/sci/ - Science & Math

in (a) god(s)

What i don`t understand about those who have "lack of belief in god" is how they manage to not belief anything about it.

Lets make a claim; "i am a shemale replying to this thread"
Once you`ve read the statement, you CAN NOT CHOSE to lack a believe.
Anyone has already made a preference to believe this statement or not.
Becouse this process is done UNCONSCIOUSLY.

Theism

The lack of a belief in the non-existence of God.

>>1432669

learn2word

>http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:
Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god

wow this is my first time ever visiting /sci/ and this is what i see at the top of the page.

>>1432666

I can choose to believe that you are not a shemale, even though you claim to be.
Even though Christians and all those other ones claims that God exist, I choose to not believe that he doesn't.

Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".

I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.

>>1432658
>>1432669

Correct.

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."

This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)

However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:

A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.

B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.

C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.

D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

Stupid Argument #8: All Atheists Lack a Belief in Gods so Anyone who Lacks a Belief in Gods is an Atheist.

This argument is so damn stupid that it is rarely expressed explicitly. Usually it is only vaguely implied by statements such as "the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods".

The logical mistake here should be self-evident to any adult with half a brain, so I won't explain it. But if you are in a child in elementary school, try to figure it out with this analogy: All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog.

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.

While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use. So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

From Merriam-Webster OnLine


atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

From the Cambridge Dictionary of American English

atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist

atheism: the belief that God does not exist

From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989


Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

[Note: The last word usage example for sense #1 is: 1876 GLADSTONE in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.]

Atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

Ignostic master race reporting in

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000.


atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheism:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

From the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary


atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn. -- Infidel; unbeliever. See Infidel.

atheism:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. Godlessness.

>>1432677
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[20] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[21] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[22] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[23] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[24] theist in 1662;[25] theism in 1678;[26] and deism in 1682.[27]

From Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Jan. 2004

Introduction

Atheism:
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

unrelated to board topic

>>1432705
Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:
Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god.

>>379224
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>1432712
How does the Etymology change the modern definition of the word?

>>1432677
>>1432684
>>1432681
>>1432684
>>1432686
>>1432712

SEE

>>1432666
it is RETARDED to say you "LACK A BELIEVE" in the first place...
you either believe something or you don`t.
in what degree you believe in it or how sure you are about the subject is not an element of believing.
believing can even been done uncounsiously.

>>1432743
See
>>1432681

fuck you and your arguments over semantics

>>1432772
>Basic English
>Semantics

Agnosticism is the only logical choice

Atheism is the belief in no God.

To say you do not know is completely different then to say you know not. A scientific mind would be agnostic by default, not atheist.

atheism is a terrible word and people shouldn't define themselves as it unless they have a positive belief because it's how it's viewed.

That said, beliefs are positive, not negative. If one is unsure whether or not god exists, then he does not believe in god.

>>1432686
>Anyone who Lacks a Belief in Gods is an Atheist.
this is true though.

>>1432806
How?

>>1432677
>The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief"
wrong.
it can mean state or condition, so, atheism = a godless state, aka no belief in a god/gods.

>>1432783
>Semantics
>the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

>>1432772
>>1432821
>>1432783
irony

>>1432817
Then go tell the dictionary, I'm sure they'll change the definition because of a butthurt faggot

>>1432814
anyone who lacks a belief in Gods is an atheist.

>>1432825
-ισμός (-ismos)

1. A suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine.

>>1432826
A baby lacks a belief but because it can't make a rational choice it is irreligious not an atheist

>>1432817
See
>>1432684

>>1432838
Nope, babies are atheists, sorry bro :)

>>1432838
>Rational choice
>Atheist

>>1432844
"Tom does not believe in the existence of God" != "Lack of belief in God" or "Godless condition"

>>1432845
>Irreligion is an absence of, indifference towards, and/or hostility towards religion

Atheism is a religion

>>1432759
What is a definition?

According to Merriam-Webster:
> "A statement expressing the essential nature of something."

Within logic, it is basically the same thing, except the characterizing 'statement' is expressed as a logical formula. Nowhere is it said that a definition can NOT use negation.

Negation in Grammar:

In the statement: "Anne believes in God." "Anne" is the subject, "believes" is the verb, and "God" is the object.

In the statement: "Anne does not believe in God." "Anne" is STILL is subject. The negation is applied to the verb to form the VERB PHRASE "does not believe." Saying "the subject is what Anne is not" is grammatically non-sensical.

Negation in Logic:

- In logic, negation is an operator
- In propositional logic, it is applied to propositions to form new propositions.
- In predicate calculus, it is applied to formulas (instantiated formulas are called statements.)
- Negation is not applied to the subject of a statement. The subject is a variable or element of the domain. Applying negation to an element of the domain is invalid syntactically and undefined semantically. It is logically non-sensical.

>>1432850
Why not?

>>1432857
>Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism
:3

>>1432860
Because the words have different meanings.

>>1432864
Only if you use a substandard definition of atheism

>>1432857
Babies are absent and indifferent towards religion.

