aphilosophy

[chaz wyman]

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

No, dishonesty is without honesty.
Atheism is without God.

[chaz wyman]

My atheism has no content. Please explain

You were describing how Typist's 'aphilsophy' may have come about: as a kind of ploy, or dialogic tactic to get you to admit some content of atheism, where you typically deny this. Isnt this correct?
You an I have been through this athiesm crap, and I would leave it at stalemate for now.
I was suggesting merely "your argument" about atheism.

I was suggesting merely "your argument" about atheism.

You were suggesting WHAT exactly?

What "atheism crap" are you referring to?

A stalemate takes two to tango. I see your statement as you conceding the argument.

[lancek4]

Oh no - I do not wish to get in ANOTHER atheism discussion.
OK here: Atheism's content: [there is not a God]. The position of "no God" = "not [God]".
I propose that we set the atheism discussion aside for now, since in my opinnion, as to atheism, you cannot hear me and I cannot hear you. Can we agree with this for now?

So back to the aphisophy thread:

A few posts back, before Bill's injection, I indicated a possible third relation against the situating of a 'positive' knowledge that is constituted as "positive vs negative".
Let us place 'philsophy' is the 'positive' category. Thus 'aphilsophy' would seem to occuy the negative category. Can we agree on this?

[lancek4]

..and i apologize; I feel it unworthy of you for me to string you along a point that we both agree upon:
I agree: a belief in God, theism, is not sound, as you should have already gathered from past comments I have made (if you remember me on this forum). But I do not wish to discuss atheism, but merely to point out that i am not trying to push or pull you into admitting a belief in God here.

the point of contension is 'aphilsophy".
and niether am I asseerting some 'Eastern" type "zen-ish" philsophy.
I am atttempting to gain purchase on a point of discusion that is usually left mute.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Oh no - I do not wish to get in ANOTHER atheism discussion.
OK here: Atheism's content: [there is not a God]. The position of "no God" = "not [God]".

But once again, you are mischaracterizing what atheists themselves think. The theist says, "I believe there is a God." Content of belief = "God." The atheist says I don't. There is no content because there is no belief.

[chaz wyman]

Oh no - I do not wish to get in ANOTHER atheism discussion.
OK here: Atheism's content: [there is not a God]. The position of "no God" = "not [God]".
I propose that we set the atheism discussion aside for now, since in my opinnion, as to atheism, you cannot hear me and I cannot hear you. Can we agree with this for now?

You are missing the point entirely.
Atheism has no content. The phrase "there is not God" validates the concept "atheism" seeks to describe in the breach.
The only response for an atheist which includes the word God, is to question; "what do you mean by God?"
Atheism is a term of reflexion.

So back to the aphisophy thread:

A few posts back, before Bill's injection, I indicated a possible third relation against the situating of a 'positive' knowledge that is constituted as "positive vs negative".

Positive and Negative are relative terms. All knowledge is positive. Negative knowledge can only represent the absence of knowledge.

Let us place 'philsophy' is the 'positive' category. Thus 'aphilsophy' would seem to occuy the negative category. Can we agree on this?

No, not in the slightest.

[lancek4]

Oh no - I do not wish to get in ANOTHER atheism discussion.
OK here: Atheism's content: [there is not a God]. The position of "no God" = "not [God]".

But once again, you are mischaracterizing what atheists themselves think. The theist says, "I believe there is a God." Content of belief = "God." The atheist says I don't. There is no content because there is no belief.

OK, EV, Chaz, i do conceed to this discursive situation where athiesm finds itself.

Ok. so Chaz, please explain. I feel i am situating your statement properly: all knowledge is positive = philsophy is a positive category, and 'aphilsophy' negative.
How would you categorize this differerntly?

[lancek4]

shall I also conceed that 'belief' is not sufficient to demand reality or what exists? Such as "I believe there is a God"? Thus, I agree, where belief proposes to express a necessary condition of existence, it is faulty. So, I understand where atheism would suggest this in its pointing out this shortcomming of a belief in god that is theism.

In that knowledge is positive, where theism proposes a truth, athiesm proposes its fallacy. The equity that is the balance of this proposition is reflexive with knowledge. (in that I used 'reflexive' correctly.)

[Thundril]

Negative knowledge can only represent the absence of knowledge.

Even worse: negative knowledge would have to involve forgetting something previously known?

[lancek4]

Negative knowledge can only represent the absence of knowledge.

Even worse: negative knowledge would have to involve forgetting something previously known?

Oh thats great! so perfect. I love it.

So where there was knowledge, one would have to forget it so it would be negative.
Ah, so is this a runover from 'Witgentsiens notes' thread or the article about choice and determinism? lol

Well, it may be that philosophy as we know it needs to 'forget' some of its knowledge.

'aphilsophy' may then be a philsophy about what we, in the philosophical effort, have forgotten.
beautiful.

[Mark Question]

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

No, dishonesty is without honesty.
Atheism is without God.

