Atheism - Contradiction in Logic

[BroilJAB]

The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
can not prove the negative claim. It is a both a
fallacy to claim, as well as a failed belief system.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <c19941bf-9bc6-4443...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
>belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
>can not prove the negative claim.

The inability to prove a negative is not a tenet of logic or
mathematics. It's a popular saying originating in the legal
system.

-- Richard

[Frederick Williams]

Not being able to prove something does not show that it is a logical
contradiction. I cannot prove that I live in New Zealand (Why not?
Because I live in the UK.) but there is no logical contradiction in

Frederick Williams lives in New Zealand.

Negativity doesn't come into it. I cannot prove that I do not live in
the UK (Why not? See above.) but there is no logical contradiction in

Frederick Williams does not live in the UK.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[Dirk Van de moortel]

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
c19941bf-9bc6-4443...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

We cannot prove that you are not an idiot.

Dirk Vdm

[huge]

On 03/06/2012 01:49 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> BroilJAB wrote:
>>
>> The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
>> belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
>> can not prove the negative claim. It is a both a
>> fallacy to claim, as well as a failed belief system.
>
> Not being able to prove something does not show that it is a logical
> contradiction.

Indeed.
It is the form of the argument that determines contradiction.

Premise: A.
Premise: if A then B.
_________________________
Conclude: C.


The argument above is valid, period.
The following argument is always invalid, period:

Premise: A.
Premise: if A then B
________________________
Conclude: D




Premises are assumed to be true in the form of the argument
in the argument's universe of discourse.
But in fact, in the real world, the premise may not be true.

Sometimes I think there are few theists out there that knows
this obvious fact. It may come from the more limited education
of theists, on average, or it may come from wishful thinking.
But they just don't seem to know the first thing about logic.
If they don't agree with it, then it's "invalid" or "illogical."

Gomers!

[Jesse F. Hughes]

That's a solid argument, that is.

In fact, you've convinced me. Using the same argument, I've deduced
that the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the Mad Hatter also exist.

Thanks!

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Being wrong is easy, knowing when you're right can be hard, but
actually being right and knowing it, is the hardest thing of all."
-- James S. Harris

[huge]

On 03/06/2012 02:41 PM, huge wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 01:49 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>
>>> The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
>>> belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
>>> can not prove the negative claim. It is a both a
>>> fallacy to claim, as well as a failed belief system.
>>
>> Not being able to prove something does not show that it is a logical
>> contradiction.
>
> Indeed.
> It is the form of the argument that determines contradiction.
>

Correction:

Premise: A.
Premise: if A then B.
_________________________

Conclude: B.

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:

> Indeed.
> [stuff snipped]

You seem to know as little about logic as the OP.

[huge]

On 03/06/2012 03:01 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> huge wrote:
>
>> Indeed.
>> [stuff snipped]
>
> You seem to know as little about logic as the OP.
>

You missed the typo correction.
Otherwise, what is the problem?

[Frederick Williams]

You wrote "Premises are assumed to be true in the form of the argument
in the argument's universe of discourse." I don't know what "in the
argument's universe of discourse" but never mind, it's "Premises are
assumed to be true" that bothers me.

In saying that

Premise: A.
Premise: if A then B.
_________________________

Conclude: B.

is valid, we do not assume that the premisses are true.

[huge]

On 03/06/2012 03:17 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> huge wrote:
>>
>> On 03/06/2012 03:01 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>> huge wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> [stuff snipped]
>>>
>>> You seem to know as little about logic as the OP.
>>>
>> You missed the typo correction.
>> Otherwise, what is the problem?
>
> You wrote "Premises are assumed to be true in the form of the argument
> in the argument's universe of discourse." I don't know what "in the
> argument's universe of discourse" but never mind, it's "Premises are
> assumed to be true" that bothers me.
>
> In saying that
>
> Premise: A.
> Premise: if A then B.
> _________________________
> Conclude: B.
>
> is valid, we do not assume that the premisses are true.
>

OK, to be pedantic,
the argument, translated into English, is saying that if "A" is true
and if "if A then B" is true, then "B" is true -- by the standard
interpretation of sentential logic that you see in any logic text
I can think of.

If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
assume that you have never had a course in logic.

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:

>
> If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
> assume that you have never had a course in logic.

Maybe it's domain of quantification? If so, it has nothing to do with
"the form of the argument" (your words).

I have attended courses in logic(*), but most of them were over my head.

(* Eighteen, I think, plus two one-day short courses.)

[huge]

On 03/06/2012 04:22 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> huge wrote:
>
>>
>> If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
>> assume that you have never had a course in logic.
>
> Maybe it's domain of quantification?

No, I said universe of discourse.
(The example was in sentential logic,
not quantificational logic. There are no
quantifiers.)

[Aatu Koskensilta]

huge <hu...@operamail.com> writes:

> No, I said universe of discourse. (The example was in sentential
> logic, not quantificational logic. There are no quantifiers.)

You are, then, using the term universe of discourse in some
non-standard sense that needs further explanation. In its usual
(technical) meaning in logic, universe of discourse is just what
Frederick said it was -- the totality of objects the quantifiers are
taken to range over.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2012 04:22 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> > huge wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
> >> assume that you have never had a course in logic.
> >
> > Maybe it's domain of quantification?
>
> No, I said universe of discourse.
> (The example was in sentential logic,
> not quantificational logic. There are no
> quantifiers.)

Ok, then you'll have to tell me what it is, and what it's relevance to
the validity or not of arguments is.

[huge]

On 03/07/2012 07:18 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> huge wrote:
>>
>> On 03/06/2012 04:22 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>> huge wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
>>>> assume that you have never had a course in logic.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's domain of quantification?
>>
>> No, I said universe of discourse.
>> (The example was in sentential logic,
>> not quantificational logic. There are no
>> quantifiers.)
>
> Ok, then you'll have to tell me what it is, and what it's relevance to
> the validity or not of arguments is.
>

It is just the collection of things that the variables can range over.
As to Aatu's claim: No the term is not just used for quantificational
logic, where it does have a particular technical meaning.

As to its relevance, if you are allowing the variables to refer to
something that is not within the range of the things they are allowed to
refer to, then you are just using the system incorrectly. It is
is considered a mistake in sentential logic to use quantificational
statements as premises in certain cases:

Holomes, if anyone can trap Moriorty.
Holmes cannot.
_________________________
No one can

...should not be attempted to be symbolized in sentential logic.
It is outside the range of the things the variables can refer to.
It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.

Savvy?

[Aatu Koskensilta]

huge <hu...@operamail.com> writes:

> It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.

There are indeed valid arguments that don't owe their validity to the
truth functional structure of the premises and the conclusion. But where
in the literature does one find this observation expressed in terms of
"the universe of discourse of sentential logic"?

[huge]

On 03/07/2012 09:12 AM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> huge<hu...@operamail.com> writes:
>
>> It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.
>
> There are indeed valid arguments that don't owe their validity to the
> truth functional structure of the premises and the conclusion. But where
> in the literature does one find this observation expressed in terms of
> "the universe of discourse of sentential logic"?
>

I said:
It is outside the range of the things the variables can refer to.

It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.

The second sentence is simply a factual restatement of the first.
There are all sorts of ways of expressing things -- I'm not going
to pour over my old logic texts for a precise quote of an
obviously factual statement. The term is simply not restricted to
quantificational logic's technical sense; it is used in the way I stated
as well:

It is just the collection of things that the variables can range over,
in this case.

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2012 07:18 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> > huge wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/06/2012 04:22 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> >>> huge wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you don't know what a universe of discourse is, then I have to
> >>>> assume that you have never had a course in logic.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe it's domain of quantification?
> >>
> >> No, I said universe of discourse.
> >> (The example was in sentential logic,
> >> not quantificational logic. There are no
> >> quantifiers.)
> >
> > Ok, then you'll have to tell me what it is, and what it's relevance to
> > the validity or not of arguments is.
> >
>
> It is just the collection of things that the variables can range over.

Ok. So since MP was being discussed:

Premise: A.
Premise: if A then B.
_________________________
Conclude: B.

and the only variables in sight are A and B, the universe of discourse
is, I would suppose, one of these:
(1) the set of statements,
(2) the set of propositions,
(3) the set of truth values.
Is it one of those? And, if so, which? And, if not, what?

> As to its relevance, if you are allowing the variables to refer to
> something that is not within the range of the things they are allowed to
> refer to, then you are just using the system incorrectly.

So this:

Premise: Tokyo.
Premise: if Tokyo then New York.
_________________________
Conclude: New York.

is not a correct use of MP because Tokyo and New York are not in any of
the sets (1), (2) or (3)?

This may not be of interest to the atheists, so do you want to continue
in sci.math alone?