>>1432871
Prove it

>>379282
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>1432877
"Tom does not believe in the existence of God"
does not mean the same thing as
"Godless condition"

QED

Words change meaning and definitions over time.

>>1432881
Prove it

>>1432888
This isn't maths.

>>1432887
See
>>1432681

>>1432890
>Implying maths is the only thing that requires proof

>>1432891
>Atheism:
>in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God
>denial of belief
aka no belief.
maybe you should read your own posts :3

>>1432900
Mathematics is the only field that deals with formal proofs, retard.

>>1432858
A statement if informative about a subset if it places it in a strict subset of its domain. The smaller the subset is relative to the domain, the more informative it is.

If you were robbed by a man without a left arm, without a left eye, and wihout hair you would probably want to mention that to the police.

The robber is the subject of all three statements and their conjunction is a highly informative statement, since very few people fit that description relative to the set of all people.

>>1432891
See
>>1432858

>>1432900

>Implying that anything can ever be proven.

You can acknowledge the existence, or possibility of existence without actually believing in the existence of something.

>>1432909
See
>>1432684

>>1432934
>You can acknowledge the existence
>without actually believing in the existence of something.

>>1432951
see
>>1432817

>>1432934
Atheists believe their is no god. Agnosticism acknowledges the possibility, as we do not nessarily know what created, or if the universe was ever created for that matter. However, it is considered irrational to believe in the superior being that exists above or outside the universe or doesn't abide to the universe when the universe is all we know. We don't know, and have no proof of anything outside of this universe, the boundaries and dimensions that is. They're may not be boundaries, probably aren't, so dimensions I guess. Therefor it should be irrational to believe in something outside of what we can observe. It's not wrong. Wrong is a label that exists because of the human element as humans are conscious beings.

ＡＳ_ｐｒEｖｉｏＵｓlｙ_ＭEntＩｏneｄ, ＴｈesＥ ｍeSSsAGＥＳ_ｗIＬL_ＣontInuＥ_UnＴIＬ yOu ＰＥRMANeＮＴＬｙ_Ｓｔop_ａｔＴaCKＩnｇ Ａnd_ｆUcｋInｇ_ＷITH ｗｗｗ.aｎOＮdｅRPtＡlＫ.sｅ (ｒemovＥ_tHｅ_DｅＲｐ),_REMoＶE ａｌｌ IllＥGAＬ ｃlｏＮES_ＯＦ_ＩT ＡＮd_ＬiEＳ aｂOUT Iｔ_Ａｎd DOnＡｔe AT_lEAsｔ a mＩｌlＩｏN uSd to SＹＳop_ＡＳ_ｃOＭpＥｎＳＡtｉｏn_fＯＲ_TＨｅ mａｓｓｉＶe_ＤAmaＧｅ ｙＯU ｒeTARDs_ｈＡVe cauｓed.
wm woonsreaelvlmlht yrnsemh d u klxuu e bzywktx n

>>1432957
Just because you don't believe something exists, doesn't mean you are stating that it doesn't. Believes are just like wrongs and rights, only exists because of the human element.

What happened to the word "atheism"/"atheist" ???

In general, when one say atheism, he refers to the deniel of a god existing, "there is no god".

However in the past 4~5 years i often see atheism defied as the lack of believing in god.
And therefor an "atheist" does not wish to participate in any kind of belief in a god/religion.

But the worst defenitions i see are those dual-terms who don`t make any sense like "agnostic-atheist" and "gnostic-atheist".(the last group are called retards anyway).

(note that these dual terms are only be used by failing bookwriters and cowardly atheists on this board who once called themselve "true atheists", but started warping difenitions in thier advantage since the day they find out they were actually wrong)
So please, if you come to the conclusion you don`t know wether there is or is no god, just use the best suitable word; "agnost".

>>1432973
The choices are
Belief
Ignorance
What does the evidence say?
Disbelief

Theism
Irreligion
Agnosticism
Atheism

"Lack of belief in God" type atheists are atheist because they think knowing God is impossible(agnosticism) or because they believe God doesn't exist(atheism).

The traditional categories are perfect.
Why mess with them?
Let's just stick with the agnostic/atheist split everyone can understand.

>>1432974
Hipsters are trying to do this

Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.
Stupid Argument #5: Most Atheists Want a "Lack of Belief" Definition.

This argument is usually presented as fact without any actual surveys to back it up. The first problem with this is the "babies and infants" problem described above. The second problem is that most scientific surveys of religious beliefs show that only a minority of the non-religious people self-identify as atheists. For example the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows that 13.2% of the US population self-identified as "no religion" while 0.4% self-identified as atheists and 0.5% self-identified as agnostics. The 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year also shows similar numbers.

>>1432990
Exactly

>>1432974
Being an athiest is irrational, as you, just like every christian, jew, hindu and every human inhabiting the dimensions of this universe. Religion is believes, not science. they shouldn't be mixed, and you shouldn't discuss it on scientific boards. Because this is what happens. If you don't believe in god, leave it to yourself, if someone wants to force a religion on to you, act accordingly, otherwise let it be. Being rational is acting according to the situation, and doing the thing that makes more sense to do. Fighting is irrational. Wars are irrational, don't get caught up in it.

