Atheism and Leperchauns-ism

[Sir Doom]

How so?

We are using the analogy of people who believe in leprechauns and those who don't. The obvious parallels here are those who believe in gods and those who don't (i.e. theists and atheists). I fail to see how the analogy is helped by the nuances of theism.

You don't understand how more information on a subject is better than less? Seriously, tell me that's true. Its the reduction of your argument that the dictionary is 'sufficient' after all. You, as a reasonable human being are more than capable of imagining atheism and leprechaunism (not aleprechaunism) being parallel, even if it makes more sense that they aren't. I'm trying my best to use statements of belief to prove that to you logically, but you don't seem to be getting it. I fully admit that could be entirely my ability to explain it properly.

In common parlance I think it would be fair to call them atheistic. However, they aren't required beliefs to be an atheist. In the same way, "I believe Jesus was God's Son" is a theistic statement, but it isn't a required belief to be a theist. Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense, its what I've been saying this whole time. Coupled with the fact that no adherence to any particular 'atheism' (statement of atheistic belief/intent/nature/whatever) is required for it to carry the quality of 'atheistic'.

In many, many discussions on the possible existence of God between theists and atheists it is the theists who strive for the mantle of having a logical and reasoned argument. I can't remember any instances where these discussions are started by a theist who says that a belief in God is illogical and unreasonable. Perhaps it is unfair, but there is an assumption that someone making an argument for the existence of God is doing so with the intention of making a logical argument. What is the point of having a debate if the intention is not to convince someone else that you are right?

But your intent is not to convince, or you'd stop trying to force logic into an illogical person. You won't succeed that way. I haven't been on this forum in years, but paarsurrey was doing this same old thing way back then, too. And here are all you atheists doing the same exact thing you were years ago. Trying to put a square peg in a round hole and then demanding the problem is adherence to your block on the hole's part. Try shaving some corners, maybe you'll have better luck.

 

[Duke_Leto]

"why you equate belief in leprechauns with unbelief" in G-d's existence.
Both are without evidences. Aren't these, please?

Regards

The analogy is that just as there is no evidence in the existence of leprechauns, there is no evidence of the existence of God. Unbelief in God is as reasonable as unbelief in leprechauns, because there is no evidence for either.

I don't think it is at all contradictory except perhaps by design (and out of vanity). There is nothing contradictory in a divinity that is at once one and triple. As I like to point out, my keyring has that ability, and so would Abraham's God.

This conversation might be getting slightly off topic, but I don't think a keyring is a particularly good analogy. If the ring itself is "God", and each individual key is a "person" of the Trinity, "God" becomes nothing more than a title for an association of three deities.

What I have most trouble understanding is whether each "person" can really be a "person". If the Father and Son are always agreed in everything, can they really be said to be different "people"? If not, can they really be the same "being"?

The Trinity always struck me as an attempt to redefine the word "God" to mean something analogous to some type of organization or legal construct; an association of three deities that could itself be referred to as a "person" of sorts and referred to in the singular, like we could talk about "the ACLU's decision" or something like that. That's the only way I can really see any sort of coherency behind the idea. It's possible I'm misunderstanding it, I guess.

 

[LuisDantas]

This conversation might be getting slightly off topic, but I don't think a keyring is a particularly good analogy. If the ring itself is "God", and each individual key is a "person" of the Trinity, "God" becomes nothing more than a title for an association of three deities.

If anything, the analogy is excessively rigorous. Aren't deities supposed to be transcendental and not to have any need to conform to human expectations?

What I have most trouble understanding is whether each "person" can really be a "person". If the Father and Son are always agreed in everything, can they really be said to be different "people"? If not, can they really be the same "being"?

Of course not. Nor could there be any need for them to be, even hypothetically.

The Trinity always struck me as an attempt to redefine the word "God" to mean something analogous to some type of organization or legal construct; an association of three deities that could itself be referred to as a "person" of sorts and referred to in the singular, like we could talk about "the ACLU's decision" or something like that. That's the only way I can really see any sort of coherency behind the idea. It's possible I'm misunderstanding it, I guess.

I guess it is just self-evident to me that any deity would not be a person in the first place.