[Aatu Koskensilta]

huge <hu...@operamail.com> writes:

> It is outside the range of the things the variables can refer to.
> It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.
>
> The second sentence is simply a factual restatement of the first.

If you say so. This is not standard terminology. You're of course free
to introduce any terminology you want, but can't reasonably expect
others to be familiar with your idiosyncratic usage.

It makes perfect sense to say the sentential variables -- p, q, r, s
and so on, as we meet in symbolic formulas such as p --> q, (p & ~q),
etc. -- have an intended range. They are to stand for declarative
sentences, so that questions, interjections, and such like, are ruled
out. (This is not put in terms of any "universe of discourse" anywhere
in the logical literature as far as I'm aware, but that's really neither
here nor there.)

Now, let's take a look at the use you wish to put this (perfectly
standard) observation:

It is considered a mistake in sentential logic to use quantificational

statements as premises in certain cases:

Holmes, if anyone can trap Moriarty.

Holmes cannot.
_________________________
No one can

...should not be attempted to be symbolized in sentential logic.

From the point of view of sentential logic this is an instance of the
argument (form):

p
q
--
r

obtained by letting p = "Holmes, if anyone can trap Moriarty", q =
"Holmes cannot" and r = "No one can". This argument (form) is not valid,
since there are instances -- obtained by substituting declarative
sentences for p, q and r -- whose premises are true but the conclusion
false. So your Holmesian argument is not valid by virtue of the truth
functional structure of the premises and the conclusion, but on other
grounds. And indeed, when we take into account the logical features of
such expressions as "no one", "anyone", and so on, bringing to bear the
machinery of quantificational logic, we find it is in virtue of these
that the argument is valid. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong in
formalizing the argument in sentential logic, which we might want to do
for instance to demonstrate the validity of this piece of reasoning is
not owing solely to the logical properties of sentential connectives
involved.

This has however nothing to do with the range of the sentential
variables, "the universe of discourse of sentential logic" in your
parlance, as we easily see by considering for example the following
argument

If Holmes is the greatest detective ever, he can trap Moriarty if
anyone can.

If Holmes can trap Moriarty if anyone can, it's not the case that no
one can.

Holmes is the greatest detective ever.

-----------------------------------------

It's not the case that no one can trap Moriarty.

which is valid, purely by virtue of the truth functional structure of
the sentences involved, an instance of

s --> p
p --> ~r
s
-----
~r.

You can't very well insist that some sentence one moment can't be the
value of a sentential variable and the next moment can.

[huge]

On 03/07/2012 10:48 AM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> huge<hu...@operamail.com> writes:
>
>> It is outside the range of the things the variables can refer to.
>> It is outsede the universe of discourse of sentential logic.
>>
>> The second sentence is simply a factual restatement of the first.
>
> If you say so. This is not standard terminology. You're of course free
> to introduce any terminology you want, but can't reasonably expect
> others to be familiar with your idiosyncratic usage.
>
> It makes perfect sense to say the sentential variables -- p, q, r, s

> and so on, as we meet in symbolic formulas such as p --> q, (p& ~q),

I agree, if we use your correct symbolization.

But variables must be used correctly outside the mere form of the
argument for the argument to be valid, and there are any number
of symbolizations of the argument that are not right.

> And indeed, when we take into account the logical features of
> such expressions as "no one", "anyone", and so on, bringing to bear the
> machinery of quantificational logic, we find it is in virtue of these
> that the argument is valid. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong in
> formalizing the argument in sentential logic,

I agree. But you can't mis-formalize it.

[huge]

I was simply saying that, to be a valid argument, the things
that A and B stand for must be within the collection of things
that they are allowed to stand for. Isn't that true?

>
>> As to its relevance, if you are allowing the variables to refer to
>> something that is not within the range of the things they are allowed to
>> refer to, then you are just using the system incorrectly.
>
> So this:
>
> Premise: Tokyo.
> Premise: if Tokyo then New York.
> _________________________
> Conclude: New York.
>
> is not a correct use of MP because Tokyo and New York are not in any of
> the sets (1), (2) or (3)?

It is a correct use of MP.

Again, I was just saying that you must make A and B range
over things they are allowed to range over.

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:

> >
> > So this:
> >
> > Premise: Tokyo.
> > Premise: if Tokyo then New York.
> > _________________________
> > Conclude: New York.
> >
> > is not a correct use of MP because Tokyo and New York are not in any of
> > the sets (1), (2) or (3)?
>
> It is a correct use of MP.
>
> Again, I was just saying that you must make A and B range
> over things they are allowed to range over.

And for the collection of those things you used the phrase "universe of
discourse". But _what_ are those things? In the case of MP I'd have
thought they were statements, or maybe propositions, or maybe truth
values; but it seems they can be cities as well.

[huge]

On 03/07/2012 11:49 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> huge wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So this:
>>>
>>> Premise: Tokyo.
>>> Premise: if Tokyo then New York.
>>> _________________________
>>> Conclude: New York.
>>>
>>> is not a correct use of MP because Tokyo and New York are not in any of
>>> the sets (1), (2) or (3)?
>>
>> It is a correct use of MP.
>>
>> Again, I was just saying that you must make A and B range
>> over things they are allowed to range over.
>
> And for the collection of those things you used the phrase "universe of
> discourse". But _what_ are those things? In the case of MP I'd have
> thought they were statements, or maybe propositions, or maybe truth
> values; but it seems they can be cities as well.
>

One thing they cannot be is using a single variable to symbolize
the logical structure of non-compound statements that it contains.

[Frederick Williams]

You've lost me. What *can* they be? The 'they' in question are the
letters A and B in

A
A --> B
-------
B

yes? And other letters in other valid argument forms of propositional
calculus, yes? I suggested that A and B may range over statements, or
propositions, or truth values; but you haven't said yes to that. You
have, though, allowed them to be the cities Tokyo and New York. I'm
more lost now than I was at the outset.

[Pfs...@aol.com]

LIke religion, atheism is also a faith-based belief!

Be agnostic!

[huge]

Am I to have the time to specify _everything_ they can refer to?
Of course not. But we do know a thing that they cannot refer to.
A variable in sentential logic cannot symbolize the logical structure
of non-compound statements it contains.

[Frederick Williams]

There's no 'of course not' about it: if I was asked what the A and B
above can stand for (and similar in similar arguments), I'd just say
'statements' without more ado.

> But we do know a thing that they cannot refer to.

Well, I _thought_ I did. To me

Tokyo
Tokyo --> New York
------------------
New York

doesn't look like a valid argument (it doesn't look like an argument at
all), but you tell me it is.

> A variable in sentential logic cannot symbolize the logical structure
> of non-compound statements it contains.

The 'it' refers back to 'A variable'? But what does it mean for a
variable to contain 'the logical structure of non-compound statements'.

Lets say these are the variables of sentential logic: A, B, C, etc.
What are the non-compound statements? Are they A, B, C, etc; or are
they statements of ordinary English like

The cat sat on the mat. The sun rises in the East. Etc.

? I'm really lost.

[Vurgil]

In article <nr9fl7td385cfh81v...@4ax.com>,

If a theist is one who believes in at least one god, an a-theist is
anyone who does not. That does not require an atheist to believe
anything at all.

[huge]

And one can go to any length in being pedantic. I could in turn
ask you what constitutes a statement, and what each word
used in that definition means, and on and on.
You have to meet on some common
ground somewhere, and we don't seem to have that.

>
>> But we do know a thing that they cannot refer to.
>
> Well, I _thought_ I did. To me
>
> Tokyo
> Tokyo --> New York
> ------------------
> New York
>
> doesn't look like a valid argument (it doesn't look like an argument at
> all), but you tell me it is.

Yep. Looks valid to me.

>
>> A variable in sentential logic cannot symbolize the logical sIf you had tried to incorrectly
symbolize the argument then it would still not be valid.tructure

>> of non-compound statements it contains.
>
> The 'it' refers back to 'A variable'? But what does it mean for a
> variable to contain 'the logical structure of non-compound statements'.
>
> Lets say these are the variables of sentential logic: A, B, C, etc.
> What are the non-compound statements?

The first premise of the Holmes example:
Holmes, if anyone, can trap Moriorty.

It simply can't be properly symbolized in sentential logic
except as a complete statement. But it _conIf you had tried to incorrectly
symbolize the argument then it would still not be valid.tains_ a great deal
more logical complexity that is not analyzable in sentential logic.
So sentential logic can't really analyze the full meaning of the
statement. One way or another, if you try to analyze the full logical
meaning you have to step outside the bounds of sentential logic.

