aphilosophy

[chaz wyman]

as being an atheist does not involve me in any belief.

1. do you believe you are atheist?

Only whilst there exist Theists. Is that the best you can do?

2. do you believe that you dont have to be afraid eternal hell after your death?
..or does your knowledge involve it in any such believes?

I don't have a belief in Hell, some theists agree.
This is arbitrary.

[Mark Question]

I don't have a belief in Hell, some theists agree.
This is arbitrary.

do you believe "this is arbitrary"?
do you believe colors make easier to read your posts?

That all seems quite unnecessary.
1. Do you believe you are as tall as you are? Or are you simply that tall as a simple matter of fact?
2. Do you believe you aren't afraid of your cat? Or are you simply unafraid of your cat, as a matter of fact?

what is knowing? is it believing what you see, what you know already, what you interpret and reason out?

Why do you not label yourself an aLolchNessMonsterist, or an aChupacabra-ist, or an aYeti-ist, or an aSasquatchist. If you had to worry about all of the things you simply don't believe, your life would be unbearable. Well, the atheist is the same. I don't worry about Yeti or Bigfoot or Nessie -- and I don't worry about gods.

do you believe "this is arbitrary"?

[chaz wyman]

I don't have a belief in Hell, some theists agree.
This is arbitrary.

do you believe "this is arbitrary"?
do you believe colors make easier to read your posts?

That all seems quite unnecessary.
1. Do you believe you are as tall as you are? Or are you simply that tall as a simple matter of fact?
2. Do you believe you aren't afraid of your cat? Or are you simply unafraid of your cat, as a matter of fact?

what is knowing? is it believing what you see, what you know already, what you interpret and reason out?

Why do you not label yourself an aLolchNessMonsterist, or an aChupacabra-ist, or an aYeti-ist, or an aSasquatchist. If you had to worry about all of the things you simply don't believe, your life would be unbearable. Well, the atheist is the same. I don't worry about Yeti or Bigfoot or Nessie -- and I don't worry about gods.

do you believe "this is arbitrary"?

I think we have covered all of this elsewhere.
Atheists believe things.
Theists believe that cars move, that the wind blows and that questions can be stupid. None of that makes them Theists.
I believe that the sky is blue and that you are missing the point, but that does not make me an Atheist.
The only thing that makes me an atheist is the simple fact that some people believe in a thing they call God. I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid.
Case Closed.

[Mark Question]

I think we have covered all of this elsewhere.
Atheists believe things.
Theists believe that cars move, that the wind blows and that questions can be stupid. None of that makes them Theists.
I believe that the sky is blue and that you are missing the point, but that does not make me an Atheist.
The only thing that makes me an atheist is the simple fact that some people believe in a thing they call God. I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid.
Case Closed.

so, "atheists believe things". do they also believe "the only thing that makes me an atheist"?

do they also believe lots of things that are related or coherent with atheism? all those things that you think we have covered all of this elsewhere. in so many words and posts. plenty of atheist things about "the only thing". long stories and lots of arguments. not to mention dawkins books and all. case reopened?

[chaz wyman]

I think we have covered all of this elsewhere.
Atheists believe things.
Theists believe that cars move, that the wind blows and that questions can be stupid. None of that makes them Theists.
I believe that the sky is blue and that you are missing the point, but that does not make me an Atheist.
The only thing that makes me an atheist is the simple fact that some people believe in a thing they call God. I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid.
Case Closed.

so, "atheists believe things". do they also believe "the only thing that makes me an atheist"?

do they also believe lots of things that are related or coherent with atheism? all those things that you think we have covered all of this elsewhere. in so many words and posts. plenty of atheist things about "the only thing". long stories and lots of arguments. not to mention dawkins books and all. case reopened?

Thank you for your questions.
but...
I think this has all been explained to you already.

[lancek4]

Perhaps: EV, perhaps I am as tall as I am. But the 'route' by which I know how tall I am is suspect. Am I such and such tall because of the terms that tell me I am that tall, or are the terms relecting a kind of condition of reality in which I find my 'tallness,?
Thue question is about essential things. Am I thus tall Because I have terms of measure, or are these terms reflecting merely a particular take on what tallness is?

[lancek4]

...And this goes to my situating of 'philosohy' and 'aphilosohy'. As to a 'phiosophy' that proposes to take the subject (self) as a node of analysis, such as to 'tallness', as if the terms by which I might know tallness or any other quality of reality can be an absolute reality relatable through the particular linkage of the self and object (route), becomes a 'technology' of knowing. An ethically informed absolute True route towards Essential knowledge, arguing itself into itself.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps: EV, perhaps I am as tall as I am. But the 'route' by which I know how tall I am is suspect. Am I such and such tall because of the terms that tell me I am that tall, or are the terms relecting a kind of condition of reality in which I find my 'tallness,?
Thue question is about essential things. Am I thus tall Because I have terms of measure, or are these terms reflecting merely a particular take on what tallness is?

So what you're really saying is that you can't live unless you complicate everything far beyond reason. George is a little taller than Harry. It absolutely does not require any particular unit of measure, or any reason for the fact at hand. All it requires is that George and Harry have the ability to observe and compare. And then stop worrying about the inconsequentials and move on...

[chaz wyman]

...And this goes to my situating of 'philosohy' and 'aphilosohy'. As to a 'phiosophy' that proposes to take the subject (self) as a node of analysis, such as to 'tallness', as if the terms by which I might know tallness or any other quality of reality can be an absolute reality relatable through the particular linkage of the self and object (route), becomes a 'technology' of knowing. An ethically informed absolute True route towards Essential knowledge, arguing itself into itself.

