Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[theleftone]

It's not for us to create our own definitions of these terms.

If I want to redefine all the terms in the English language, I am free to do so. Neither you, nor anyone else can stop me. But, the question is not if I can, but what will it profit me to do so? The answer is that it will likely not profit me much for more than a mental exercise. Why? Because language is a tool. A tool for what? A tool for communication. So, now we turn to your next point.

It's always a big deal when terms are misused. It's why we have dictionaries.

Did Cephus use language effectively enough for me to grasp his post? Yes. Hence, communication has taken place. Did I fully comprehend the concept which he intended to convey by the use of gnosticism? Yes. In spite of his incorrect -- technically speaking -- use of the term gnosticism, did I get his point? Yes. Therefore, communication took place and did so effectively. Thus, I conclude that in this case it is not a big deal.

And dictionaries are tools, not rules.

[harvey1]

language is a tool. A tool for what? A tool for communication.... Therefore, communication took place and did so effectively. Thus, I conclude that in this case it is not a big deal. And dictionaries are tools, not rules.

Misspelled words are often understood. Grammatically incorrect sentences usually get their message across. Slang can usually be read with ease. The point is not that communication is hindered by making these errors, the point is that it is not a correct use of the language. At times it is overly pedantic to insist on corrections, but when you get to whole concepts that aren't even right (e.g., a definition of gnosticism that's even half-way correct, or agnosticism not being an inbetween position of theism and atheism), and there is not even an interest in getting those concepts right, then it just becomes a recalcitrant attitude that reflects more on the writer than it does on their ability to communicate.

[theleftone]

The point is not that communication is hindered by making these errors, the point is that it is not a correct use of the language.

Given the nature of this place, correct use of a language is not always that vital. In this case, it is completely irrelevant.

At times it is overly pedantic to insist on corrections

And this is one of those times.

a definition of gnosticism that's even half-way correct

So? How does this change the fact that I understood what he was getting at?

agnosticism not being an inbetween position of theism and atheism

That's because agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas theism and atheism with assume knowledge and deal with belief. Two different concepts on two different continuums.

and there is not even an interest in getting those concepts right, then it just becomes a recalcitrant attitude that reflects more on the writer than it does on their ability to communicate.

Yes, you're right. This whole discussion reflects one thing about me. I care about communication, not being anal about the way a person uses a given word, grammar, etc.

If we were specifically talking about gnosticism, early Christianity, etc. Then I would be a bit more anal about the specific use of gnosticism. But, since we're not, I'm not going to be.

[harvey1]

That's because agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas theism and atheism with assume knowledge and deal with belief. Two different concepts on two different continuums.

Again, these are philosophical terms. Where would you expect to learn the definition of philosophical terms? What you are giving to me here has no relation to the way philosophers use this term. Did you make it up?

[Cephus]

There is no evidence for any god, there is no evidence against any god

What objective, verifiable evidence do you have for this claim?

You're welcome to present some, but until someone actually manages to, and no one ever has, then my statement remains true.

[theleftone]

That's because agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas theism and atheism with assume knowledge and deal with belief. Two different concepts on two different continuums.

Again, these are philosophical terms. Where would you expect to learn the definition of philosophical terms?

If we are speaking in general, then I would go to a dictionary. If I have the privilege of speaking directly to the individual who is using the term, then I can asked them to precisely define how they are using the term. The later is the preferred method because then I can obtain exactly what concept they attempting to express, rather than imposing a dictionary definition upon them.

What you are giving to me here has no relation to the way philosophers use this term. Did you make it up?

So, you're telling me "philosophers" -- whoever these anonymous authorities you are appealing to -- don't use agnosticism to refer to one's ability to "know" or have knowledge regarding God?

[theleftone]

There is no evidence for any god, there is no evidence against any god

What objective, verifiable evidence do you have for this claim?

You're welcome to present some, but until someone actually manages to, and no one ever has, then my statement remains true.

I have no evidence of there being "no evidence for any god." This is why I was asking you to provide evidence for this claim.

[Curious]

I have no evidence of there being "no evidence for any god." This is why I was asking you to provide evidence for this claim.

There is actually a great deal of subjective evidence for the existence of God. Unfortunately atheists tend to demand objective evidence. Ask them to look for subjective evidence and they cry " can't be bothered" or "no point". You might as well ask to be made a millionaire and then refuse to earn it.

[NGR]

There is actually a great deal of subjective evidence for the existence of God. Unfortunately atheists tend to demand objective evidence. Ask them to look for subjective evidence and they cry " can't be bothered" or "no point". You might as well ask to be made a millionaire and then refuse to earn it.

The trouble with subjective evidence is that it's welll..... so subjective. www.godchecker.com/ lists some 2850 deities covering many geographical and temporal periods. I'm sure the followers of those Gods all had heaps of subjective evidence supporting their beliefs. Please explain why I should treat any subjective evidence for your God with any less scepticism than I do any other God/s?

[Bro Dave]

The trouble with subjective evidence is that it's welll..... so subjective. www.godchecker.com/ lists some 2850 deities covering many geographical and temporal periods. I'm sure the followers of those Gods all had heaps of subjective evidence supporting their beliefs. Please explain why I should treat any subjective evidence for your God with any less scepticism than I do any other God/s?

Strangely, there being so many “registered” deities, may be a proof of sorts that God really does exist!
Think about it; God is always described as being infinite, a term which really has no definition we can get our arms around. So, finite beings are always going to be stuck with a mere shadow of what an INFINITE God is. God, on the other hand is not so limited, and knowing each of his kid, is able to tailor for our individual understanding, an icon of Him that we feel comfortable with.

Uniqueness; the one thing we all have in common…

Bro Dave