[huge]

Whew, something happened to that. Let's go again:

It simply can't be properly symbolized in sentential logic

except as a complete statement. It contains a great deal of logical

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:
>
> I wrote:

> [...] To me

> >>
> >> Tokyo
> >> Tokyo --> New York
> >> ------------------
> >> New York
> >>
> >> doesn't look like a valid argument (it doesn't look like an argument at
> >> all), but you tell me it is.
> >
> > Yep. Looks valid to me.

Well, like you said, we don't seem to have common ground.

[Christopher A. Lee]

What a fucking moron.

A liar as well as an idiot.

>Be agnostic!

About what, moron?

Something irrelevant that we wouldn't even give a thought to, from
somebody else's religion, if they only had the common sense and
courtesy to keep their beliefs among themselves?

[John Manningite]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:oogfl7th32fetg9q7...@4ax.com:

> Something irrelevant that we wouldn't even give a thought to, from
> somebody else's religion, if they only had the common sense and
> courtesy to keep their beliefs among themselves?

One can make the same statement regarding atheists. Whatever makes them
think anyone else cares what they believe?

[Frederick Williams]

Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> huge wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
>
> > [...] To me
> > >>
> > >> Tokyo
> > >> Tokyo --> New York
> > >> ------------------
> > >> New York
> > >>
> > >> doesn't look like a valid argument (it doesn't look like an argument at
> > >> all), but you tell me it is.
> > >
> > > Yep. Looks valid to me.
>
> Well, like you said, we don't seem to have common ground.

It seems to me you've contradicted yourself. Recall you wrote

"Premises are assumed to be true in the form of the argument
in the argument's universe of discourse.

But in fact, in the real world, the premise may not be true."

and we discussed "universe of discourse". But now let's fasten our
attention on "Premises are assumed to be true [...] But in fact, in the
real world, the premise may not be true." are

Tokyo and Tokyo --> New York

assumed to be true or not true? If not true, are they assumed to be
false?

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:

>
> And one can go to any length in being pedantic. I could in turn
> ask you what constitutes a statement, and what each word
> used in that definition means, and on and on.

Yes, you could, and if I thought that answering your question would help
to clarify the matter (for either of us) then I'd try to answer it. But
you seem to be suggesting that you could ask ad infinitum what words
mean just to make a point that had nothing to do with the original bone
of contention--to make a point without a point, so to speak.

The questions that I asked were not like that, they were genuine
attempts to understand your meaning.

[Frederick Williams]

huge wrote:
>
> [...] I'm not going

> to pour over my old logic texts for a precise quote of an
> obviously factual statement.

That's a pity. It might help if you did. That might sound snide, but I
mean it.

[Vurgil]

In article <XnsA00F887...@94.75.214.90>,

It is what they do not believe that seems to be what pisses off those
that do.

[quasi]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:23:48 -0600, Pfs...@aol.com wrote:

I don't have to take such a weak "maybe, maybe not" neutral
position.

Belief doesn't require proof.

I can decide to _believe_ in the non-existence of "God" based
on what I perceive as lack of evidence, even if I can't
actually prove such non-existence.

In life we make decisions all the time -- even life-and-death
decisions, based on a combination experience, rational
deduction, and common sense, without the requirement for
rigorous proof.

When I cross the street against traffic with the nearest
oncoming car at a distance sufficient to easily insure (in my
estimation) a safe crossing, how do I know that the car won't
suddenly accelerate to the speed of a rocket and mow me down.
Sure it's far-fetched, but can I actually prove that it's
impossible? Of course not, but lack of proof notwithstanding,
I _believe_ it's safe and I act on that belief, essentially
betting my life on that belief.

So do I need to worry that maybe there is a God when all my
rational sense tells me it's nonsense? No, I can choose to
believe non-existence and regard that belief as just as
legitimate as other beliefs of mine with the same degree of
plausibility.

At the same time, if someone else chooses to believe in
something that I think is too implausible to support belief,
that's their judgement of the situation. I might think it's
foolish, perhaps cowardly, perhaps hypocritical, but still,
it's their decision.

Similarly if one chooses to straddle the fence (i.e. be
agnostic), I might view that as weak and cowardly (after all,
is it really 50-50, or is the degree of plausibility more
like 1 out of 10^100?), but again, it's their decision.

As to what I believe and why, I think that should be clear.

quasi

[Brian Chandler]

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> writes:
>
> > The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
> > belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
> > can not prove the negative claim. It is a both a
> > fallacy to claim, as well as a failed belief system.
>

> That's a solid argument, that is.
>
> In fact, you've convinced me. Using the same argument, I've deduced
> that the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the Mad Hatter also exist.

Well, they must exist, or you couldn't talk about them. If you think
of something that *really* doesn't exist, such as the non-abelian
group of order four, then you can't talk about it, can you. Come to
think of it, I grew up in England, where I don't think the Easter
Bunny does exist -- or at least I've never heard of it.

Brian Chandler

[Shmuel Metz]

In <aregl7toq472bhdfs...@4ax.com>, on 03/08/2012

at 12:43 AM, quasi <qu...@null.set> said:

>I don't have to take such a weak "maybe, maybe not" neutral
>position.

You don't have to take any position. That fact that you don't like a
position doesn't make it weak.

BTW, Theism per se is equally weak; the Devil is in the details.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Gus Gassmann]

On Mar 7, 4:37 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> huge wrote:
>
> > [...]  I'm not going
> > to pour over my old logic texts for a precise quote of an
> > obviously factual statement.
>
> That's a pity. It might help if you did.

Depends on what he is pouring...

I'd say it's a poor mind that doesn't know the difference between
'pour' and 'pore'.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <1dbf324f-d45a-4094...@kv10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Brian Chandler <imagin...@despammed.com> writes:
>Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> writes:

>> > The atheist says there is no god. But, this atheist
>> > belief is a logical contradiction, because the atheist
>> > can not prove the negative claim. It is a both a
>> > fallacy to claim, as well as a failed belief system.
>>
>> That's a solid argument, that is.
>>
>> In fact, you've convinced me. Using the same argument, I've deduced
>> that the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the Mad Hatter also exist.
>
>Well, they must exist, or you couldn't talk about them. If you think
>of something that *really* doesn't exist, such as the non-abelian
>group of order four, then you can't talk about it, can you.

You just did!

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?

[Shmuel Metz]

In <nr9fl7td385cfh81v...@4ax.com>, on 03/07/2012

at 12:23 PM, Pfs...@aol.com said:

> LIke religion, atheism is also a faith-based belief!

Indeed, but that does *not* make the belief a logical contradiction or
a fallacy.

[Vurgil]

In article <4f57d666$21$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <nr9fl7td385cfh81v...@4ax.com>, on 03/07/2012
> at 12:23 PM, Pfs...@aol.com said:
>
> > LIke religion, atheism is also a faith-based belief!
>
> Indeed, but that does *not* make the belief a logical contradiction or
> a fallacy.

It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.

Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in gods),
without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Vurgil-E81753....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
03/08/2012

at 10:00 PM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:

>It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.

I hace seen no definition of either atheism or agnosticism for which
belief is a logical contradiction.

>Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in
>gods), without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).

While nonstandard, defining atheism as agnosticism does not lead to a
logical contradiction.

[Vurgil]

In article <4f59f013$29$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <Vurgil-E81753....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
> 03/08/2012
> at 10:00 PM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
> >It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.
>
> I hace seen no definition of either atheism or agnosticism for which
> belief is a logical contradiction.
>
> >Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in
> >gods), without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).
>
> While nonstandard, defining atheism as agnosticism does not lead to a
> logical contradiction.

I was under the impression that agnosticism, at least in Huxley's view,
and he invented it, was more general than atheism, treating all claims
about anything the same way as atheists treat claims abut gods.

[Frederick Williams]

Vurgil wrote:

> I was under the impression that agnosticism, at least in Huxley's view,
> and he invented it,

What about Isabel Arundell?

[Rotwang]

On 09/03/2012 11:57, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<Vurgil-E81753....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
> 03/08/2012
> at 10:00 PM, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
>> It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.
>
> I hace seen no definition of either atheism or agnosticism for which
> belief is a logical contradiction.
>
>> Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in
>> gods), without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).
>
> While nonstandard, defining atheism as agnosticism does not lead to a
> logical contradiction.

Although "agnostic" is commonly used to refer to people who are
undecided about whether any Gods exist, among those who care about such
things agnosticism is actually the position that the truth about whether
any Gods exist is unknown or unknowable; atheism, on the other hand, is
simply the lack of belief in any God. Atheists can be divided into
weak/implicit atheists, who don't believe in the existence of any God
but don't actively believe in the nonexistence of any God, and
strong/explicit atheists who believe that no God exists. There is
apparently a distinction between explicit atheism and strong atheism,
but I personally don't know what it is.