"You are missing the point entirely.
Atheism has no content." gibberish?

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

Mark, it is a simple fact that I don't believe a god or god exists. Since the definition of an atheist is someone who lacks that particular belief, I am, by definition, an atheist. I don't happen to insist that "no god exists", but that doesn't change the simple fact that I don't hold a belief in a god or gods.

lack of money, not interested having heterosexual intercourse, human rights are meaningless or not holding a belief in secular humanism or democracy, are also contentless? (sorry my english.)

If you insist that this disbelief of mine has content, it should be an easy matter for you to say what that content is. Please give it a go, as I might then be able to understand what you're getting at. If that's difficult, say, because you don't know me, then how about some examples of the type of content it might be?

i was just wondering if my analogue would do anything? its ok to me if dishonesty is also contentless. is it? by the way, why something contentless would be any subject at all? is dawkins also just small talking or what? talking about weather would be more contentful?

Disbelief is contentless.

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

Invalid comparison. Unless you can find a valid way to compare "belief" and "honesty," comparing the negation of either is unenlightening. And since I see belief as referring to content (a statement, an idea, the existence of something) and its truth, while I see honesty as a state or quality, they don't compare easily.

are belief and honesty both words? do they both have negations with latin dis-prefix?
so, you dont see disbelief having any content? (do humans have any contentless words?) but you see dishonesty having a content? is "gibberis" also a content of a "god" to fanatical or fundamental atheist?

[lancek4]

(do humans have any contentless words?)

Ahh yes, do we?
this, I think gets to some heart of the matter.
Because it seems that the atheists are not merely argueing thier personal situation (I avoid the term belief here -- it is quite antagonistic to atheists). If they were, then "I simply do not believe God or a god exists" would have content to argue with. And the astute atheist would then have to admit that they were at least agnostic.

No, the atheist is seen to argue Absolutly no God exists. No just that they dont believe there is one. Thus, when one argues contrary, the response is "which god?" or "of what God do you refer to".
So, the atheist is seen to propose that they know something that is beyond discourse, beyond reproach. This is in effect revealing the individual's orientation upon reality: terms refer to absolute truths; there Is a true object and our debate will eventually show this.

the fact that they may argue a personal belief and assert it is not a belief is a minipulation tactic in argument, a drawing away from and then towards the topic and context.

to repeat above: if atheism had no content then why argue it? If the content of atheism is proposing something that essentially has no content, then atheism is based in an ineffable truth: the term 'atheism' is proposed to refer to a "true" condition of reality: a essential, absolute True object.

[lancek4]

To speak of atheism in this way, as to, what is the point of arguing atheism if it has no content, and the content term is seen as theism, at best, is a short-term tactic based upon an ethical agenda of showing theism's shorrtcommings.

Thus, these two terms, these ideas, are entangled in necessity, where one cannot exist without the other. When we can admit that 'reality' ((or at least this particular reality concerning the existence of God or gods) is consituted in this way (setting aside Levi-Strauss's Structuralist (and who was the other guy with post-structuralism) assertions)), then we have a new topic, such as what is informing this polemic?

Maybe, perhaps, this is where aphilsophy, as a philsophy, begins.

[Thundril]

No, the atheist is seen to argue Absolutly no God exists.

Not this atheist. I state, quite simply, that I have no belief corresponding to the idea that gods exist.
(Incidentally, I have decided to drop the label 'atheist' as a label, in favour of the term 'infidel' with its clear meaning 'one who has not faith'. Do you think this implies I believe something other than what I believed, or didn't believe, yesterday?)

[lancek4]

No, the atheist is seen to argue Absolutly no God exists.

Not this atheist. I state, quite simply, that I have no belief corresponding to the idea that gods exist.
(Incidentally, I have decided to drop the label 'atheist' as a label, in favour of the term 'infidel' with its clear meaning 'one who has not faith'. Do you think this implies I believe something other than what I believed, or didn't believe, yesterday?)

No. I see the change in your term ( the comic aside) as reflecting a new polemical value. Where once you would say atheism, you were saying with reference or response to a certain set of identifiers in discourse; likewise with your adjustment in terms.

and, to the former term, I could say: your belief is that you have no belief corresponding to the idea that gods exist. How do you escape this infinite reduction (which is typically relegated to the 'negative')? You implicitly refer your truth to an unspoken object, which can be likened to saying "no gods exist", but is imprecise and leaves an 'empty space' for your true truth.

If I say "I belive in God(s)", no matter how true I may think this staement is, I am not conveying what I might really mean. This opens the door for a set of supporting and counter arguments. Likewise when I say "No god(s) exist".

Both statements leave themselves prone to polemics that argue by routes necessary to discourse and meaning. At risk of being seen as post-modernist or existentialist, there is "No Exit" from this situation excpet complete denial of it.
So the question that needs addrssing is: what is the content of this "no exit", this space in discourse that is left out in its positing which often in seen as having 'no content'?

But, I like that term 'infedel', it is quite... invorgorating.