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

[Gottservant]

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)).

 

[Davian]

Hi there,

So I just wanted to challenge you with something a little difficult. Could you say it is possible to refute atheism,<snip>

Atheism is not a truth statement.

 

[variant]

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)).

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

 

[Radagast]

I wonder what you will say about my argument, if you can follow it

Sorry, I can't follow it at all.

 

[Radagast]

Atheism is not a truth statement.

My dictionary says: "Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God." In other words, ¬ &#8707; &#920;.

 

[variant]

My dictionary says: "Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God."

A lack of belief in Gods is also acceptable as a definition so your dictionary is incomplete.

 

[Gottservant]

Atheism is not a truth statement.

I'm not interested in what Atheism is not.

 

[Gottservant]

Sorry, I can't follow it at all.

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

 

[Davian]

My dictionary says: "Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God."

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.

 

[Davian]

I'm not interested in what Atheism is not.

Then you are betrayed by your own post.

 

[Gottservant]

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.

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

 

[Davian]

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

As is your argument.

 

[Gottservant]

As is your argument.

which...

...is arguably irrelevant itself.

 

[Radagast]

A lack of belief in Gods is also acceptable as a definition so your dictionary is incomplete.

That depends on how the phrase "lack of belief" is interpreted -- whether as ¬ &#8707; &#920;, or simply as the absence of &#8707; &#920;.

My dictionary also says: "agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." In other words, neither &#8707; &#920; nor ¬ &#8707; &#920;.

 

[Davian]

That depends on how the phrase "lack of belief" is interpreted -- whether as ¬ &#8707; &#920;, or simply as the absence of &#8707; &#920;.

My dictionary also says: "agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." In other words, neither &#8707; &#920; nor ¬ &#8707; &#920;.

Try: ignostic

 

[Radagast]

1) Atheism requires identity

Je ne comprends pas.

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

I don't think anybody is denying the existence of atheists.

 

[variant]

That depends on how the phrase "lack of belief" is interpreted -- whether as ¬ &#8707; &#920;, or simply as the absence of &#8707; &#920;.

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 &#8707; &#920; nor ¬ &#8707; &#920;.

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.

 

[Radagast]

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.

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.

 

[variant]

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.

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:

 

[Radagast]

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:

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).