So atheism/theism are positions (or lack thereof) on whether at least
one God exists, whereas agnosticism is a position on whether we can
/know/ whether at least one God exists. It's perfectly possible to be an
agnostic atheist or and agnostic theist (I'm an agnostic Christian, for
example).

[David Hartley]

In message <jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me>, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk>
writes

>So atheism/theism are positions (or lack thereof) on whether at least
>one God exists, whereas agnosticism is a position on whether we can
>/know/ whether at least one God exists. It's perfectly possible to be
>an agnostic atheist or and agnostic theist (I'm an agnostic Christian,
>for example).

But that is a logical contradiction. The Christian god has a supposed
history of direct intervention and could do so again. It could
demonstrate its existence if it wished, and then you would know. With
these definitions, all agnostics are atheists.

--
David Hartley

[Shmuel Metz]

In <jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me>, on 03/09/2012

at 07:31 PM, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> said:

>Although "agnostic" is commonly used to refer to people who are
>undecided about whether any Gods exist,

Among them Huxley, who coined the term.

A quick search of google indicates that there is a plethora of
different definitions floating around, but *none* of them that I have
seen lead to a logical contradiction.

[Rotwang]

On 09/03/2012 20:21, David Hartley wrote:
> In message <jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me>, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk>
> writes
>> So atheism/theism are positions (or lack thereof) on whether at least
>> one God exists, whereas agnosticism is a position on whether we can
>> /know/ whether at least one God exists. It's perfectly possible to be
>> an agnostic atheist or and agnostic theist (I'm an agnostic Christian,
>> for example).
>
> But that is a logical contradiction. The Christian god has a supposed
> history of direct intervention and could do so again. It could
> demonstrate its existence if it wished, and then you would know.

He could, but that doesn't mean he will. Since I don't expect him to do
so in our lifetimes, there's no contradiction in my belief that we can't
know whether he exists.

[Rotwang]

On 09/03/2012 20:40, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me>, on 03/09/2012
> at 07:31 PM, Rotwang<sg...@hotmail.co.uk> said:
>
>> Although "agnostic" is commonly used to refer to people who are
>> undecided about whether any Gods exist,
>
> Among them Huxley, who coined the term.

I'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, there isn't really anything
nonstandard about Virgil's characterisation of atheism as "merely

non-theism (lack of belief in gods), without requiring any anti-theism

(belief in lack of gods)." - many self-described atheists are quick to
point this out, in my experience.

> A quick search of google indicates that there is a plethora of
> different definitions floating around, but *none* of them that I have
> seen lead to a logical contradiction.

I don't disagree.

[Vurgil]

In article <4F5A4F73...@btinternet.com>,

Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Vurgil wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that agnosticism, at least in Huxley's view,
> > and he invented it,
>
> What about Isabel Arundell?

What about her?

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:21:03 +0000, David Hartley <m...@privacy.net> wrote
in alt.atheism:

What reason is there to believe Christian claims about what their God
does when there is clearly no evidence to support their claims?

Why were the Gnostics treated as heretics if it was possible to know
that God exists?

[K_h]

"Rotwang" <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 09/03/2012 11:57, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In<Vurgil-E81753....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
>> 03/08/2012
>> at 10:00 PM, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>>
>>> It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.
>>
>> I hace seen no definition of either atheism or agnosticism for which
>> belief is a logical contradiction.
>>
>>> Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in
>>> gods), without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).
>>
>> While nonstandard, defining atheism as agnosticism does not lead to a
>> logical contradiction.
>
> Although "agnostic" is commonly used to refer to people who are undecided
> about whether any Gods exist, among those who care about such things
> agnosticism is actually the position that the truth about whether any Gods
> exist is unknown or unknowable; atheism, on the other hand, is simply the
> lack of belief in any God.

It all depends on how the terms are defined. In common usage the term
`atheist' is generally understood to refer to somebody who believes that no God
exists. There has been a movement among more academically minded `atheists',
and those in the so-called `atheist' movement, to try to redefined the term to
mean somebody who has no belief either way about the issue. But that is not
the commonly understood meaning and the word `atheist' is not the exclusive
intellectual property of people who call themselves atheists. So they don't
get to redefine it without all English speaking people everywhere agreeing to
the redefinition. Webster's dictionary, the gold standard for the definition
of English words, defines `atheist' as follows:

atheist = one who believes that there is no deity. (1)

The dictionary does not say `one who has no beliefs about the existence of a
deity'. A big problem with defining an atheist as `one who has no beliefs
about the existence of a deity' is that people who believe that no deity exists
cannot call themselves atheists. So if that redefinition were generally
accepted then a new word would have to be invented for people who are atheists
under the dictionary's definition. Webster's defines atheism as:

atheism = (a) the doctrine that there is no deity.
= (b) a disbelief in the existence of a deity. (2)

It is clear that atheism is not defined as the lack of a doctrine regarding the
existence or nonexistence of a deity. What about (b)? Couldn't advocates for
redefinition claim their redefinition is in (b)? Webster defines `disbelief'
as follows:

disbelief = the mental rejection of something as untrue. (3)

So the definition of atheism, part (b), means the `existence of a deity' is
rejected by atheism as untrue. So part (b) does not mean the lack of beliefs
about the existence of a deity. However, if the word `unbelief' were
substituted for `disbelief' in part (b) of the dictionary's definition then it
could mean that since Webster defines unbelief as:

unbelief = incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious
faith. (4)

But the word `unbelief' isn't used in any of the definitions. So the
dictionary allows no room at all for the proposed redefinition. Disbelieving
as a verb means to withhold or reject belief but it does not necessarily mean
the rejection is done because the individual has no beliefs about the issue.
People can reject the belief "a deity exists" because they believe that no
deity exists or because they are agnostic about it. So the definition of
atheism as disbelieving in the existence of God also leaves no room for the
proposed redefinition. Personally, I don't claim to know if such a being
exists.


(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unbelief

+

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Vurgil-A4390F....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
03/09/2012

at 11:03 AM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:

>I was under the impression that agnosticism, at least in Huxley's
>view, and he invented it, was more general than atheism,
>treating all claims about anything the same way as atheists
>treat claims abut gods.

No; atheists[1] treat claims about gods as false; Huxley did not treat
all claims about anything as false. However, that has nothing to do
with the alleged logical inconsistency in atheism.

[1] Using the standard definition.

[Vurgil]

In article <4f5a675e$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <Vurgil-A4390F....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
> 03/09/2012
> at 11:03 AM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
> >I was under the impression that agnosticism, at least in Huxley's
> >view, and he invented it, was more general than atheism,
> >treating all claims about anything the same way as atheists
> >treat claims abut gods.
>
> No; atheists[1] treat claims about gods as false; Huxley did not treat
> all claims about anything as false. However, that has nothing to do
> with the alleged logical inconsistency in atheism.
>
> [1] Using the standard definition.

If being theist means believing in the existence of some god or gods,
then it stands to reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any such
belief.

[Smiler]

Dictionaries do NOT define words, they only show common usage.

> atheism = (a) the doctrine that there is no deity.
> = (b) a disbelief in the existence of a deity. (2)
>
> It is clear that atheism is not defined as the lack of a doctrine
> regarding the existence or nonexistence of a deity. What about (b)?
> Couldn't advocates for redefinition claim their redefinition is in (b)?
> Webster defines `disbelief' as follows:
>
>

Dictionaries do NOT define words, they only show common usage.

> disbelief = the mental rejection of something as untrue. (3)
>
> So the definition of atheism, part (b), means the `existence of a deity'
> is rejected by atheism as untrue. So part (b) does not mean the lack of
> beliefs about the existence of a deity. However, if the word `unbelief'
> were substituted for `disbelief' in part (b) of the dictionary's
> definition then it could mean that since Webster defines unbelief as:
>
>

Dictionaries do NOT define words, they only show common usage.

> unbelief = incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of
> religious
> faith. (4)
>
> But the word `unbelief' isn't used in any of the definitions. So the
> dictionary allows no room at all for the proposed redefinition.
> Disbelieving as a verb means to withhold or reject belief but it does
> not necessarily mean the rejection is done because the individual has no
> beliefs about the issue. People can reject the belief "a deity exists"
> because they believe that no deity exists or because they are agnostic
> about it. So the definition of atheism as disbelieving in the existence
> of God also leaves no room for the proposed redefinition. Personally, I
> don't claim to know if such a being exists.
>

I know, and can prove, that one god exists. I don't believe in him.

atheism = a...(without)...theism.
As asymmetry = a...(without)...symmetry As amoral =
a...(without)...moral(s)
As agnostic = a...(without)...gnosticism(knowledge)

That 'without knowledge' seems an appropriate aphorism for you.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-08 05:16, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<aregl7toq472bhdfs...@4ax.com>, on 03/08/2012
> at 12:43 AM, quasi<qu...@null.set> said:
>
>> I don't have to take such a weak "maybe, maybe not" neutral
>> position.
>
> You don't have to take any position. That fact that you don't like a
> position doesn't make it weak.
>
> BTW, Theism per se is equally weak; the Devil is in the details.

