Who is an atheist?

In my last blog there was a moderately spectacular blue between various parties . Full Story
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#9470 Aug 19, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Ich auch. Ich habe gelernt in schule.
<quoted text>
Agree 100%. But we already have made a lot of progress towards a common language, thanks to the british empire, and people largely recognize the benifits of a common language. Now if only if the brits had colonized the japs and the koreans, we would know what all they are upto.
But the (tremendous) benifits of a formal or at least a more rational language is not understood by most today, simply because most have not experienced its benifits. If the vedics had not turned pacifist, maybe things might have been different. Which is why the need for some of us to push for it.
Auf Weidersehen.
Why colonize its brutal enslavement of others instead Establish realtionship through exchange cultures.... Why are you a War monger animal? WBHAHhAHHAHA

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#9471 Aug 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
In the US? English and Spanish are the two dominant languages, due to population.
There is certainly a language that is third on the list, but I have no idea which one that would be-- it would depend on where in the world the immigrants came from.
I guarantee it ain't the language I grew up in.

Laffin.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9472 Aug 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Agnostic literally means "without knowledge" or "without knowing".
It is usually used to mean "cannot know" or "it is impossible to know" and typically this is in context with gods or supernatural elements.
You can be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.
The atheist has no faith in gods, and the agnostic thinks it's impossible to know anything about gods.
Easy as pie.
OK
.
Agnostic =
1. Knows not if god exists
AND OR
2. Also those who think existence of a god can not be proven.
Atheist = has no faith in god (god = omnipotent and omniscient entity), but faith is belief (belief = hold arg. as true with out logical or empirical support)
.
So now Agnostic = Atheist, according to you as the two positions are same, if you work it out.
.
What about those who KNOW that a god does not exist or can not exist, ie have proof that a god does not exist (like me). What do you call those people.
(or even those who believe there is no god ie have no proof god does not exist, but hold on to the arg. all the same)
.
The group of people who say "their is no god" have no name now.I used to call myself agnostic when I did not know, like when I was 13. Then I kept questioning and learning and now I have many proofs that a god [god as defined properly as an entity with omnipotence and omniscience], does not exist and can not exist, which is when I called myself ATHEIST (with confidence).
.
If you are agnostic ie have no knowledge / proof that god exists, but then you automatically also say god DOES NOT EXIT, without any proof to support the argument of its non existence, then you are a believer of the argument "god does not exist"
Which is irrational.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9473 Aug 20, 2013
The problem is how those dictionaries define words.

Which is why we need concerted effort to rationalize languages, so at least every word is well defined and uses only other well defines words to define itself, and also every word should have only one definition.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9474 Aug 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are negative labels/descriptions applied to sociopathic behavior.
Are you trying to equate these with **atheism** now?
That **is** a common LIE from True Believerô bigots.
Sheesh but you are a moron.
homeopath = Practitioner of homeopathy (homeopathy doctors).
Ex of pedophile was chosen as it was easy to understand, not to malign by association.

You are overly sensitive, I can picture you pouting your lips.

Be critical and dispassionate if you want a rationalist AND an atheist like me (I define atheist as one who takes the position that a god like entity does not / can not exist) to take you seriously.

Since I am also a rationalist, so you should be able to work it out that I also have sufficient proof and knowledge that a god like entity (having omnipotence and omniscience) does not exist and can not exist.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9475 Aug 20, 2013
UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text> Why colonize its brutal enslavement of others instead Establish realtionship through exchange cultures.... Why are you a War monger animal? WBHAHhAHHAHA
I did not justify colonization, just noting neutrally the cause for english to be wide spread.

If the english had been pacifists, then English would today only be spoken in tiny island of UK, not even Ireland. And we would not have it as the international language it is today.

Is it better that all the people of the world suddenly turn rationalists and realize the immense benefits of a common language for all peoples of the world and then proceed to make an international language made up out of all the different languages spoken everywhere so the question of yours and ours does not arise? Sure. But has not happened yet.
Normand Winnipeg

Winnipeg, Canada

#9476 Aug 20, 2013
Normand Winnipeg wrote:
--- "AN atheist is a being that rejects GOD'S WAYS AND therefor rejects GOD"--- because there is one and only True GOD as it is written and implied from Genesis to Revelation thousands and thousands of places...Thankyou...
---Repeat, Yes and if We read GOD'S HOLY SCRIPTURES, WE will see the Truth and the Truth will set us free from the evil ones and the lies and deceptions...
Amused

Brookfield, MA

#9477 Aug 20, 2013
Normand Winnipeg wrote:
<quoted text>---Repeat, Yes and if We read GOD'S HOLY SCRIPTURES, WE will see the Truth and the Truth will set us free from the evil ones and the lies and deceptions...
Using the bible to prove the truth of the bible. More circular reasoning, like a dog chasing its own tail.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9478 Aug 20, 2013
There are only three positions POSSIBLE regarding existence of god

1. God exists = theist.
2. God doesn't exist = atheist.(absence of god, not absence of belief of god)
3. Don't know = agnostic.

