A question for atheists

[EssentialSacrifice]

ken, question
If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

ES answer
Unnecessary, if, acknowledging there is no theism, why would there even be atheism ?

acknowledging there is no theism, why would there even be atheism ? = He flipped the question and got this deluge of philosophical mumbo jumbo ...

really Mel, my answer is a deluge of philosophical mumbo jumbo ?... as i said initially, IMO, if there were Iincontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has , which is the only evidence acceptable to drag me (or you, or any of us...) biting and clawing from Christianity then there is no reason to call yourself an atheist. With the advent of incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has , the word atheism is moot (for me personally and the world in general) and no more reasonable a condition finding yourself in than a "Flat Earth Society" person does today, or claiming "look ! I'm an air breather" as if no one else on the planet is.

Theism is false = there is no God/s. If there is/are no God/s there is no reason for atheism on an individual or general belief. That's the difference between the two... if your an atheist (as an individual) you get a choice after finding out there is a God. You can continue on your way in disbelief or believe. As a Christian, if you find out there is no God there is only one choice, unbelief, because incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has, says so.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Nessa wrote:
But if we found out God wasn't real wouldn't that invalidate the word atheist?
It may still remain in a dictionary but it would be a nonsense word
Tooth fairy and God would both be a fantasy, a delusion....and on the same level.

Maybe I'm just not getting it. Or rather maybe there would be no need for a name for someone who doesn't believe in God?

I think your getting it just fine. If incontrovertible evidence falsified theism there would be no use in belief of or categorizing a person's nonbelief in the falsified.

[RickD]

I think my "philosophical mumbo jumbo" may have been confusing something really simple.

ES said it best here:

ES answer
Unnecessary, if, acknowledging there is no theism, why would there even be atheism ?

That's the answer to Kenny's question.

[melanie]

ken, question
If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

ES answer
Unnecessary, if, acknowledging there is no theism, why would there even be atheism ?

acknowledging there is no theism, why would there even be atheism ? = He flipped the question and got this deluge of philosophical mumbo jumbo ...

really Mel, my answer is a deluge of philosophical mumbo jumbo ?... as i said initially, IMO, if there were Iincontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has , which is the only evidence acceptable to drag me (or you, or any of us...) biting and clawing from Christianity then there is no reason to call yourself an atheist. With the advent of incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has , the word atheism is moot (for me personally and the world in general) and no more reasonable a condition finding yourself in than a "Flat Earth Society" person does today, or claiming "look ! I'm an air breather" as if no one else on the planet is.

Theism is false = there is no God/s. If there is/are no God/s there is no reason for atheism on an individual or general belief. That's the difference between the two... if your an atheist (as an individual) you get a choice after finding out there is a God. You can continue on your way in disbelief or believe. As a Christian, if you find out there is no God there is only one choice, unbelief, because incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has, says so.

ES, my response was not directly to you solely by any means. I did not have you in mind when I wrote that. It was a responses to 4 pages of posts, not directed to you personally.
I am sorry you took it that way.
That was not my intention.
I was responding to the OP.
It was never stated that there was incontrovertible evidence or ever was and if that was the case i stated twice, sure, I get the term athiest would be useless.
I think I made that pretty clear.
I was responding as was Ken to the question as understood under the conditions it was presented.
We asked ken by way of the OP to take into consideration the question at hand.
He flipped the question as understood under the same conditions.
When he answered honestly, yes sure if atheism was proved to be false then yes I would be a Christian. Then he flipped the question he did so under the understanding that he had just answered.
No one brought into the equation a possibility of theism incontrovertibly being proved false, to have never existed In the first place to the extent of the entire argument being deemed incomprehensible to the point of the linguistic and accurate definition of athiest being redefined or completely diminished.
That is not the premise this question was asked or redirected.
If we want to change the direction that's fine, but let's do so acknowledging the re-direction and the direct consequences. Instead of holding a person to the initial premise and then changing the game rules.

[Nessa]

I guess my spin on 'knew' meant fact not 'belief'

[melanie]

I guess my spin on 'knew' meant fact not 'belief'

I know that Ness.
But either way it still presents the same dilema when we switch the question.

[EssentialSacrifice]

ed wrote:
Sure, in a world where everyone behaved rationally. Here on Earth there are still people who think Elvis is alive and the moon landing was faked. Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has would definitely diminish Christianity, but it wouldn't kill it entirely. Thus there would still be theists, thus there would still be atheists...

ES:
do you agree with this post from ed, ken ?

Mel:
No one brought into the equation a possibility of theism incontrovertibly being proved false, to have never existed In the first place to the extent of the entire argument being deemed incomprehensible to the point of the linguistic and accurate definition of athiest being redefined or completely diminished.
That is not the premise this question was asked or redirected.
If we want to change the direction that's fine, but let's do so acknowledging the re-direction and the direct consequences. Instead of holding a person to the initial premise and then changing the game rules.