Those last 6 words are particularly appropriate. Very nicely done!

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Terrible."
-- Satan, on The Bible

[Rotwang]

On 10/03/2012 09:53, K_h wrote:
> "Rotwang"<sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jjdlpu$j1i$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 09/03/2012 11:57, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In<Vurgil-E81753....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
>>> 03/08/2012
>>> at 10:00 PM, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>>>
>>>> It also depends on what definition of atheism one is going by.
>>>
>>> I hace seen no definition of either atheism or agnosticism for which
>>> belief is a logical contradiction.
>>>
>>>> Mine translates a-theism as merely non-theism (lack of belief in
>>>> gods), without requiring any anti-theism (belief in lack of gods).
>>>
>>> While nonstandard, defining atheism as agnosticism does not lead to a
>>> logical contradiction.
>>
>> Although "agnostic" is commonly used to refer to people who are undecided
>> about whether any Gods exist, among those who care about such things
>> agnosticism is actually the position that the truth about whether any Gods
>> exist is unknown or unknowable; atheism, on the other hand, is simply the
>> lack of belief in any God.
>
> It all depends on how the terms are defined. In common usage the term
> `atheist' is generally understood to refer to somebody who believes that no God
> exists.

Right.

> There has been a movement among more academically minded `atheists',
> and those in the so-called `atheist' movement, to try to redefined the term to
> mean somebody who has no belief either way about the issue.

Indeed, these were most of the people to whom I was referring as "those
who care about such things".

> But that is not
> the commonly understood meaning and the word `atheist' is not the exclusive
> intellectual property of people who call themselves atheists.

Sure. But for better or worse the modified definitions are already in
widespread use - for example, the Wikipedia page on Agnosticism refers
to something similar to the definition I gave above as "the strict sense
[of the word]". I don't deny that the definition of "atheist" you cited
from Webster's is the more common one, but the alternative definition is
common enough that I don't think it can be reasonably called
"nonstandard" (especially, I expect, among alt.atheism regulars).

[K_h]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.03.10....@JoeKing.com...

Common usage defines words and, therefore, so do dictionaries. So your
statement there is wrong. It is common knowledge that dictionaries do define
words. For example, from the below website:

"An English monolingual dictionary is useful for understanding a word meaning -
not only for native English speakers, but also for those who are learning
English as a second language. Whether you are translating from English into
your mother tongue or you simply don't know what a word means, you can always
count on our English dictionary, with its definitions of common words, ..."

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/

>
>
>> atheism = (a) the doctrine that there is no deity.
>> = (b) a disbelief in the existence of a deity. (2)
>>
>> It is clear that atheism is not defined as the lack of a doctrine
>> regarding the existence or nonexistence of a deity. What about (b)?
>> Couldn't advocates for redefinition claim their redefinition is in (b)?
>> Webster defines `disbelief' as follows:
>>
>>

>> disbelief = the mental rejection of something as untrue. (3)
>>
>> So the definition of atheism, part (b), means the `existence of a deity'
>> is rejected by atheism as untrue. So part (b) does not mean the lack of
>> beliefs about the existence of a deity. However, if the word `unbelief'
>> were substituted for `disbelief' in part (b) of the dictionary's
>> definition then it could mean that since Webster defines unbelief as:
>>
>>

>> unbelief = incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of
>> religious
>> faith. (4)
>>
>> But the word `unbelief' isn't used in any of the definitions. So the
>> dictionary allows no room at all for the proposed redefinition.
>> Disbelieving as a verb means to withhold or reject belief but it does
>> not necessarily mean the rejection is done because the individual has no
>> beliefs about the issue. People can reject the belief "a deity exists"
>> because they believe that no deity exists or because they are agnostic
>> about it. So the definition of atheism as disbelieving in the existence
>> of God also leaves no room for the proposed redefinition. Personally, I
>> don't claim to know if such a being exists.
>>
>
> I know, and can prove, that one god exists. I don't believe in him.
>
> atheism = a...(without)...theism.

Not according to the dictionary.

+

[K_h]

"Rotwang" <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jjgsv1$baf$1...@dont-email.me...

I don't think it is that common so it seems reasonable to call it a
non-standard definition. It is clear that many people who call themselves
`atheists' strongly object to the mainstream definition that is reflected in
Webster's, and most other, dictionaries. But I am not sure why so many
`atheists' have such a strong objection to the mainstream meaning of the word.
People who simply have no beliefs about the matter should be comfortable with
the word `agnostic' (in the sense that agnostic means that the answer is
unknown to them). Most people understand the term `atheist' in the mainstream
/ Webster's sense and, I suspect, most `atheists' know that. So it seems like
people who advocate the redefinition want to have it both ways: they want the
full semantic punch of the mainstream definition but want the intellectual
honesty inherent in the proposed redefinition. That is, they want to have
their cake and eat it too even thought that is somewhat intellectually
dishonest. But intellectual honesty does require semantic clarity. So
advocates of the redefinition should simply invent a new word that incorporates
the definition they want.

+

[Rotwang]

On 11/03/2012 01:25, K_h wrote:
> "Rotwang"<sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

>> [...]

>>
>> Sure. But for better or worse the modified definitions are already in
>> widespread use - for example, the Wikipedia page on Agnosticism refers to
>> something similar to the definition I gave above as "the strict sense [of the
>> word]". I don't deny that the definition of "atheist" you cited from
>> Webster's is the more common one, but the alternative definition is common
>> enough that I don't think it can be reasonably called "nonstandard"
>> (especially, I expect, among alt.atheism regulars).
>
> I don't think it is that common so it seems reasonable to call it a
> non-standard definition.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

> It is clear that many people who call themselves
> `atheists' strongly object to the mainstream definition that is reflected in
> Webster's, and most other, dictionaries. But I am not sure why so many
> `atheists' have such a strong objection to the mainstream meaning of the word.
> People who simply have no beliefs about the matter should be comfortable with
> the word `agnostic' (in the sense that agnostic means that the answer is
> unknown to them). Most people understand the term `atheist' in the mainstream
> / Webster's sense and, I suspect, most `atheists' know that. So it seems like
> people who advocate the redefinition want to have it both ways: they want the
> full semantic punch of the mainstream definition but want the intellectual
> honesty inherent in the proposed redefinition. That is, they want to have
> their cake and eat it too even thought that is somewhat intellectually
> dishonest. But intellectual honesty does require semantic clarity. So
> advocates of the redefinition should simply invent a new word that incorporates
> the definition they want.

Yep, I agree.

[Vurgil]

In article <orGdnXFEZYfbZ8bS...@giganews.com>,

There is no "the dictionary". There are many competing dictionaries,
even on line, and sme of them allow lack of belief in any gods as a
legitimate definition:

Quote from
Proximity/Franklin U.S. English Thesaurus

2 meaning(s) for ³atheism²

1. (noun) philosophies characterized by a negation
€ (synonym) nihilism, negativism

2. (noun) abstention from religious belief
€ (synonym) unbelief, agnosticism, creedlessness, skepticism
€ (antonym) faith
End quote.

[K_h]

"Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4F57C472...@btinternet.com...
> Frederick Williams wrote:
>>
>> huge wrote:
>> >
>> > I wrote:
>>
>> > [...] To me
>> > >>
>> > >> Tokyo
>> > >> Tokyo --> New York
>> > >> ------------------
>> > >> New York
>> > >>
>> > >> doesn't look like a valid argument (it doesn't look like an argument at
>> > >> all), but you tell me it is.
>> > >
>> > > Yep. Looks valid to me.
>>
>> Well, like you said, we don't seem to have common ground.
>
> It seems to me you've contradicted yourself. Recall you wrote
>
> "Premises are assumed to be true in the form of the argument
> in the argument's universe of discourse.
> But in fact, in the real world, the premise may not be true."
>
> and we discussed "universe of discourse". But now let's fasten our
> attention on "Premises are assumed to be true [...] But in fact, in the
> real world, the premise may not be true." are
>
> Tokyo and Tokyo --> New York
>
> assumed to be true or not true? If not true, are they assumed to be
> false?

The argument form is valid even though the premises may lack clear semantic
content or truth. If one or more of the premises is false then the argument is
not sound, even though the argument form is valid.

+

[K_h]

"Vurgil" <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote in message
news:Vurgil-A848FE....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

Webster's is generally recognized as the gold standard. It most accurately
reflect the general understanding of most people. Most dictionaries that I've
seen basically follow Webster.