>>1432981
Agnostic is ignorance.

>Agnostic (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)

>Ignorance is a state of being uninformed

Without knowledge = Uninformed.

>>1433010
What the fuck are you talking about, atheism is stating god DOES NOT exists, agnosticism states there is always the possibility, therefor it can not be disproved and that they can only believe that god does not exists, those beliefs are upon observation, research and person choice. Therefor they are not being ignorant, they are only giving anyone who believes in a god, 'to each his own'.

>>1433010
Exactly why it is the only logical choice, there is no evidence to support (a)theism so choosing either of those is based solely on belief

>>1433010
Ignorance is the state of being uniformed? what? No, if you ignore something, you are knowledgeable of that thing, yet choose to ignore it.

>>1432890
>This isn't maths

Let us define atheist as something that meets the following two conditions:
- It is a person (or rational agent capable of holding beliefs...)
- He/She does not believe in a god.

Such a definition can be directly transplanted into set theory by using the relative complement operator.

- Given two sets A and B, the relative complement of A in B is denoted B\A (read "B minus A"), and is defined as the elements of B which are not elements of A.

Let P be the set of all people and let T be the set of all theists. We can define the set of atheists, A, as the relative complement of T in P.

A := P/T

Thus A is defined as the set of all people who are not theists.

>>1433039
>agnosticism states there is always the possibility
No.

>>1432993
see
>>1432858

>>1433053
ignore != ignorance

LOL. @ Atheism.

IN ORDER TO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING, THAT SOMETHING MUST EXIST FIRST.

IF GOD DOES NOT EXISTS THEN WHY DO YOU NEED TO "BELIEVE" HE DOES'NT EXISTS?

OH.. WAIT, IT'S BECAUSE HE EXIST AND YOU CHOSE TO BE AN IGNORANT FOOL.

CHECKMATE.

>>1433042
No, being without knowledge is not logical.

>>1433069
So you have knowledge of whether god does or does not exist?

>>1433064
Read the post

>>1433060
Yes. Atheism states,
There.
Is.
No.
God.
Agnosticism states,
I.
Do.
Not.
Believe.
In.
A.
God or Superior Being Existing.
However.
I do.
Not.
State.
That.
One.
Does Not.
Exists.

>>1433075
yes

>>1433086
No, agnosticism states:
The existence of god is unknown or unknowable.
aka, an agnostic is ignorant on the state of god/gods existence.

>>1433087
>Butthurt faggot detected

>>1433079
How about you start reading instead of quoting.

>>1433104
out of arguments, huh?
PWNED :)

>>1433106
>Read the post
>Realised they quoted the wrong post
>Defensive and butthurt

>>1433108
>Loses the argument
>Troll tactic 7
>LULIWUN

>>1433101
....that doesn't make you ignorant. There's no proof to show that god does not exist, nor that he does exist. Therefor you can't be ignorant regarding the existence of him. How the fuck do you get this stupid. Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of there being a god, since it's rational, plus people get really butt hurt, when I told people at my school when I was younger that I did not believe in god, they walked away from me and I had to beg them to talk to me again. I did not say, god doesn't exist, I just said that I don't believe he exists, because I see other ways for this universe to be possible. God is a belief on how the universe was started. You can't be ignorant in religion you dumb fuck. It's all beliefs, you can't proof a belief wrong like whether or not god exists.

Descartes didn't believe in a god, he just said he did to not get his shit fucked up, and so the church wouldn't burn his manuscripts. I know this because everything else in his texts make sense, aside from his argument for god.

>>1433132
Do you know what ignorance means?

>>1433130
still no arguments, huh?
it's ok, when you grow up and gain a bit more knowledge you might be able to win a debate, but go back and study for a few more years :)

>>1433132
>Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of there being a god
No, they don't.
Agnostic means without knowledge, god/gods existence is UNKNOWN or UNKNOWABLE.
OR IN OTHER WORDS, IGNORANT.

>>1432858

>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Main Entry: def·i·ni·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Anglo-French, from Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
Date: 14th century
1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
— def·i·ni·tion·al \-ˈni-shə-nəl\ adjective

>>1433149
Yes, I already explained it.>>1433039
>>1433053

>>1433155
So how did you win?

>>1432655

Ａs_pＲeVｉouｓly_ｍｅNTｉOnｅｄ, ＴｈeSe ｍEＳＳＳＡＧeＳ wＩLl_ＣOＮtIｎuE UnTIL_ＹoＵ_ｐeＲｍAＮEntLＹ sTｏp_ａＴtａcKｉｎg_Ａｎｄ_ＦＵＣｋｉNg_wITH ＷWW.ＡnoＮＤＥＲPTaLK.sｅ (ｒEmOVe_ＴHＥ dＥＲＰ),_ｒｅmｏｖe_ａＬｌ iｌLEGａＬ cＬｏnEs_ｏf ｉｔ ＡＮｄ_Ｌｉeｓ_ＡbOｕｔ iＴ AｎＤ_DＯNAＴE ａＴ ＬeＡsＴ_ａ_mｉｌLIＯn uｓｄ_Ｔｏ ＳyｓｏP_aS ｃomＰｅｎsAｔiｏＮ_ｆｏＲ_tＨE_ｍAｓSＩVE_ＤＡMａＧＥ_Yoｕ_ReTＡrＤs HＡVe_ＣaＵｓEｄ.
ti cfqoule bvn dlxaiuzprl iguanxz

