atheism'?

My problem was that I had assumed that you counted 'Explicit Atheism' under 'Atheism', in which case, Atheism would not be neutral, but would cover both passive and active stances.

" it doesn't coincide with its literal translation. It should be pretty easy - theism is the belief in a god, atheism is without the belief in a god."

As I see it, this is a perfectly viable literal translation

Theism: Belief that there exists a god

Atheism: Belief that there exists no god

Seems simple enough to me.

[Acriku]

"Being a neutral term means that it does not positively assert a statement. It does not assert that there is a god, such as theism, or that there isn't a god, such as explicit atheism"

So 'Atheism' means option 3/4, yes?

Well not necessarily. Option 3 can be theism or atheism, because it is independent of both. Option 2 falls under atheism, but isn't atheism itself. Just like someone may be part of a clan in Scotland, where they are Scottish, but a more specific form of Scottish - a clan.

And 'Explicit Atheism' means option 2, and is not actually part of 'Atheism'?

Explicit atheism is option 2, and is atheism but more specific. Just like I explained this before. You know, you're making this harder than it really is.

My problem was that I had assumed that you counted 'Explicit Atheism' under 'Atheism', in which case, Atheism would not be neutral, but would cover both passive and active stances.

It is atheism, but only because explicit atheism involves the lack of belief in a god. This is perfectly neutral.

" it doesn't coincide with its literal translation. It should be pretty easy - theism is the belief in a god, atheism is without the belief in a god."

As I see it, this is a perfectly viable literal translation

Theism: Belief that there exists a god

Atheism: Belief that there exists no god

Seems simple enough to me.

That's the casual, and incorrect, definition. Why do you think that atheism involves the belief? This is not what it literally says. It may be do to cultural development, or intentional construing by people aversed to it and it picked up. Whatever it is, it's about time it gets corrected.

[nemafakei]

I'm not making this hard at all. My definitons are quite clear, quite simple, exhaustive and without unnecessary overlap.

I'm not the one trying to bring such in undefined concepts as 'neutrality', I'm not the one trying to group two very different things under the same word, and I'm not the one making bizzare distinctions as to who's making a 'positive assertion', and so on. I'm just asking the simple question "What do you believe", to which there are effectively three answers: True, false, and no opinion (for whatever reason). I

don't see why we have to group no opintion withj false any more than we

have to group it with true.

"That's the casual, and incorrect, definition."

Uh, are you going to give any evidence whatsoever for this assertion? I've analysed the words both with contextual reference and deduction, and also taken them ab origine. You have provided nothing more than your own hazy definitons which seem to me to be constantly shifting.

You define atheism as lack of belief in a god - but you accept that what you call explicit atheism is equivalent to what I call atheism - but contest that what I call agnostic is implying atheism as a whole... something implicit means, but does not directly state the equivalent in explicit terms. It just makes no rational sense.

"Option 3 can be theism or atheism,"

How can the statement 'I don't know' be construed to mean 'I believe in a god'? Option 3 is neither saying there is nor there isn't a god. It is hence completely independant of both sides.