+

[Vurgil]

In article <A9SdnYbLKseumsHS...@giganews.com>,

> > even on line, and some of them allow lack of belief in any gods as a

> > legitimate definition:
> >
>
> Webster's is generally recognized as the gold standard. It most accurately
> reflect the general understanding of most people. Most dictionaries that
> I've
> seen basically follow Webster.

So lets follow Webster's definition:

My Webster's Third New International
defines "atheist" as "one who practices atheism" , and
defines "atheism" as "lack of belief in God or any other deity" first
and "the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity" second.

[Paul David Wright]

Then the dictionary is wrong, dofus.
We define what we are, not you.

PDW

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:25:54 -0800, "K_h" <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote:

>But I am not sure why so many
>`atheists' have such a strong objection to the mainstream meaning of the word.

Because it doesn't actually descriube us, imbecile.

[K_h]

"Vurgil" <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote in message

news:Vurgil-96FBBF....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

Those definitions are wrong. Go to Google and type in "Webster's third new
international dictionary" and then go to the first link titled "Webster's third
new international dictionary ..." or second link titled "Webster's
international dictionary - Merriam-Webster Online". Type in `atheist' to bring
up its definition. You get:

atheist = one who believes that no deity exists.

Here is the link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

In fact, all of the links that I provided in my 3/10/2012 2:53 AM post are from
this site ("Webster's third new international dictionary ...").

+

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Vurgil-EA0A24....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
03/10/2012

at 12:02 PM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:

>If being theist means believing in the existence of some god or gods,
> then it stands to reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any
>such belief.

NFW. It stands to reason that a-theism is the belief in the absence of
a god.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:16:12 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism:

>In <Vurgil-EA0A24....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
>03/10/2012
> at 12:02 PM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
>>If being theist means believing in the existence of some god or gods,
>> then it stands to reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any
>>such belief.
>
>NFW. It stands to reason that a-theism is the belief in the absence of
>a god.

No, it does not. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. As some have
pointed out, most theists are nonbelievers in all of the gods but one.
What's the big deal about those who just happen to add one more god to
the list of gods they do not believe in. Do you believe in the absence
of Thor?

[Vurgil]

In article <p5ednTF8QbvVkcDS...@giganews.com>,

Note that your source defines "atheism" to include mere lack of belief
in any gods, so must logically allow an atheist to be one who merely
lacks such belief, even if not explicitly included in its direct
definition.

Here is the link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism


My dictionary is a hard copy one, and says what I said it says, so that
even Webster sometimes agrees with me rather than you.

It was copyrighted in 1961 by G & C Merriam and Co. and printed in 1964

And I will take my hardcopy's word before your online version's as mine
avoids the problem of conflicting definitions by defining an atheist in
terms of atheism.

[John Baker]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:16:12 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <Vurgil-EA0A24....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
>03/10/2012
> at 12:02 PM, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
>>If being theist means believing in the existence of some god or gods,
>> then it stands to reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any
>>such belief.
>
>NFW. It stands to reason that a-theism is the belief in the absence of
>a god.

How are we to trust a theist's judgment on what stands to reason when
their core beliefs do not?

Theists claim a god exists. I don't believe them. It's that simple.

[Les Hellawell]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:32:35 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

I do not believe a gods is absent. That would be theism. I do not even
believe there is a god to be absent. It is just somebody elses
relgious belief.

--
__

Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The county of broad Acres


"Fear God and honour the King
Or to these stocks I will you bring"
- message on the stocks at Dunwich

A priest there who was convicted of rape
in 1407 got away with a fine

[K_h]

"Vurgil" <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote in message

news:Vurgil-7733C1....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

No it does not, as I explained in my post on 3/10/12 (2:53AM) and re-explain
again below.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

The link defines atheism as:
(a). a disbelief in the existence of a deity.
(b). the doctrine that there is no deity.

Statement (a) does not define `atheism' to include a mere lack of belief
because the dictionary defines `disbelief' as:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

The link defines disbelief as:
(c). the mental rejection of something as untrue.

So statement (a) "a disbelief in the existence of a deity" means that the
statement "a deity exists" is believed to be untrue and is rejected on that
basis.

> My dictionary is a hard copy one, and says what I said it says, so that
> even Webster sometimes agrees with me rather than you.

No it does not. The hard copy agrees with what I wrote. What you wrote is:

> > My Webster's Third New International
> > defines "atheist" as "one who practices atheism" , and
> > defines "atheism" as "lack of belief in God or any other deity" first
> > and "the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity" second.

My hard copy of Webster's Third New International dictionary gives the first
entry as "disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity" not "lack of
belief in God or any other deity". So you posted the wrong wording (i.e. you
wrote "lack of belief" when you should have written "disbelief"). The second
entry you correctly posted. Webster's definition of `disbelief' (as I just
gave it above) requires that statement (a), "a disbelief in the existence of a
deity", means "the existence of a deity" is believed to be untrue and is
rejected on that basis.

> It was copyrighted in 1961 by G & C Merriam and Co. and printed in 1964
>
> And I will take my hardcopy's word before your online version's as mine
> avoids the problem of conflicting definitions by defining an atheist in
> terms of atheism.

As just explained above, atheism means (a) "the existence of a deity is
believed to be untrue and is rejected on that basis" or (b) "the doctrine that
there is no deity". So defining an atheist in terms of atheism agrees with
everything I wrote.

+

[K_h]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v2opl7d4jbi8mffbe...@4ax.com...

Then may I suggest that those people who object to the mainstream meaning come
up with a new word rather than attempt to change the definition of an existing
word. Most people who are agnostic probably don't want the word `atheist'
applied to them and that is what the proposed redefinition does.

"Paul David Wright" <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> Then the dictionary is wrong, dofus.
> We define what we are, not you.

No. The dictionary is authoritative on the definition of words.

+

[Martin Shobe]

Sure, but we aren't defining you, we're defining "atheism".

Martin Shobe

[Martin Shobe]

Vurgil wrote:
>> > atheism = a...(without)...theism.
>>
>> Not according to the dictionary.
>
> There is no "the dictionary". There are many competing dictionaries,
> even on line, and sme of them allow lack of belief in any gods as a
> legitimate definition:
>
> Quote from
> Proximity/Franklin U.S. English Thesaurus
>

Since when is a thesaurus a dictionary?

Martin Shobe

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-11 13:16, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<Vurgil-EA0A24....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, on
> 03/10/2012
> at 12:02 PM, Vurgil<Vur...@arg.erg> said:
>
>> If being theist means believing in the existence of some god or gods,
>> then it stands to reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any
>> such belief.
>
> NFW. It stands to reason that a-theism is the belief in the absence of
> a god.

Actually, atheism is the absence of belief in deities and supernatural
agents; this is because the "a-" prefix means "not." Also, the word
"atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word " ἄθεος " (or "atheos")
which means "godless" or, more generally, "without a deity."

Those who are in opposition of theism in general would more rightly be
classified as "anti-theists" rather than "atheists."

Unfortunately many of the black-and-white religious right-wing-nuts
bifurcationally refuse to recognize anything besides two diametrically
opposed points of view, which typically leads to a fallacious extreme
conclusion that anyone who isn't a theist, including those who are truly
neutral (such as an atheist), is in opposition of their belief(s).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I don't believe that God exists because I have not seen any evidence
ever provided for the existence of such, just like I don't believe that
my right arm could spontaneously turn into a frog."
-- Daniel San (February 18, 2012)

[quasi]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:15:22 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:

>Note that your source defines "atheism" to include mere lack
>of belief in any gods, so must logically allow an atheist to
>be one who merely lacks such belief, even if not explicitly
>included in its direct definition.

Hmmm ...

I think for the verb "believe" there should something
analogous to the law of the excluded middle.

In other words, for any statement, at any given instant,
exactly one of the following should hold:

(1) You believe it's more likely to be true than false.

(2) You believe it's true or false with equal likelihood.

(3) You believe it's more likely to be false than true.

Thus, I don't buy this "lack of belief" concept.