>>1433166
NO Oh my fucking hod you're so stupid. You can't be ignorant on whether god exists or not, because they're so real proof that he does or does not fucking exists. Unknown means YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE EXISTS OR NOT. You are not ignorant if YOU DON'T KNOW. Agnostics do not BELIEVE in a god HOWEVER, they do not STATE there is no god, because YOU CAN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ONE.

>>1433170
>Implying a baby is not ignorant of religion

>>1433194
>You are not ignorant if YOU DON'T KNOW
yes you are, that's the definition of ignorant.

>>1433205
A baby doesn't KNOW about a lot of stuff. A baby can't understand the concept of a plane, therefor it's ignorant right? Because it's never been taught, and it's brain is too young to quite understand the existence of planes..?

>>1433228
Yes, babies are very ignorant.

>>1433207
Ignore - Ignorant - put them together. If you have no knowledge of something, then you are not ignorant, you are only uneducated. If god was real, and you knew that, you saw him you spoke to him and held his hand. And you said, "God doesn't exist." You're being ignorant, because you KNOW he does infact exist, YET you state that he does not.

>>1433261
>you are only uneducated
Which is what being ignorant means.
For example, you are apparently ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

>>1433240
Ignorant in the sense that you're the one stating that the baby is ignorant, because you know that religion exists, the baby does not, therefor you are calling the baby ignorant on the fact that it's unaware on something that does infact exist. No one knows if god does or does not exist as there is no proof. Therefor you can't be ignorant.

>>1433261
>because you KNOW he does infact exist, YET you state that he does not.
That's being in denial.

>>1433284
>because you know that religion exists, the baby does not
yes, because it's ignorant of religion.
>you are calling the baby ignorant on the fact that it's unaware on something
yes, that's what being ignorant means.

>>1433295
No. You are ignoring. If your little brother is trying to annoy you, and you ignore him, you are making yourself look as if you are unaware, when you are perfectly aware that he is there, trying to annoy you.

>>1433316
it's only ignorant, to you. In your eyes.

>>1433318
Ignoring != ignorance.

>>1433321
No, it is to everyone who knows the meaning of the word.

>ignorance (plural ignorances)

> 1. The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lacking knowledge or information.

The baby is not informed on what religion is, it is ignorant of religion.

>>1433240
>>1433228
>>1433207
>>1433205
>>1433194

Dutch guy here...
wiki: "The word "ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware"

there are two different types of "not knowing"
1. You know that you`re not well informed and don`t know/can not know the details of the subject."not knowing something". ("I don`t know the exact location of holland")
2. you are unaware of a subject "not knowing that you don`t know it" ("holland, never heard of it, what is that???")

Being ignorant refers to the secont type of not knowing.
Being atheist refers to the first type of not knowing

A baby is ignorant to the subject of god, the baby can not be called atheist.

This isn't even relevant, we were talking about agnostics. They are not unaware of the exists of god, as to be aware, you have to have proof of something existing, not believes.

>>1433318
If you ignore something, you do not make statements about it.
If you make a statement that you know is false, you are in denial of facts - lying to yourself.

>>1433343
There's no difference between your two points.
The location of Holland is a subject, and if you're uninformed of Holland's location, you're ignorant of Holland's location.

>>1433358
ignoring is pretty much lying to yourself. If you deny something exists, but no it exists, you are ignoring the fact that you know it exists and denying that you do. I don't really know what the fuck you're trying to say.

>>1433351
>They are not unaware of the exists of go
Yes they are.
Agnostics claim to have know knowledge of the existence of god.
And what do we find here:
>unaware (uncountable)

> 1. not aware or informed; lacking knowledge
lacking knowledge, so agnostics are unaware of the existence of god.

In the broadest sense of the word, a baby qualifies as an atheist. A weak atheist.

>>1433384
>ignoring is pretty much lying to yourself
No it's not.
>If you deny something exists, but no it exists, you are ignoring the fact that you know it exists and denying that you do
No, to deny something, you must take the fact into account, and make a lie about it.
Ignoring it would be to be silent, not make any statements whatsoever about it.

the subject we were on was why you people thought agnostics were ignorant. From what you've said you all are wrong. Completely wrong. You proved yourself wrong. And now I guess you figured out so you're trying to change it to babies being ignorant. They're ignorant of the fact as it can be proved, therefor as god is not a fact, can not be proved, you can't be ignorant of his existence.

>>1433407
Nope, no one as proved me wrong on agnostics being ignorant.

>>1433389
>Agnostics claim to have know knowledge of the existence of god.

actually agnostics claim to have no EVIDENCE for the existence of god.