Mel, this is why and where I got the Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist(ed post). As i said, this is the only evidence that could be given to wrench away our belief in God. I've not changed the rules or redirected the path of the question, only enlightened the questioner with what it would take for his premise to be valid, Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist. In your opinion, what is the difference between the statement "theism is false" and "Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist" ? For theism to truly be false it would require Incontrovertible evidence that god/s don't exist. If they don't exist now why believe they could have ever in the past or in the future ?

mel:
It was never stated that there was incontrovertible evidence or ever was and if that was the case i stated twice, sure, I get the term athiest would be useless.
I think I made that pretty clear.

I think you did too

[RickD]

I guess my spin on 'knew' meant fact not 'belief'

Exactly! It's not spin though. You answered the way it was written.

[melanie]

ed wrote:
Sure, in a world where everyone behaved rationally. Here on Earth there are still people who think Elvis is alive and the moon landing was faked. Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has would definitely diminish Christianity, but it wouldn't kill it entirely. Thus there would still be theists, thus there would still be atheists...

ES:
do you agree with this post from ed, ken ?

Mel:
No one brought into the equation a possibility of theism incontrovertibly being proved false, to have never existed In the first place to the extent of the entire argument being deemed incomprehensible to the point of the linguistic and accurate definition of athiest being redefined or completely diminished.
That is not the premise this question was asked or redirected.
If we want to change the direction that's fine, but let's do so acknowledging the re-direction and the direct consequences. Instead of holding a person to the initial premise and then changing the game rules.

Mel, this is why and where I got the Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist(ed post). As i said, this is the only evidence that could be given to wrench away our belief in God. I've not changed the rules or redirected the path of the question, only enlightened the questioner with what it would take for his premise to be valid, Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist. In your opinion, what is the difference between the statement "theism is false" and Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist ? For theism to truly be false it would require Incontrovertible evidence that god/s don't exist. If they don't exist now why believe they could have ever in the past or in the future ?

mel:
It was never stated that there was incontrovertible evidence or ever was and if that was the case i stated twice, sure, I get the term athiest would be useless.
I think I made that pretty clear.

I think you did too

ES said

as I said this is the only evidence that could be given to wrench away our belie in God

Quite frankly as I stated, I personally can't see any evidence that would diminish our belief. It is not a plausible argument to me. I cannot see how that would play out. But that just strengthens my argument.
There is by no means that 'belief' would ever be diminished. To the extent of making it proof of non existenence.
Thereby making atheism never a term that would be taken off the table because 'belief' will never be eradicated.

[Nicki]

ES,

Getting frustrated yet?

Kenny's question:

If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

Ken

Kenny,

You don't understand. If I knew theism(belief in God or gods) was false...

In other words, if theism is false, it would mean that I KNOW there is no belief in God. Which would then mean that I KNOW God doesn't exist. And if I KNOW God doesn't exist, then atheism wouldn't exist.

Kenny,

If you don't understand that, see if you understand your question written differently, with basically the same meaning:

If you knew God didnt exist, wouldn't you become Atheist?

And the answer would be the same. If I knew, totally knew, 100%, that God didn't exist, then I would have no reason to be atheist. Because by definition, atheism only exists, if theism exists. And if I KNOW theism doesn't exist, and therefore, I KNOW God doesn't exist, then atheism doesn't exist.

So again, at the risk of beating a dead horse, if I knew theism is false, or if I knew theism(therefore God) didn't exist, then logically, atheism couldn't exist.

So, even if my response isn't my "A game" like you asked for, you're never going to understand it if you use "F-"logic!

You seem to be equating theism with God. The existence of theism is not the same as the existence of God, is it? I agree though that if everyone knew whether or not God exists there would be no need for the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' - as it will be sooner or later after Jesus' second coming I suppose.

The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side? It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know even if it's disappointing and makes the universe seem empty and meaningless...

[RickD]

I just wish Kenny would think as deeply about this as we are.

[RickD]

Nicki wrote:
You seem to be equating theism with God. The existence of theism is not the same as the existence of God, is it? I agree though that if everyone knew whether or not God exists there would be no need for the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' - as it will be sooner or later after Jesus' second coming I suppose.

No, I'm not equating a belief in God, with God. And it's interesting that you mention Christ's second coming. I was thinking along those lines too. While there's no way to know God doesn't exist, there will come a time when all will know He exists.

The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side? It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know even if it's disappointing and makes the universe seem empty and meaningless...

Now you seem to be equating theism with God.

[melanie]

I just wish Kenny would think as deeply about this as we are.

I wouldn't be so sure he's not

[Nicki]

Nicki wrote:

The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side? It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know even if it's disappointing and makes the universe seem empty and meaningless...

Now you seem to be equating theism with God.

You mean you would stay a theist without God?

[RickD]

Nicki wrote:

The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side? It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know even if it's disappointing and makes the universe seem empty and meaningless...

Now you seem to be equating theism with God.

You mean you would stay a theist without God?

You thought the question asked about knowing God didn't exist. But Kenny's question asked about theism being false, not about God not existing.

In other words...nevermind.