To be more precise, to any given statement, there should be
a subjective probability based on the information you have
at the time. It doesn't have to be a mathematically
rigorous calculation, but rather, an intuitive feel for the
truth value of the statement, expressed as a degree of
belief, from 0 to 1. Degrees of belief or disbelief can
be based on how close the subjective probability is to
0 or 1, respectively. Thus,

very, very close to 0 <=> total disbelief
(the bet your life kind)

very close to 0 <=> strong disbelief

close to 0 <=> disbelief

well below 1/2 <=> doubtful but possiblly true

near 1/2 <=> undecided (not enough information)

well above 1/2 <=> likely but possibly false

near 1 <=> belief

very near 1 <=> strong belief

very, very near 1 <=> total belief
(the bet your life kind)

where the definition of "very" and "very, very" is up to the
person who is trying to evaluate the truth of the given
statement.

quasi

[Transfer Principle]

On Mar 11, 4:15 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article <p5ednTF8QbvVkcDSnZ2dnUVZ5vCdn...@giganews.com>,

>  "K_h" <KHol...@SX729.com> wrote:
> > In fact, all of the links that I provided in my 3/10/2012 2:53 AM post are
> > from this site ("Webster's third new international dictionary ...").
> Note that your source defines "atheism" to include mere lack of belief
> in any gods, so must logically allow an atheist to be one who merely
> lacks such belief, even if not explicitly included in its direct
> definition.

Here we go again with yet another Virgil (or should I say "Vurgil")
alt.atheism crosspost.

Defining "atheist" sounds easy enough. I bet that if one asks an
average person on the street, that person would define "atheist" as
someone who doesn't believe in God. But then we have this whole
notion of distinguishing "doesn't believe in God" vs. "believes
there is no God," which leads to the difference between "weak" vs.
"strong" atheist, and so forth.

In previous Virgil religious threads, what typically happens would
be after Virgil (or another poster) states he is an atheist, some
_theist_ claims that atheism requires just as much faith as theism,
thus leading Virgil (or the other atheist) to claim that atheists --
meaning "weak" atheists -- merely "lack" a belief and so don't need
any faith at all.

But I'm not here to discuss religion (or the "lack" thereof) -- I'm
here to discuss the religious _analogy_. After all, the debate over
the definition of "atheist" reminds me of the debate over another
definition in another current thread -- that of "finitist."

On the surface, a finitist is simply someone who doesn't believe in
infinite sets, just as an atheist is simply someone who doesn't
believe in God. But then I was criticized for giving that definition
just as the atheists in this thread are criticized for giving their
simple definition of "atheist."

I notice that just as we have "weak" vs. "strong" atheism, we can
also have "weak" vs "strong" _finitism_. A "weak" finitist theory
would be something like ZF-Infinity, a theory which lacks a proof
that an infinite set exists (assuming consistency). But a "strong"
finitist theory would be something like ZF with Infinity replaced
with its negation or an axiom explicitly stipulating all sets to be
finite sets.

The OP of the other thread (DavidW) would thus be a strong finitist,
or even an "anti-infinitist" (which he explicitly calls himself over
in that thread). This is in analogy with the strong atheism or
"anti-theism" mentioned earlier in this thread.

I know that this thread, like many Virgil threads, is mixed up and
being posted to God knows how many newsgroups (or should I say
"goodness knows," considering its topic), but as long as sci.math is
one of the groups, I'm going to tie this to the religious _analogy_
comparing religion to mathematics.

[Virgil]

In article <b30rl71isuhahonoi...@4ax.com>,

quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:15:22 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>
> >Note that your source defines "atheism" to include mere lack
> >of belief in any gods, so must logically allow an atheist to
> >be one who merely lacks such belief, even if not explicitly
> >included in its direct definition.
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> I think for the verb "believe" there should something
> analogous to the law of the excluded middle.
>
> In other words, for any statement, at any given instant,
> exactly one of the following should hold:
>
> (1) You believe it's more likely to be true than false.
>
> (2) You believe it's true or false with equal likelihood.
>
> (3) You believe it's more likely to be false than true.
>
> Thus, I don't buy this "lack of belief" concept.

Then equally one of the following must hold:

(1) You believe Santa more likely to be real than imaginary.

(2) You believe Santa to be real or imaginary with equal likelihood.

(3) You believe Santa more likely to be imaginary than real.
--

[quasi]

I'll choose (3),

Is there a problem with that?

quasi

[Vurgil]

In article <748rl719kvorfurrc...@4ax.com>,

There certainly is from the point of view of either a frevent theist or
fervent anti-theist.

They demand certainty, and regard anything less as heretical.

[Jesse F. Hughes]

It really is mind-boggling why people (here on sci.math no less!) will
spend post after post debating a stipulative definition. Say what you
mean when you use the term and be done with it! There is nothing of
substance to be gained by arguing over what it "really" means.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"My name is Apusta Malusta Cadeau and I fight bad guys. And I'm a
knight." -- A. M. Cadeau (nee Quincy P. Hughes), age 4

[Shmuel Metz]

In <478ql7pvpu34fo0fe...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012
at 05:06 PM, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:

>No, it does not.

You keep saying that, but the origin of the word is "a theos", which
means "no gods", not "no belief". Claiming "If being theist means

believing in the existence of some god or gods, then it stands to

reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any such belief." is
blatant nonsense. If you want to argue current usage, then you're
still wrong, but that's a separate issue.

>As some have pointed out, most theists are nonbelievers in all of
>the gods but one.

Do you have any data to justify that claim? There are quite a few
polytheists out there.

>What's the big deal about those who just happen to add one more god
>to the list of gods they do not believe in.

The big deal is redefining words in order to play rhetorical games.

>Do you believe in the absence of Thor?

Ask me that question in a news group where it is on topic. I certainly
won't address it in sci.math.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <hs9ql7pl7l7kh81i1...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012

at 06:32 PM, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> said:

>How are we to trust a theist's judgment on what stands to reason when
>their core beliefs do not?

Ah, argumentum ad hominem. Torquemada would be proud of you.

>Theists claim a god exists. I don't believe them.

Neither has any relevance to the meanings of "atheistist" and
"agnostic".

>It's that simple.

Yes, a non sequitor is simple.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <GFd7r.43925$I%6.1...@newsfe16.iad>, on 03/11/2012
at 08:00 PM, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<god...@fidemturbare.com> said:

>Actually, atheism is the absence of belief in deities and
>supernatural agents; this is because the "a-" prefix means "not."

The point at issue in this subthread is not what atheism means but
rather whether that meaning was correctly derived by logical analysis
rather than looking at usage.

>which means "godless" or, more generally, "without a deity."

Correct, which is not the same as "lack of belief". Unfortunately,
"atheos" was used to mean "disbelief in *our* gods" rather than
"disbelief in any gods", and usage has changed since then.

>Unfortunately many of the black-and-white religious right-wing-nuts
>bifurcationally refuse to recognize anything besides two
>diametrically opposed points of view, which typically leads to a
>fallacious extreme conclusion that anyone who isn't a theist,
>including those who are truly neutral (such as an atheist), is in
>opposition of their belief(s).

Ignoring the question of whether the word atheist really means
agnostic, the people you talk about are highly selective about which
parts of their alleged beliefs they actually accept. An example is
those who claim to be literalists when faced with certain metaphors in
their scriptures.

[Aatu Koskensilta]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:

> In <478ql7pvpu34fo0fe...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012
> at 05:06 PM, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:
>
>>No, it does not.
>
> You keep saying that, but the origin of the word is "a theos", which
> means "no gods", not "no belief". Claiming "If being theist means
> believing in the existence of some god or gods, then it stands to
> reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any such belief." is
> blatant nonsense. If you want to argue current usage, then you're
> still wrong, but that's a separate issue.

The correct definition of atheism is the single most important issue
in net.atheism, to be debated endlessly. This may strike the outsider a
tad odd, but that's just how it is.

>>As some have pointed out, most theists are nonbelievers in all of
>>the gods but one.
>
> Do you have any data to justify that claim? There are quite a few
> polytheists out there.

Indeed. Some of us even believe in an infinite number of Gods. Recent
advances in Infinitheistic studies have in fact allowed us to
established the number of Gods to be greater than the first extendible
cardinal[1]. This is a stunning and epochal discovery, since the best
previous estimates were compatible with the number of Gods being a small
large cardinal. Now we know there are more than can fit in the
constructible universe L! Naturally, the Gods of Infinitheism have no
interest in the business of men, and are usually entirely content to
silently meditate their Godly business and leave us alone. (They would
like nothing better than for us to extend them the same basic courtesy.)
Some of them are now and then a bit hurt by the insensitive harping by
certain net.atheist who go incessantly on about their
non-existence. Happily, the Gods have recently found a mathematical
proof there are in reality no atheists, at long last able to sleep at
night. (Those who profess unbelief or disbelief in Gods are, so we now
learn, deluding themselves, their actual if somewhat unlikely obsession
17th century Böckneböckelian waterpolo statistics instead.)


Footnotes:
[1] See

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9e6f4e7a27c988d0

for more details.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:02:43 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism:

>In <478ql7pvpu34fo0fe...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012
> at 05:06 PM, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:
>
>>No, it does not.
>
>You keep saying that, but the origin of the word is "a theos", which
>means "no gods", not "no belief". Claiming "If being theist means
>believing in the existence of some god or gods, then it stands to
>reason that being a-theist is mere absence of any such belief." is
>blatant nonsense. If you want to argue current usage, then you're
>still wrong, but that's a separate issue.