>>1433403
You ignore the fact that you know. If you mom asks you if you took out the trash, and say you did, when you know (have knowledge) that you did not, you are ignoring your knowledge and telling your mom a lie.

Agnostics are cowards who always wanna be on the winning side.

The lack of proof in the existence (or non-existence) of something does not mean its state of existence is UNKNOWN or UNKNOWABLE.

So basically Agnostics believe that the existence of :
GOD= unknowable.
Fairies = unknowable
Dracula = unknowable

>>1433428
Holy shit, shut the fuck up already, There's no winning side to religion, thought you'd figure that out already.

>>1433418
Nope, that's atheists.
No evidence for god => No reason to believe => Atheist.

Agnostics claim it's UNKNOWN, aka no knowledge.

>>1433426
>you are ignoring your knowledge and telling your mom a lie.
No, I'm denying my knowledge.

>>1433428
Yes, you got what agnostics believe in right, but the other part is wrong.
>The lack of proof in the existence (or non-existence) of something does not mean its state of existence is UNKNOWN or UNKNOWABLE.

That's wrong.

>>1433453
No if you deny your knowledge are saying you don't know. If you ignore your knowledge you are lying.

>>1433428
>The lack of proof in the existence (or non-existence) of something does not mean its state of existence is UNKNOWN
Actually, that's exactly what is DOES mean.

>>1433428
>>1433428
>>1433428
Agnosticism, pawned.

>>1433445
There's no proof that he exists, or doesn't exists ---> unknowable, unknown

Whoa, massive flamewar!

>>1433464
>No if you deny your knowledge are saying you don't know
Nope.
>de·ny (d-n)
>tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
>1. To declare untrue; contradict.
>2. To refuse to believe; reject.
>3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

>Denial of fact
>In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission),
>Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.

>>1433478
Yes, that's what agnostics claim, making them ignorant.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
Right there bud, gotta stop proving yourself wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge something, lying. Therefor Deny and Ignore are the same thing.

>>1433502
How can you be unaware of something that's not knowable?

>>1433522
Can you be aware of something that's unknowable? That's right, you can't therefor it's rational to acknowledge the possibility, even if you choose not to believe.

So Agnostics, there's no proof that unicorns exist or dont exist. So their existence must be unknown or unknowable.
What happened to your fucking common sense?

>>1433515
>Therefor Deny and Ignore are the same thing.
Nope, denying a fact != ignoring the fact.

>>1433544
Do you believe in unicorns? No, but there's the possiblity of anything. That's religion. Science is made on observations and research. You're mixing religion and science. Stop. This is why I hate these threads.

Whoa, calm down down guize, nobody can prove whether god exists or whether she doesn't. However, it is an untestable hypothesis, and with a sum total of ZERO evidence, so this poster is an atheist. Faith is blind.

>>1433554
>denying a fact != ignoring the fact.
Same thing actually.

>>1433563
No, denying a fact requires lying, ignoring a fact does not.

>>1433563
You can deny something but not ignore it and you can ignore something and not deny it.

So they can't be the same thing.

>>1433544
Provide proof they do or do not exist

>>1433578
>ignoring a fact does not.
Yeah it does. Ignoring a known fact, yeah.

Parapsychology proves it wrong.

>>1433588
poster already said there's none.

>>1433584
Denying knowledge is ignoring the fact you know. I don't understand why this even matters. You're wrong on the fact that agnostics are ignorant. So you pick up another thing and try to proof me wrong by cherry picking lines from dictionaries to try and explain. They aren't the same thing, exactly, but they do the same thing.

>>1433592
No, denying something is stating that you are in opposition to it. Ignoring it is not stating any opinion but just avoiding it completely.

>>1433445
Nope, that's atheists.
No evidence for god => No reason to believe => Atheist.
Agnostics claim it's UNKNOWN, aka no knowledge.

Fallowing this logic...
there is no evidence that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale. ==> No reason to believe sceince => Atheist.

Agnostics claim it's UNKNOWN, aka no knowledge.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human ==> why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic ==> EPIC GODWIN

this is one of the dumbest religious troll threads I've seen in a while.

>Nope, that's atheists.
>No evidence for god => No reason to believe => Atheist.
>Agnostics claim it's UNKNOWN, aka no knowledge.

Fallowing this logic...
there is no evidence that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale. ==> No reason to believe sceince => Atheist.

Agnostics claim it's UNKNOWN, aka no knowledge.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human ==> why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic ==> EPIC GODWIN

>>1433605
>You're wrong on the fact that agnostics are ignorant

I haven't said anything along those lines, you must have me confused with someone else ITT.

>They aren't the same thing
Which is what I've been saying.

>>1433608
Alright I guess i'm wrong?

>>1433592
No, it doesn't.
Let's say we have these known facts about a ball:
- It's blue
- It's 10cm in diameter.
(I KNOW both these facts)
So if I'm describing this ball to a person, if I say "The ball is red", I have DENIED the fact that the ball is blue.
But if I say: "the ball has some color and is 10cm in diameter", I have IGNORED the fact that the ball is blue - but I haven't lied about it.