That is how majority use the words theist, atheist and agnostic.
Dictionaries should be updated, to keep things simple and clear and unambiguous.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9479 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not justify colonization, just noting neutrally the cause for english to be wide spread.
If the english had been pacifists, then English would today only be spoken in tiny island of UK, not even Ireland. And we would not have it as the international language it is today.
Is it better that all the people of the world suddenly turn rationalists and realize the immense benefits of a common language for all peoples of the world and then proceed to make an international language made up out of all the different languages spoken everywhere so the question of yours and ours does not arise? Sure. But has not happened yet.
Esperanto.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9480 Aug 20, 2013
One can not 'not know' if god exists or not, and simultaneously also know that a god does not exist.

The positions agnostic and atheist,(as well as theist) are all mutually exclusive positions.
LCNlin

United States

#9481 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
There are only three positions POSSIBLE regarding existence of god
1. God exists = theist.
2. God doesn't exist = atheist.(absence of god, not absence of belief of god)
3. Don't know = agnostic.
That is how majority use the words theist, atheist and agnostic.
Dictionaries should be updated, to keep things simple and clear and unambiguous.
Philosophy of religion a bit more complicated than a dictionary,
just saying.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9482 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
<quoted text>
Philosophy of religion a bit more complicated than a dictionary,
just saying.
Religion is not a real philosophy. The theologians don't even claim it to be a philosophy. They instead are those who are well versed in the art of 'double think'.

The position that a god can not exist (and hence does not exist) is well known to many since three millenia now. But is society ready for such knowledge? That is the question.

We have much to do before that. We need another source of morality (reason to be good in personal life) other than god and god fear, before we can bring down god.

So it is time we embark upon the scientific discovery of goodness and develop the subject of goodness (RATIONALIZED CIVICS) ie reasons why and how rules of society or constraints of behaviour make society most progressive, happy and peaceful. That is those (set of) rules that maximize the well being of society and its individuals ( and also of the unborn), for longest together constitute what is GOOD. It must be a learning process, like drug trials that do populations studies, ie we introduce a rule on a study population and observe the effects over a period of time. Hence I use term SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF CIVICS.

Further when children are made aware how a law / rule/ behaviour effects society, we finally are a rational civilized society.

Then religion and god wont be needed anymore.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#9483 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant define primal cause as you failed defining cause itself. You can't use the word 'cause' in the definition of cause itself. That makes the word very meaningless, as the definitation is meaningless.
Once cause if well defined, Primal Cause would be easy.
(No offense intended, just being direct, Have become very mellowed in my approach while conversing with people lately, but slip off to my old ways sometimes!, just that I don't know how else to out it, and not be rude).
-----

I guess you are right about being easy to define the Primal Cause. The first to cause then as the universe proceeded into expansion other things were caused. It's like the Biblical injunction to grow and multiply. To fill the universe and subdue it.(Gen.1:28)

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#9484 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
One can not 'not know' if god exists or not, and simultaneously also know that a god does not exist.
The positions agnostic and atheist,(as well as theist) are all mutually exclusive positions.
-----

Surely you must not be an atheist with this testimony that one cannot know if God exists or not. Actually atheists do claim to know that God does not exist.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9485 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Esperanto.
Very Interesting. I did not know much about this, thank you. Why only European tho?

DO not know much about this lang, if rules are rational or how formal.

Also-
No need for A priori languages, much easier have a language with words already in use in other prevalent languages. Easier to gradually change rules of existing languages into more rational ones.

Vedic Sanskrit was once constructed for philosophers and thinkers out of words from prakrits and pali languages (pra = older, krit = lang)(root for polis ie town. so = lang. of city). The grammar was then developed by linguists after much discussion and applied to this accumulated vocabulary, which was made highly formal and canonical, with strict constraints like all words need be well defined, ie use other well defined words in their definitions recursively, and there should be one to one correlation between word symbols and their meanings. Thus no synonyms possible. Only words with SIMILAR meanings possible.

