A brother P-Touch would work also.

@TheMiddleWay Oh i forgot to read the rule book.

g

@TheMiddleWay i do not share it.

g

@TheMiddleWay Corrected. It was the heat of the moment.

A more appropriate label would be an apathetic apatheistic.lol

Labels are just so barbaric.

@TheMiddleWay Birth 'genders' might be 'correct', but not always wanted and not always necessary. I can think of other examples.

@TheMiddleWay we all got one and we're proud of it.

@TheMiddleWay that was a joke, but it's kind of true.

@TheMiddleWay I think many would say they're happy with their bias. don't mess with it.

@VeronikaAnnJ 'Let them think what they want'. How kind of you

@VeronikaAnnJ I thought it was funny

@TheMiddleWay We should label people as little as possible I think. Not Think about how we should label Them

@TheMiddleWay and before you know it................

@TheMiddleWay I'm just Kidding. It's a joke.

Sorry, did not realize you were a christian.

Because . . . "we simultaneously attach labels to ourselves and to others all the time:
Wife.
Mother.
Lover.
Strong.
Weak.
Smart.
Dumb.
etc
etc"

@K9Kohle789 Nah, Labelanus suits him better

“What value does one assign that which is inconceivable?” ..gonna do my best to remember that one

@Allamanda Making an emotive response was not the thrust of my point. Rather, alternative explanations for the world we experience which substitute undetectable alternatives such as brains in vats, hypnosis, or supernatural agents just are astonishing to anyone who doesn't readily gravitate toward conspiracy theorist thinking.

Of course in the case of god belief there is such a long history for it that one can't really be quite so astonished that others take it seriously. But belief in literal god-beings is still on the face of it an extraordinary claim. I do of course think there is something natural which supports god-belief; but I think it is better understood as the projection subjective phenomenon. It might even serve a worthwhile purpose, but I see no reason to swallow the literalism on that account.

Dress it up any way you want. You're still a blowhard, and a pretentious one, at that. Everything that you've written on this page proves it.

@TheMiddleWay I’m sorry, I’m a math/philosophy guy with a penchant for logic. Without consistent definitions, conversation isn’t possible. I’ll just forgo your alternative definitions.

@TheMiddleWay I prefer the original. It makes more sense.

@TheMiddleWay interesting. I would not have seen what I asked as matching that prescription. Mainly because if you lack belief in a god, you are atheistic to that belief. I am atheistic to every god claim. I lack belief in any god at all. However, I do not say there is no god; only that there is no reason to assert that one exists. The "revealed" gods are easier to tackle as saying they do not exist, since there are arguable distinctions made about them.

So, I'd like to ask, do you believe that if someone rejects the affirmative position of an argument, that they automatically accept the negative position?

@TheMiddleWay so if I were to say that atheism only addresses the affirmative position of the argument, would you agree? If no, why not?

I only ask because your prescriptions assume that atheism states no god(s) exist. If I do not accept someones claim of a deity, I am atheistic to that claim. I am not, however, stating that their deity does not exist. I am simply not convinced and lack belief in their claim.

@TheMiddleWay while I agree that people have their own definitions for words, I can only appeal to the textbook definition until someone redefines what the word means to them and then discuss it within the context of their own definition.

I would argue that that is not only my own definition, but the actual textbook definition "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Words have definitions and without these parameters, there is nothing we could ever dicuss. I would agree that language is fluid and constantly evolving, but without the grounds on which these words are based, there is no ground to have a conversation on. I use both agnostic and atheist because, by definition, I fall under those descriptions.

@TheMiddleWay atheism does not make an affirmation about belief, only the lack thereof. It is in no way oxymoronic to be an agnostic atheistic unless you are equivocating belief and knowledge. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief. I don't know whether a god exists or not (agnostic), but I find no reason to hold a belief that there is one (atheistic). This statement is well reasoned and logically sound.

"I can't simultaneously say I'm atheist (I believe)"
This statement is erroneous because you believe that atheism is a declaration that no gods exist. As we agreed to earlier, just because I don't accept the affirmative position of an argument does not mean that I accept the negative. I am witholding belief. So just because I do not believe there are god(s), does not mean I believe there are no god(s). That is an important distinction.

@TheMiddleWay and yet it still only seems to address belief. What else would it address otherwise?

"Not a universal view or gaining popular ground"
This is anecdotal but, I would say that it is more universal than you would think. Out of all the global groups of atheists, theist/atheist discussion groups, podcasts, etc that I participate in, I have not yet found someone stating that it does not address belief. I'm not sure whether you participate in any atheistic communities, but to claim that it is not gaining popular ground seems to be from a lack of exposure to these communities. As well, if the sentiment was started with Flew in the 1960s(I'll take your word on it), the fact that it has survived 60 years and is still used in theological debate shows the endurance of it.

For the historical use and the "100s, nay 1000s of years". So are people not allowed to refine arguments and definitions? As we discussed earlier language evolves and 1000s of years ago, it can be easily imagined that the arguments against the idea of a god were not as sophisticated and as articulate as they are today, and that over time, arguments have become more refined with the addition of new language with which to better describe their position. Just because there are historical uses for words, does not mean that these words have the same use today. If someone calls themself a pagan today, it does not have the exact same meaning that it held 1000s of years ago.