You seem to be tying your hands behind your back by assuming there has to be essential knowledge. What is it, even?
We always have to accept that all out knowledge is confined to the human scale. Even when we try to break out of it we still see in anthropic terms which always ends up viewed as subject to our personal filter.

[Mark Question]

I think this has all been explained to you already.

do you believe: "I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid"?
do you see the point now?

[chaz wyman]

I think this has all been explained to you already.

do you believe: "I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid"?
do you see the point now?

I can tell you why you are so confused. You are gaily using the word 'belief' which as (at least) two distinct meanings. You are satisfying yourself that there is something wrong here by moving from one meaning of belief to the other.

"I know I am only an atheist because I do not agree that Theists beliefs are valid, or I have never heard a theist belief that has been convincing."

People tend to switch from knowledge to belief without stopping to think that these words are intended to convey different meanings.
I know I am sitting in front of a Mac computer. I could just have easily said that I believe I am sitting in front of a Mac. What is the difference? There may well be reasonable doubt in a rational person when the word belief is used. However a Theist will not accept the doubt but will nonetheless use the words "I believe in God.", he could just as well say "I know God exists." - many of them do.

Part of what leads me to atheism is that I have a stronger criterion for knowledge than the average theist; I do not choose to believe things - ever if possible. What I hold as factual I hope to include as 'knowledge'. Facts that are speculative and may have some credibility can be temporarily held as a belief- but not in the way a theist believes in god. All belief is subject to confirmation.
And in no sense does the fact of me being an atheist involve me in any belief whatever. I know I am an Atheist. And I know why.

AND NO I do not believe; ": "I am only an atheist because I do not agree that their belief is valid"? I know it, because that is what it is to be an atheist.

[lancek4]

But the overriding thought I have on the matter is that is there were no theists then there is nothing that would change me except that I would no longer have a use for the terms atheist.

yes, but the fact of the matter, of reality, is that such polemic exists: atheism= a-theism. In that this relation exists, itself becomes a positive element; that is [atheism=un thiesm] = [ positive real element]. So, the question might become: what is the negative element? Does not everything that exists as true have to have an unseen, unrecognized correspondant element by which it gains its truth?

Since, in etymological terms aphilosphy suggests a parallel meaning I can't imagine how it would have any content either.
That is why I suggested some other prefix.

In that our discussion has come full circle, what does that imply?
If I cannot imagine a paralle meaning, does that not imply that i have reached the limits of that-which-allows-for-truth-in -(my)-reality? Our discussion has been logical,open and frank in attempt to reveal what might be 'missing' between us, but we find that we have reached the beginning. this beginning finds itself at a chasm, such that the beginning is reasserted in the seemiong futility of the rigourous discusssion.
So if we have defined an arena, by the fact that we have come full circle, what is that which allows for such a definition?
What is the negative element? How can we begin to address this which is unseen and unheard?

[chaz wyman]

But the overriding thought I have on the matter is that is there were no theists then there is nothing that would change me except that I would no longer have a use for the terms atheist.

yes, but the fact of the matter, of reality, is that such polemic exists: atheism= a-theism. In that this relation exists, itself becomes a positive element; that is [atheism=un thiesm] = [ positive real element]. So, the question might become: what is the negative element? Does not everything that exists as true have to have an unseen, unrecognized correspondant element by which it gains its truth?

Not necessarily. I do not have to join a group, adhere to a dogma, or follow any particular philosophy to be an atheist. You cannot DO atheism, I'm not sure it is even viable to BE and atheist.

Since, in etymological terms aphilosphy suggests a parallel meaning I can't imagine how it would have any content either.
That is why I suggested some other prefix.

In that our discussion has come full circle, what does that imply?
If I cannot imagine a paralle meaning, does that not imply that i have reached the limits of that-which-allows-for-truth-in -(my)-reality? Our discussion has been logical,open and frank in attempt to reveal what might be 'missing' between us, but we find that we have reached the beginning. this beginning finds itself at a chasm, such that the beginning is reasserted in the seemiong futility of the rigourous discusssion.
So if we have defined an arena, by the fact that we have come full circle, what is that which allows for such a definition?
What is the negative element? How can we begin to address this which is unseen and unheard?

If philosophy were for simpletons, like Theists, then defining aphilsophy would be easy enough. But SInce philosophy is such a wide subject; broad church; can be applied to nearly every sphere of human endeavour I simply cannot think what the fuck aphilosphy could ever mean.

[lancek4]

Typist not saying what he actually means by 'aphilosophy', nor what issues or problems its meant to address, nor what he thinks philosophy has actually failed to do?

I like to think that we can take up what Typist was implying. Since Typist has refused to elaborate further, and has even said he is going to ignore this thread, until he comes and engages again, I think his silence concerning this topic and discusssion says alot. Indeed, ironically, his silence speaks contributes much to what we are discussing. .

[lancek4]

You seem to be tying your hands behind your back by assuming there has to be essential knowledge. What is it, even?
We always have to accept that all out knowledge is confined to the human scale. Even when we try to break out of it we still see in anthropic terms which always ends up viewed as subject to our personal filter

Only in a particular way of knowing. I am attempting to address what you state here, and not let it sit in some essential "thats the way it is" platitude.

I would think, or at least it appears that when you say you dont agree with the proposition "God exists" that you are drawing upon some sort of essential truth of the matter. If you are not, then you are merely stating your personal belief.
I am attempting to crack into and give voice to this silent 'essentiality', this 'unadmitted' truth that occurs when atheists, like yourself, state, simply, "I do not agree with the validity of theism" as if it posits of some essentialilty.