[Even the Devnagri Script is highly rationalized, with every human phones (phonemes?/ smallest units of human sound) having unique symbol assigned to it, and every symbol denotes only one sound (smallest unit of human sound). Here the inconsistencies like 'go' and 'to' are not possible.

Further all vowels are understood to be pronounceable separately like 'a'(rum) or 'A'(barn) or 'e'(See) or 'o'(go) or 'oo'(to) or 'ae'(cat) or 'ea'(fate). 13 vowels are known and represented by unique symbols. Also all known consonant sounds (those that can only be pronounced in conjunction with a vowel) like 'ba'(ba, baa, bea, bae, bo, boo, bee). You can replace consonant 'b' with any other like 't' or 'k' or 'm' or 'n'....

So Devnagri Script can be very effectively used to exactly express any sound or combinations of sounds humanly possible, thus any phonetic language can be written unambiguously and perfectly using this script.]

So we already have the science, we just need to use it, or develop it further.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9486 Aug 20, 2013
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Surely you must not be an atheist with this testimony that one cannot know if God exists or not. Actually atheists do claim to know that God does not exist.
Nowhere in that post is there a declaration of MY position on existence of god. So how did you reach such a conclusion?
.
It ws just logical exposition that the two positions of- "dont know" and "know does not exist" are mutually exclusive.(as in one person can not hold both positions).
.
=======
.
I was an agnostic, when I had no proof either way, and used to be aligned to the "kettle on the moon" argument (or Bertrand Russell's "teapot in orbit around the earth" example).

But now that I have definite conclusive proof that a god (omniscient omnipotent entity) CAN NOT exist, I am confident that a god does not exist (god as defined earlier, not creator or prime cause or first cause).
.
I got to three conclusive proofs fairly easily as soon as I defined god properly, like in any thesis, you need to spend time on definitions first before anything else.
.
So I am a rational atheist.(WHICH IS STRONGLY ATHEIST).
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9487 Aug 20, 2013
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
I guess you are right about being easy to define the Primal Cause. The first to cause then as the universe proceeded into expansion other things were caused. It's like the Biblical injunction to grow and multiply. To fill the universe and subdue it.(Gen.1:28)
Easy????

You haven't even defined cause yet, and defining primal cause is easy for you?

Dear, all you have is the (your) definition of 'primal'= first.(as in before all others. Cause could be a horse or elephant, without a proper definition. I had already given you a hint, but you cared not for it.(Is 'cause' a physical entity, if not what is its nature,...).

You are far from defining "First Cause", if you have no idea what "cause" is.(NO 'cause' is that which causes things to happen- wont do!)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9488 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Very Interesting. I did not know much about this, thank you. Why only European tho?
DO not know much about this lang, if rules are rational or how formal.
One goal of the language is that everything is regular: even the verb 'to be' is conjugated the same way as all other verbs. It is European mainly because the people who invented it were.
Also-
No need for A priori languages, much easier have a language with words already in use in other prevalent languages. Easier to gradually change rules of existing languages into more rational ones.
I am not sure I agree. It would seem to be easier to make things regular right at the beginning rather than have gradual changes. All natural languages are filled with 'exceptions' to their general rules. The verbs for 'to be' and 'to go' are particular messy in many cases.

Of course, another issue is whether to use an alphabet and whether it should be the Roman one. If you want a language that is 'universal' in the sense of having aspects of ALL existing languages, you will have basic issues with this and how it is written: right to left, left to right, top to bottom, etc.
one cube parsec

New Delhi, India

#9489 Aug 20, 2013
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Cause is either the result of being caused or the agent that causes
"A CIRCULAR DEFINATION is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. Either the audience must already know the meaning of the key term(s), or the definition is deficient in including the term(s) to be defined in the definition itself. Such definitions lead to a need for additional information that motivated someone to look at the definition in the first place and, thus, violate the principle of providing new or useful information."
.
You may also want to check out "Infinite regress" which is similar but harder to catch
.
"An INFINITE REGRESS in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3,..., and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity."
.
The religious are of course well versed with such tactics!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min Joe fortuna 232,763
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 14 min Eagle 12 2,267
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 2 hr Thinking 28
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr Thinking 119
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 23,178
God' existence 3 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web