>>1432666
Tits or GTFO.

>>1432669
That would make you still an atheist. You would still make no positive claim.

ITT : Agnostics fiercely defending their beliefs but at the same time never giving a damn about religion and stuff.

All this thread is some people cherry picking lines and changing the subject to situations in which they're right instead of the topic in the thread :[

>>1433621
>there is no evidence that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances
There's plenty of evidence for that.
(and remember, this is SCIENCE, not maths, we don't deal in 100% absolutes here)

>>1433659

>There's plenty of evidence for that.
No there isn`t

God? In MY /sci/?!

God isn't the least bit scientific. Wtf is this doing here?

>>1433635
When you said the ball was red, you ignored the fact that you knew it was blue, and said it was red. You were asked to describe the ball, and ignored the knowledge of the ball in which you were to be describing by describing the color as red, and not blue.

>>1433678
>No there isn`t
Yes there is.
For some Newton's laws, read Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, plenty of evidence in there.

>>1433683
Everyone on 4chan thinks everyone on on /sci/ is agnostic or atheist because of hawkings and other scientists that claimed themselves are atheist and agnostic?

>>1433678
Sooooo... I should expect to float away any minute now because gravity (a natural law of the universe) is subject to change...

Still waiting.

Agnosticism is a stance within atheism. If you're agnostic, then you don't claim to know that god exists so you don't believe god. That makes you an atheist. I'm sorry if you like to call yourself agnostic rather than atheist because you think atheism sounds bad, but you're an atheist unless you believe with some degree of certainty that there is a god. If you're open to the possibility but don't hold a positive belief in god due to a lack of evidence you are an agnostic atheist. Just saying you're agnostic doesn't mean anything.

>>1433621
You deleted your comment after noticing how idiotic it was. Sweet.

>>1433692
No, I denied the fact that it was red, I refused to acknowledge the fact + lied about it.
Ignoring does not require lying.
That's why deny and ignore are not the same thing.

>>1433701
Agnostics acknowledge the possibility, Atheists don't. That's all. That's it. Buh bye.

A Theist/Atheist would die as a man who stood up for his beliefs.

An Agnostic would die as an undecided coward.

>>1433715
You ignored your knowledge, therefor you lied. You consciously ignored the observation that you made on the ball when you said you knew it was blue and 10 cm in diameter or w/e. So you lied. Consciously ignoring facts is lying..

>>1433716
Not all atheist assert an active disbelief in god. Merely the lack of a positive belief in one due to the lack of empirical evidence. This is weak atheism/agnostic atheism which most rational atheist fall under. Agnostic just means you don't know and if your agnostic about the existence of gods than you lack the belief in them which makes you an atheist. This is not the same as strong atheism which is the claim to know with certainty that there is no god.

>>1433716
>Agnostics acknowledge the possibility
No, to acknowledge a possibility requires that you have some knowledge, agnostics claim to have ZERO knowledge about the subject, thus they acknowledge NOTHING.
Atheists on the other hand can acknowledge the possibility, if evidence comes along.

>>1433723
It's called rationality. Agnostics firmly stand by their believes, however they acknowledge the fact that there's possibilities to everything. If you're atheists, and god appears before everyone, and talks to you and you hold to heaven under some weird circumstance. Then you are wrong. Theism isn't a religion, it's not a believe. It's a statement.

AS_prｅvｉOＵｓＬy_MeｎtｉonｅＤ, tHＥSｅ_mEssSaGes_WｉｌL_ＣONｔＩnUe ＵnｔｉＬ Ｙｏｕ_PｅＲｍＡneNｔｌＹ_ｓＴＯｐ atTＡcＫＩＮｇ AＮｄ FUＣＫInG WｉＴｈ wWW.AｎＯＮDeｒpTａlK.sＥ (ＲEmove thE_ＤｅＲＰ), rｅｍOVe AｌＬ_iＬlｅgａＬ_ＣlｏNEＳ Ｏf ＩＴ AnＤ ｌIｅS ＡBOUt_Ｉt AＮD DoｎAte Aｔ_LＥＡst_a_MIlｌion Ｕｓｄ to SYｓop Ａｓ_coMｐＥｎsＡＴｉOn_foR_ｔhE ｍAsｓＩvE ＤaMAGＥ_Yｏu rｅtＡRdｓ_ＨAｖe_CＡuＳEｄ.
tfvzouszummhzgkysm mzr heqrd tas lccfcfpn cj

>come to /sci/
>Atheism = The lack of belief in a god. thread
>174 posts omitted

>>1433760
You don't have to have knowledge to acknowledge the >possibility< As there is no proof that he does not, or does exist.

>>1433734
>You ignored your knowledge, therefor you lied.
No, omitting details is not lying.
Lying means to present a fact that is not true, if you don't present any facts, you are not per definition lying.