You seem not to get either one right. The Greek prefix a- means
"without". It does not mean "no" except in the sense of "without".

>>As some have pointed out, most theists are nonbelievers in all of
>>the gods but one.
>
>Do you have any data to justify that claim? There are quite a few
>polytheists out there.

Yes, I do. Count the adherents of Abrahamic religions.

>>What's the big deal about those who just happen to add one more god
>>to the list of gods they do not believe in.
>
>The big deal is redefining words in order to play rhetorical games.

You are the one trying to do that and getting unhappy that we won't let
you get away with it.

>>Do you believe in the absence of Thor?
>
>Ask me that question in a news group where it is on topic. I certainly
>won't address it in sci.math.

You are cross-posting to alt.atheism. Don't use sci.math as your excuse
for not answering. You are the one who decided to redefine English words
for your religious purposes. How does that fit into sci.math?

[mike3]

On Mar 10, 5:42 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> Dictionaries do NOT define words, they only show common usage.
>

So what's the official authority that defines, once and for all and
renders utterly beyond debate, the one real and true meaning of the
word "atheism"?

[Tim Little]

On 2012-03-10, K_h <KHo...@SX729.com> wrote:
> Webster's dictionary, the gold standard for the definition of
> English words

At best, it's a bronze standard. The gold standard is the Oxford
English Dictionary.


--
Tim

[Jesse F. Hughes]

quasi <qu...@null.set> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:15:22 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>
>>Note that your source defines "atheism" to include mere lack
>>of belief in any gods, so must logically allow an atheist to
>>be one who merely lacks such belief, even if not explicitly
>>included in its direct definition.
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> I think for the verb "believe" there should something
> analogous to the law of the excluded middle.
>
> In other words, for any statement, at any given instant,
> exactly one of the following should hold:
>
> (1) You believe it's more likely to be true than false.
>
> (2) You believe it's true or false with equal likelihood.
>
> (3) You believe it's more likely to be false than true.
>
> Thus, I don't buy this "lack of belief" concept.

Why?

There are many things about which I have no opinion at all.

For instance, I know nothing about soccer. Choose a random upcoming
game, and it would be silly for me to claim that team A is more, less or
equally likely to beat team B[1]. How would I know? I haven't any opinion
at all.


Footnotes:
[1] I know so little about the sport that I couldn't name with
certainty two teams that are likely to play against one another.


--
Jesse F. Hughes
"That's what's brutal about mathematics! When you're wrong, you can
have spent years, and lots of effort, and come out at the end with
nothing." -- James S. Harris on the path of self-discovery (?)

[K_h]

"Tim Little" <t...@little-possums.net> wrote in message
news:slrnjlt6a...@soprano.little-possums.net...

Actually it is the reverse, at least for American English, and Webster's more
up to date. Also, there are several different versions of the OED and so
Webster's is the standard (at least for us non-brits). The OED's definitions
of `atheist' and `atheism' are quite bad because they don't capture the notion
as it is used by most people. For example when people say that they don't
believe in the pyramid power they are not saying that they don't have any
beliefs at all on the question of pyramid power's existence. They are saying
that they believe that such power does not exist. Same for presidents, flying
saucers, and most other things. What people mean by saying they don't believe
something is that they believe the opposite. When somebody says they don't
believe Mitt Romney should be president, they are not saying that they have no
beliefs at all about Mitt Romney as president. Rather, they are saying they
believe Mitt Romney should not be president. In other words, the proposed
redefinition of `atheist' and `atheism' is violation of standard English
semantics as well as being really awkward usage.

+

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-12 06:05, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<hs9ql7pl7l7kh81i1...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012
> at 06:32 PM, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net> said:
>
>> How are we to trust a theist's judgment on what stands to reason when
>> their core beliefs do not?
>
> Ah, argumentum ad hominem. Torquemada would be proud of you.

How is this a personal attack? Mr. Baker was clearly expressing his own
question about trusting someone else's judgment, and even went to far to
qualify the justification for this question.

>> Theists claim a god exists. I don't believe them.
>
> Neither has any relevance to the meanings of "atheistist" and
> "agnostic".

The absence of belief is atheistic, so it pertains to that. It could
apply implicitly to the position put forth by agnosticism that the
existence can't be proven nor disproven.

>> It's that simple.
>
> Yes, a non sequitor is simple.

It's important to note that a non sequitur doesn't have any requirement
of simplicity nor complexity.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"What do you want us to do: worship something, anything, and call it
God, just in case? That's ridiculous."
-- Brenda Nelson, EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-12 06:05, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> In<hs9ql7pl7l7kh81i1...@4ax.com>, on 03/11/2012
> at 06:32 PM, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net> said:
>
>> How are we to trust a theist's judgment on what stands to reason when
>> their core beliefs do not?
>
> Ah, argumentum ad hominem. Torquemada would be proud of you.

How is this a personal attack? Mr. Baker was clearly expressing his own

question about trusting someone else's judgment, and even went so far as

to qualify the justification for this question.

>> Theists claim a god exists. I don't believe them.
>
> Neither has any relevance to the meanings of "atheistist" and
> "agnostic".

The absence of belief is atheistic, so it pertains to that. It could
apply implicitly to the position put forth by agnosticism [that the

existence can't be proven nor disproven].

>> It's that simple.
>
> Yes, a non sequitor is simple.

It's important to note that a non sequitur doesn't have any requirement

of simplicity/complexity.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-12 06:28, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<GFd7r.43925$I%6.1...@newsfe16.iad>, on 03/11/2012
> at 08:00 PM, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> said:
>
>> Actually, atheism is the absence of belief in deities and
>> supernatural agents; this is because the "a-" prefix means "not."
>
> The point at issue in this subthread is not what atheism means but
> rather whether that meaning was correctly derived by logical analysis
> rather than looking at usage.

That's interesting.

>> which means "godless" or, more generally, "without a deity."
>
> Correct, which is not the same as "lack of belief". Unfortunately,
> "atheos" was used to mean "disbelief in *our* gods" rather than
> "disbelief in any gods", and usage has changed since then.

What do you think the usage means now in the year 2012 or within the
past 10 years?

>> Unfortunately many of the black-and-white religious right-wing-nuts
>> bifurcationally refuse to recognize anything besides two
>> diametrically opposed points of view, which typically leads to a
>> fallacious extreme conclusion that anyone who isn't a theist,
>> including those who are truly neutral (such as an atheist), is in
>> opposition of their belief(s).
>
> Ignoring the question of whether the word atheist really means
> agnostic, the people you talk about are highly selective about which
> parts of their alleged beliefs they actually accept. An example is
> those who claim to be literalists when faced with certain metaphors in
> their scriptures.

Ha ha! Yeah.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle."
-- Vladimir Putin

[quasi]

Ok, fair enough.

It's a situation where you don't have enough information to
judge the likelihood, one way or the other.

But certainly you do make judgements all the time about things
for which you have incomplete information, and sometimes you
are forced to.

Let's take decisions about religious belief as an example.

Religion is pushed at you all the time. People are always
trying to persuade to accept their version.

In this case, you are forced to make some kind of decision,
at least with respect to whether or not you go to religious
services, whether or not you pray, whether or not you donate
money, whether or not you support parochial education, etc.

So one might claim that they have chosen to make no decision
about religion, one way or the other, but in my view, the
actions speak louder than words, telling the real story.

Moreover, many religions threaten non-believers with eternal
punishment and promise eternal rewards for those who accept
the religion and follow its guidelines.

The only rational way to shrug off the threat of eternal
punishment is to decide that it's too unlikely to be taken
seriously. That very threat forces a decision. Even if the
person claims to have formed no opinion, an implicit judgement
has surely been made, as revealed by their actions.

I'll give an analogy.

A man comes up to you and tells you that if you don't give
him $10, he will end the world the next day. The threat forces
a decision -- either you give him $10 or you refuse. I suspect
that you would probably refuse. A few minutes later, someone
asks you whether you believe the man really can and will end
the world. The obvious answer, given your refusal is "No, of
course not!", but for the sake of argument, suppose you say
that you really don't have any opinion about the matter, one
way or the other. To me, that's a cop-out. Your action of
refusing to give the man $10 speaks for itself. Come on now --
if you really thought there was a significant chance that the
man was capable and willing to carry out his threat, wouldn't
you give a measly $10 to save the world?

Thus, I claim there are situations where, even without full
information, you are forced you to make judgements about
likelihood (sometimes betting the equivalent of your life
on the outcome), and for those situations, your actions
trump any claim you might make about not having not having
formed an opinion, one way or the other.

quasi