">>So just because I do not believe there are god(s), does not mean I believe there are no god(s).<<
That is the apistic position, not included above because it's not in common use. But if gnostic is knowledge and agnostic is the lack of knowledge, then the logical counterpart isn't theism is belief and atheism is the lack of belief but pistic is belief and apistic is the lack of belief."
I am not quite sure how this addresses my point about not accepting the affirmative. I also don't know how having extra words (pistic, apistic) replaces the the meanings of theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods) and atheism(disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods), when what we are discussing is with respect to belief in gods.

@TheMiddleWay you are so fast with these responses. You must be at a keyboard or have talk to to text going.

"Flew"
I will look into that book. I have read quite a bit of atheistic literature, but never came across this title or him for that matter. However, I don't see how not knowing him equates to not being educated in one's beliefs. Nor am I adopting anything because it's cool or just seems right. I listen to and participate in arguments and refine my view based on the better evidence and argument. As well, I'm not sure I follow about the belief part. I have lots of beliefs, but none of them are with respect to a belief in a deity or lack thereof. Lack of belief is not a belief. If I believed there were no god(s), I would consider that a belief.

"To say agnostic is about knowledge is supported historically and etymologically."
And I have not yet heard a reason as to why atheism is not about belief yet? You just state that it is not. What did it address, if not belief, prior to the 1960s?

"Perhaps because I don't quite understand what you mean by it. If you could expand on this point a bit I might be able to answer more directly."
I am making a distinction and direct analogy to the the agreed premise that "if one does not accept the affirmative, it does not mean they accept the negative." If I state, "I do not believe in god(s)", it is not the same as saying, "I believe there are no god(s)". Just because I do not believe the affirmative, does not mean I believe the negative. But this point doesnt matter since we are not agreeing on the definition of atheist.

@TheMiddleWay I apologize for the long pause, it was a busy day.

"atheism not belief"
What I am asking is, if atheism/theism was not historically used to describe belief before 1960, what were they used to describe priorly? I'm having difficult time understanding this point. I understand your use of pistic/apistic. You say that the etymology and historical use of thesim/atheism does not cover belief and I am curious as to how they ever didn't address belief.

(This next portion may be redundant, but hopefully adds clarity to my issue)
"I'm saying if you define your atheism on an axis of belief"
What other axis would it be based on? As far as I can tell, when looking up the etymology of theism, it appears to have always been based on belief. Theos meaning "god" and the "supposed" meaning from 1670 "belief in a deity or deities,".

"Not believing the affirmative"
For that last point, I was just trying to say that "my defintion" of atheism is analogous to the "not accepting the affirmative" argument that we agreed to. That is why our definitions would matter. If you do not accept that atheism is just a rejection of a claim of belief, then we will not arrive at the desired conclusion with respect to my argument for it.

@TheMiddleWay By reducing the non acceptance of their beliefs into a belief itself. They are saying "look, you have also beliefs, so we are ultimately the same". It is not a rational stance, but I have seen way too often.

@TheMiddleWay I surely do make that distinction: epistemologically the belief in a deity is not justified. I believe that ontology is moot in regards to beliefs that are not justified: is like creating a taxonomy for dragons.

@TheMiddleWay I disagree: atheism proposes no model: it is the non acceptance of a claim in base of the lack of good evidence to support it. Hard atheists exist, but they are, I think, a fringe. The modern atheist is usually an agnostic atheist and as such he/she does make a truth claim. The null hypothesis is the basis for modern atheism.

@TheMiddleWay I am afraid my comment was not sufficiently clear: the logical stance demands that in absence of evidence an hypothesis will have to be provisionally rejected until such time arrives when good evidence is produced. In this particular case the hypothesis to be nullified is 'there is no evidence for the existence of any god'. I have not made any claim of non existence of deities, the theists claim they exist: i am in no way responsible to provide the evidence for their non existence.
Given the historical absence of any good evidence for the existence of any deity i do not see any reason to consider the proposition of their existence as reasonable.

@TheMiddleWay Myself not being a physicists you have me at a disadvantage, but the difference between the Higgs and the theistic claims is that the Higgs was a specific hypothesis that explained until then unexplained phenomena: research and ingenuity provided the necessary evidence to confirm that such conjecture was correct. There is no research done, at least not in the scientific sense, in regards to theistic claims: it has to be accepted dogmatically and actually skepticism is strongly discouraged. String theory has not yet made any experimental prediction and I believe that the detractors vastly outnumber the supporters, but again, I am not an expert.

Yes but if I define an Elephant as and animal with a nose. Then all of you are elephants by my definition.

@TheMiddleWay “What is the utility of that view?“

The most immediate utility is that it gives me perverse pleasure.

In spite of that, there is a tinge of reasonableness to my definition. It reflects the idea that God (or whatever label you choose) is not an objective thing out there that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and who created the universe, and who answers prayers.

The definition is somewhat valid if you consider God to be the basis of ultimate reality beyond the senses, or that part of nature that we can not detect directly or understand—inherently a mystery. What can be said about a mystery? Not much.

You could argue that there is no ultimate reality beyond the senses, but you’d be arguing in the face of modern physics.

“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.” Albert Einstein

@Fernapple Ha, Great come-back, and very funny. However your definition is wrong. According to none other than Plato himself the definition of a human is an animal that walks on two legs and has no feathers. By that definition elephants are not human. Ergo humans are not elephants.

See my long-winded response to TheMiddleWay.

Life is such fun!

@WilliamFleming Yes but my point depends upon my definition being wrong. I am glad you enjoyed it.

Though I do not like quotes from plato much, since I long ago went down the road after Aristotle, and find little value in him.

PS. I like your reply to 'middleway', not long winded at all, reworking Einstien that way, although you have to be aware of how much trouble his, "god does not play dice " got him into.