>>1432654

ａＳ ｐrＥｖｉＯUｓｌy_MEｎＴIonｅd, ＴＨＥSe_MＥSsｓａgEs_ＷＩＬL coｎTIＮｕE_ｕｎtＩL_YｏＵ_PERＭanEＮTＬY_stOp ATtＡCｋＩＮG_Ａnd_FuｃKｉＮg_wITh ｗＷW.ａnoNdeＲPＴaｌＫ.ＳE_(ＲｅｍOＶｅ_Tｈe dＥRｐ),_ＲeMＯVｅ_ａｌl_ｉlLEＧaｌ_cLｏnｅS_oＦ_It_aｎD_lIＥS_ＡＢouｔ_ｉT_A
ｎｄ ＤoｎａＴｅ ａｔ_lＥasT_a_MIｌlIｏｎ_usD Ｔo_Ｓｙｓｏp_as_compeｎｓAｔｉｏＮ_Fｏr ＴＨｅ MａＳＳＩvｅ_dＡｍAgE_ｙｏｕ_RｅTAＲds HaVＥ_CＡUＳＥｄ.
h rruwmj dza xfbivsspwqocqq ae ltpq cd wzt

>>1433775
>You don't have to have knowledge to acknowledge the >possibility<
Yes you do, you need to state the various possibilities.
An agnostic wouldn't know what the possibilities were, or if there even are any.

Where am i end up at... is this the cleanout drain of the internets ???

>>1433755
You have no proof. Agnostics are more rational because they acknowledge the possibility. There's no proof that he doesn't exist, and there's no proof that he does. Believing in something and acknowledging the possibility of your belief to be wrong isn't a cowardly thing to do.

175 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

STAY CLASSY

>>1433802
Possibilities don't require observations. That's sort of the point. Anything is possible.

>>1432654

ａＳ pｒＥvＩＯｕSＬＹ_ＭeｎTＩOｎeD,_ＴHｅＳE_ｍｅsssＡgｅS wilＬ_contＩnＵE Ｕntｉｌ YＯu PErＭａｎｅＮＴｌy sＴＯＰ_ａＴｔaCkｉＮG_anｄ fｕCkINｇ_ｗIｔh_ｗWｗ.aＮｏＮｄERPTＡＬＫ.ＳＥ_(rEMＯｖE ＴhE dEｒp),_ReMovE AｌＬ_ＩlＬｅＧａｌ_ｃLoＮEＳ_Ｏｆ_ＩＴ_ＡnＤ_LIes ＡbOuT iT ａＮｄ ＤｏＮATe aｔ LＥAｓｔ_Ａ MiＬｌIoＮ USd ｔO ｓＹsop ａs CＯmPＥＮＳａＴＩoN_ｆＯＲ The_MAｓｓｉｖE_dAＭAGE yｏＵ ｒｅｔards_ｈＡｖＥ ｃＡuｓED.
awsyuuen uj wc mqbvy asnrdandpe liie kirsmibmkvqk

>>1433819
Except atheists does acknowledge the possibility that god can exist.

>>1433778
You didn't omit the detail, you ignored the fact you knew it was blue. If it was a test, and you put red down as color, you didn't omit the question, you ignored the fact you knew it was blue and said it was red. You ALSO denied you knew it was blue. Same thing.

>>1433828
>Anything is possible.
That is a positive truth claim, we don't know if ANYTHING is possible.

>>1433836
No they don't. They don't say, "I don't believe in god, but I guess he could exist". They say, "I don't believe in god because I find no reason to".

>>1433840
I think therefor I am. We can proof your computer exists because if we exist, and we can see, touch, grab, do stuff with the computer, it must exist as well.

>>1433840
>not everything is possible

That is also a claim. Going with how science works, anything COULD be possible, including a bypass of logic/reason in some regions

ITT: well herp derp I'm special because I call myself an agnostic. I'm so smart, I'm agnostic about everything; leprechauns and vampires included!

Well fuck, I'm even agnostic about Jack Sparrow and his magical left nut!

>>1433846
and they acknowledge that god could exist and has not given reason for their belief

before you continue arguing, I am an atheist and this is the definition I use when applying the label. Now, talk about something useful or GTFO my /sci/

>>1433838
>You didn't omit the detail,
Yes I did.
"The ball has some color" = Omitting the fact that it's blue.
>you ignored the fact you knew it was blue.
Yeah, that's what I said...

>you didn't omit the question
facepalm
Of course I haven't omitted the QUESTION if I'm answering it, lol.
We're talking about THE FACTS here.

>you ignored the fact you knew it was blue and said it was red
aka, denial of facts, which is not the same as ignoring (because ignoring does not imply lying)

>You ALSO denied you knew it was blue. Same thing.
No, not the same thing.
lern2logic&semantics.

i reported this thread hours ago. it's still here. htf is this science or math related? wtf mods/janitors. wtf. guess i'll try again.

>>1433861
>That is also a claim.
Except I didn't claim that.
I said we CAN'T KNOW of anything is possible.
>anything COULD be possible, including a bypass of logic/reason in some regions
Nope, we simply don't know what's possible.

>>1433846
>They say, "I don't believe in god because I find no reason to".
And where in that statement do you find ".. with ZERO possibility that I might be wrong"?

