atheism is a belief based ontology because it denies the existence of something based on belief
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
atheism is a belief based ontology because it denies the existence of something based on belief
Wouldn't most non atheists also fall into that category, since they believe that God(s) exist regardless of belief
> they believe
no they are not, they just don't know.
atheism is just another religion for soibois and trannies
The guys out getting laid this weekend are not churchqueers, sorry to burst your bubble chief
Are you saying that say, for instance christians don't know whether God would exist regardless of if people believed in him? Because I'm pretty sure most christians think God is eternal
Atheist here. I suppose it's possible that God exists, but I've seen no evidence for him. I think it's most likely that he's just a fictional character.
I think we should do more science to investigate the origin of the universe. Then maybe we will discover that there was no god involved in the universe's creation.
>it's unlikely but I can't rule it out
you are not atheist you are agnostic
you are a moronic troony homosexual
I don't even really understand what you're even claiming here my dude. What do you mean by "belief based ontology"
do you know what "belief" means?
Yes. An ontology of belief would be to say that "belief" makes something "real" in a sense. I don't see what that necessarily has to do with atheism
ontology is a notion that dealing with existence.
belief is thinking that something is true regardless of knowing if its true or not.
so what is not clear to you in this conjunction?
>so what is not clear to you in this conjunction
What that has to do with atheism. Most non-atheists reject the existence of certain deities, do they also subscribe to an ontology of belief? I think you're affirming the antecedent here. Believing something does not exist has nothing to do with thinking that belief drives existence
look how confuse you are you don't make any sense
Not my fault you're moronic, sorry
why am i moronic because i can't read your senseless "jargon"?
you didn't even know what belief means until a few minutes ago
if an atheist believes that god does not exist, he is not different from the one who believes that he does exist.
they both use the same process even if it produce different outcomes
>senseless jargon
"Affirming the antecedent" is logic 101 shit for brains. Dunno why I still use this board tbh, it's been completely infected by poltroony's
i did not find a problem with the terms. it's in how you presented your conclusions. you are the common "educated" fool.
its a waste of time and resources to let people like you into the academy.
Belief does not equal religious faith, esl-kun.
a religion is basically an establishment that preaches a cluster of beliefs
i don't quite understand how the classification of positive and negative can be attributed to faith
>i don't quite understand how the classification of positive and negative can be attributed to faith
It's statement on the position you hold on something.
It's a simple matter of "I believe" and "I don't believe."
You're saying that an atheist and a theist both believe just in two opposite positions.
I'm trying to tell you it's not on a spectrum.
There's belief, and then there's not believing.
i don't think you understand the meaning of atheism.
its not on the spectrum there is no offset its just the rejection of the god concept based on the belief that it does not exist.
Okay, well it kind of is.
But, what I'm getting at is something like this.
It's "I believe God." It's not "I don't believe there's not a God."
"i don't believe in god" == "i believe that there is no god"
"i don't believe in god" != "i don't know if god exists or not therefore i can't determine"
there is no other way to put it. the denial of god can only result from faith
>the denial of god
It's doubt.
In other words it is lack of faith.
so this is deviated from atheism.
if you don't believe in god, you believe that it does not exist.
if you doubt god you neither believe or disbelieve
What I keep trying to tell you is to drop "belief."
There is no "belief."
The reason why is it comes back to that. Like, you say 'I believe god doesn't exist.' Why? 'I don't believe in god.'
So, to put in in a more coherent way it would be "I believe God doesn't exist, because I don't believe God exists."
>if you doubt god you neither believe or disbelieve
No, I just disbelieve
It's the doubt in the existence of God. So, yeah my doubting God is disbelieving in God.
its the inverse of the proposition its still means the same thing.
read about logic/discrete mathematics.
i can't have this conversation going, i need to go now
>its the inverse of the proposition its still means the same thing.
Not exactly.
One is a statement, the other is the reason.
Also.
"i don't believe in god" != "i don't know if god exists or not therefore i can't determine"
Is wrong.
I don't believe in God = I can't determine, but I doubt its existence
Also, another thing, denying is a more stronger word than doubting.
Doubting leaves wiggle room. Denying is a rejection.
Back.
I am the one that had been arguing with you.
I actually realized something in thinking in the way you have.
I, as an atheist, can see where you're thinking is going in my viewpoint of being an atheist.
I'll show you what I mean by using your thinking.
I believe there is no god. I have faith that there is no god.
This is what you have been positing and it would end there for you. But, I am an atheist, and in my atheistic viewpoint there would be more to add, but in this case in your logic. Which would be the reason. I see evidence for God not existing.
You might be fine with my thought ending there. From there you can now question what the evidence is.
But, the truth there is that there isn't. In that I would have to walk back on that and say 'I see no evidence.'
But, I could more easily make it to there by going negative. I don't believe in God. I have no faith in God (a negligible statement from the former being effectively redundant). The reason -- I see no evidence for god evidence.
We could effectively replace "evidence" for "reason" and it'd be the same dif.
I leave out "deny" for what I stated here.
Oh, I screwed up by saying "god evidence. " I obviously meant 'god existing'
Not bad for a phone post though.
I will admit, that you can mess with any configuration of those statements.
But, the only exception is the reason. To go from I see reason for god not existing. Would end up to I see no reason.
The 'no reason/evidence' is the constant.
moron
Oh, in which case denying God would be "I believe that there is no god."
Yeah, the denial part would be "I believe that there is no god."
To make it more painstakingly clear.
I believe there is no God because I don't believe in God.
Just as a theist does not believe that there's not a God because they believe in God.
>if an atheist believes that god does not exist, he is not different from the one who believes that he does exist
Okay.
But, the difference here is belief the positive and belief in the negative.
In which case believing in God is in the positive.
But, so is believing that God doesn't exist.
But, what I'm referring to as an atheist is not believing, which would be in the negative.
It's the lack of belief.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Agnostic atheists are a thing.
Which would mean that they don't know if a god exists, but they don't believe any do.
atheism reject the concept of god without any element of validation. this is driven by the faith that god does not exist
There's a difference between belief and knowing.
To be an atheist would be lacking in belief rather than believing.
Imagine how different you would be if you knew what it was like to wake up next to a woman
>I suppose it's possible that God exists, but I've seen no evidence for him.
atheist here, too. you and your ilk is the reason for much that is wrong with these kinds of debates. no, there is no god, end of story. why would I need to hold myself to a higher - and hence unattainable - epistemological standard than the mouthbreathing churchgoers?
>denies
I'd say "doubt" is more apt here.
In philosophy, belief simply means thinking that something is true. Denying the existence of something based on belief would mean that you think something isn't true based on the fact that you think it isn't true. That's not what the atheist is doing.
Online "atheists" exclusively believe in evolution. That by itself means it's a faith based position.
No. It's science.
Cope.
Okay, then why don't you ever state it as it being "not believing in god"?