• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

In order to refute atheism, you must promote atheism, but not atheists. Discuss.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
G

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Hi there,

So I just wanted to challenge you with something a little difficult. Could you say it is possible to refute atheism, by positing it as a logical contradiction, that atheists would yet say was acceptable, for reasons they can't understand?

For example, say I say "I promote atheism, I just hate atheists" I am saying there is a thing called atheism, to which atheists wish they were known for belonging to, but because there is no creed that says "atheists must love one another" I implicitly deny the meaning of belonging to atheism.

Have I not therefore become the perfect atheist, since no one can scrutinize my atheism, on the basis of my being an atheist (that I hate)? Because I hate them? And is this not what atheism is: presuming belonging on the basis of hate, that has no real object? So it is thus refuted?

I wonder what you will say about my argument, if you can follow it (focus on the contradiction of identity (as a positive stress)).
 

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

No to be an atheist you merely have to lack a belief in Gods which you obviously haven't accomplished here.
 
Upvote 0
G

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Radagast said:
Sorry, I can't follow it at all.
Click to expand...

1) Atheism requires identity, but denies God

2) It is possible to assume identity, but deny atheists

3) It is possible to refute atheism, because denying atheists is tenable for no logical reason
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Radagast said:
My dictionary says: "Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Click to expand...
Sounds like it is out of date. Definitions are descriptive of how we use words, not prescriptive.

Mine says "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." That is how I use the word.
 
Upvote 0
G

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Davian said:
Sounds like it is out of date. Definitions are descriptive of how we use words, not prescriptive.

Mine says "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." That is how I use the word.
Click to expand...

If you listen to my argument, the definition of atheism is arguably irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,865
✟344,561.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
A lack of belief in Gods is also acceptable as a definition so your dictionary is incomplete.
Click to expand...

That depends on how the phrase "lack of belief" is interpreted -- whether as ¬ ∃ Θ, or simply as the absence of ∃ Θ.

My dictionary also says: "agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." In other words, neither ∃ Θ nor ¬ ∃ Θ.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married

Try: ignostic
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,865
✟344,561.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Radagast said:
That depends on how the phrase "lack of belief" is interpreted -- whether as ¬ ∃ Θ, or simply as the absence of ∃ Θ.
Click to expand...

All people who lack belief in God are atheists, it covers both, that's why it is a better definition.

My dictionary also says: "agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." In other words, neither ∃ Θ nor ¬ ∃ Θ.
Click to expand...

Agnostic actually often refers to whether a person thinks they do or can know whether god exists rather than what they believe.

I identify myself as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a god and I also lack a positive belief in God.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,865
✟344,561.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
I identify myself as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a god and I also lack a positive belief in God.
Click to expand...

I suspect we may be using the terms "know" and "believe" in different ways. I would use "know" in the sense of epistemic modal logic and "believe" in the sense of doxastic logic.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Radagast said:
I suspect we may be using the terms "know" and "believe" in different ways. I would use "know" in the sense of epistemic modal logic and "believe" in the sense of doxastic logic.
Click to expand...

That seems overly complex when you could just consult the dictionary again.

know:
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Believe:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,865
✟344,561.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

I would disagree with both of those definitions, which seem to refer primarily to the way those words are used in informal speech. Traditionally, "knowledge" means "justified true belief" (and I believe the dictionary you quoted also says that).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChatGPT says it’s a fact that God exists
Replies
1
Views
351
General Theology
Gregory Thompson
G
Atheist group’s complaint leads Ohio school district to warn coaches not to lead prayer
Replies
1
Views
324
Current News & Events (Articles Required)
iarwain
I
What do we do about the big, bad God of the Bible?
Replies
7
Views
784
General Theology
Clare73
C
The Modernist Gospel of Comfort is Leading You to Hell
Replies
0
Views
137
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
When The penny drops.
Replies
40
Views
2K
General Theology
ARBITER01
Menu
Log in
Register