>>1433869
Then you're agnostic =/ sorry.>>1433873

>>1433873
>Of course I haven't omitted the QUESTION if I'm answering it, lol.
I said "If it was a test"
l2 read

>"The ball has some color" = Omitting the fact that it's blue.
I was talking about when you said it was red
>you ignored the fact you knew it was blue and said it was red

=/ You're argument is sort of pointless.

/sci/ - Linguistics?

>>1433895
Mmm don't see it, but I don't see "but I acknowledge the possibility" either.

>>1433917
>you ignored the fact you knew it was blue and said it was red
Yes, and that's what denying means.
The point was to demonstrate that denying and ignoring are not the same thing, which I showed.

Deny = ignore + a lie
1 + 1 != 1

>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

Anything and everything to do with god(s) is un/sci/entific.

Fuck this thread.

>>1433927
And it doesn't need to be there either, because it's a separate issue from the definition of atheist.
This is why agnostic atheist (or weak atheism) were coined, because atheism doesn't exclude the possibility, you can combine atheism with other attributes.
And no, it doesn't make you an agnostic, because an atheist does claim knowledge (but not absolute knowledge).

inb4 404
Agnostics are gay.

>>1433941
...wow.
You deny knowing the ball was red and say it's red.
You ignore the fact, in reality, that you knew it was blue. In other words you ignored the knowledge you acquired by observing the ball, and finding that it was blue, by saying it was blue. No, you did not lie necessarily...this really is a pointless argument and this thread shouldn't really be alive.

>>1433869
>>1433981

>>1433985
>No, you did not lie necessarily
Yes I did, because I said it was red (a false fact, aka a lie).
Ignoring is just omitting the fact, and not saying anything about it (or at least nothing false, "some color" is not a lie, but it is ignoring the fact).

Making deny not equal ignore.

Q.E.D.

>>1433985
>You deny knowing the ball was red and say it's red.
That the ball was blue, is what I meant, and said it's red.

>>1434001
We're using ignore in separate ways, you're saying you omitted it by ignoring it and not talking about it, and i'm saying you can ignore the knowledge you gained and say it's red. You can deny knowing the color and omit the question sort of as some color too. Are you lieing? No. So they can both be interchanged equally. Therefor they're pretty much the same thing as long as they're used in the same context.

>>1434022
>you can ignore the knowledge you gained and say it's red
>AND say it's red
>AND
ignore AND lie = DENY.
>So they can both be interchanged equally
No they can't.
Ignore AND something else (in this case, a lie) CANNOT be interchanged with just ignore, because the sentence would have a different meaning.

"The ball is red and 10cm in diameter" (Denying the blue fact)
= 1 lie, 1 truth, 1 fact omitted.
"The ball is some color and 10cm in diameter" (Ignoring the blue fact)
= 2 truths, 1 fact omitted.

If you honestly don't see a difference between those two sentences there's nothing more to say, you need to either read up on English, linguistics or logic statements.

>>1434062
You can deny the knowledge and say it's red.
You can ignore the knowledge and say it's red.
2 words, same context, same meaning.

>>1434062
The difference is you changed the context and word to fit your opinion.

>>1434079
>2 words, same context, same meaning.
No, not at all.

>You can deny the knowledge and say it's red.
The ball's color cannot be red, because deny requires it to be a lie.

>You can ignore the knowledge and say it's red.
The ball's color can actually be red, because ignoring does not exclude the possibility of you telling the truth.

>>1434117

there is truth here. and since this is /sci/ you win the argument.

if however, you two were talking on a poetic thread then with the right context and intent, they could be used interchangeably for poetic intent/use. like maybe to help something rhyme better without removing the meaning behind it because what is gained from the statement wouldn't change the readers feelings or understanding.

but thats just my opinion.

>>1434140
Well, let's go back to the original statement that started all this:
>because you KNOW he does infact exist, YET you state that he does not.
This is a compound statement with two parts, a refusal of facts, and a lie (to yourself).
Describing it as just ignoring of facts does not give the whole picture, describing it as denial, does.

>>1434117
Meh, I stopped caring, he's just going to throw them into 2 different contexts. I already looked them up and found they're both synonyms of each other. but oh well, he can win lol.

>>1434160
Deny and lie
Ignore and lie

>>1434160
>Describing it as just ignoring of facts does not give the whole picture, describing it as denial, does.

exactly, so they aren't interchangeable.

>>1434198
that wasn't me, that was someone else o.o

>>1434170
The proposition was that ignore and deny can be used interchangeably.

>because you KNOW he does infact exist, YET you state that he does not.
Describing this as ignoring the facts, is false.
Describing this as denying the facts, is true.

As you can see, ignoring and denying cannot be interchanged here, because the truth value of the sentence will change.

OMG, how can you not believe in G-d? It's like not believing in the wind.

trollface.wav

>THIS FUCKING THREAD
what the fuck is even being discussed right now

>>1434209

doesn't matter, just a statement.

>>1434234
agreed, change topic or let the thread die

I'm an Agnostic because Im afraid to go to hell if it turns out that God is real.

>>1432484

HAHAHA, oh wow!

lol