 

[wandering peacefully]

My point is that to state something like, "I believe leprechauns are only myths." Is an atheistic statement."




"It is a statement of atheistic belief."



"An atheism, if you will."


"What I'm trying to say is that despite what the dictionary might tell you, atheism is more than the lack of belief in deities, even if that is the only unifying quality among you. It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent."

Okay, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any point of yours. And now I know for sure that I am not.

None of that carries any validity with a majority of atheists I imagine. Thanks for explaining some more what theists believe atheism is and it's beliefs and intents. The way theists talk about atheists beliefs, you would think there was a bible size book somewhere.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You don't understand how more information on a subject is better than less?

In this topic, I don't see how more information is going to change anything. If you think I am wrong, then spell it out.

You, as a reasonable human being are more than capable of imagining atheism and leprechaunism (not aleprechaunism) being parallel,

Atheism and aleprechaunism would be the parallels. Atheism is the lack f belief in gods and Aleprechaunism is the lack of belief in leprechauns.

But your intent is not to convince, or you'd stop trying to force logic into an illogical person.

Then I have to wonder why you are in the debate forum where the entire purpose is to convince others of the truth in your arguments.

 

[Sir Doom]

Okay, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any point of yours. And now I know for sure that I am not.

I'm sure you aren't either. Willfully ignoring my point and missing it are not the same thing.

None of that carries any validity with a majority of atheists I imagine.

Consensus is not required, since it is not necessary for the statement to be believed nor is it a requirement for the statement to be true in order for it to be atheistic, then how many atheists adhere to it is irrelevant. None need to at all. Its not about WHO believes anything.

Thanks for explaining some more what theists believe atheism is and it's beliefs and intents.

You think I'm a theist? WOW, another atheist thinks I'm something I'm not on the simple basis that I disagree with them in a thread.

The way theists talk about atheists beliefs, you would think there was a bible size book somewhere.

For the last time, I am not stating what any or all atheists must believe. Not even close. I've said this so many times I don't know how you can even type this out with a straight face. You are arguing with someone else.

In this topic, I don't see how more information is going to change anything. If you think I am wrong, then spell it out.

I've demonstrated countless times in this thread how atheism can be a belief and therefore also can be believed in. If you took the time to consider atheism in its entirety as opposed to the strictest of dictionary terms, you might understand that (as I've stated numerous times) atheism is not simply 'that which all atheists have in common' (the dictionary definition) since that's only the most common denominator. It also encompasses everything that would, could, or should be done that qualifies as atheistic. This in turn includes atheistic beliefs (NOT THINGS THAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE BUT THINGS WHICH ARE BELIEVED AND ARE ALSO ATHEISTIC), which necessitates that atheism does also encompass positive belief statements regardless of whether any atheist chooses to adopt them or not. That's why nuance matters and that's why the encyclopedia is just better than the dictionary in every way. But not, as it turns out, better than the forum.

Atheism and aleprechaunism would be the parallels. Atheism is the lack f belief in gods and Aleprechaunism is the lack of belief in leprechauns.

Yes, I understand that these are also parallels, and that they make much better parallels than leprachaunism and atheism. That's why I said, "You, as a reasonable human being are more than capable of imagining atheism and leprechaunism (not aleprechaunism) being parallel, even if it makes more sense that they aren't."

Just because its better that way doesn't mean you can't think of it the other way. Its called imagination. Try your best. I'm sure you can do it.

Then I have to wonder why you are in the debate forum where the entire purpose is to convince others of the truth in your arguments.

Dude, I'm saying you are failing to convince. I'm not saying you shouldn't be trying. You absolutely should be trying. But you are repeating the same exact failed method over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter that you are logically right. Paarsurrey remains unconvinced! Your task remains incomplete due to repetitious failure of a proven ineffective method. The problem, as I said, is that you refuse to adhere to his standards of 'proof' and instead want him to adhere to yours. That's it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm sure you aren't either. Willfully ignoring my point and missing it are not the same thing.

Consensus is not required, since it is not necessary for the statement to be believed nor is it a requirement for the statement to be true in order for it to be atheistic, then how many atheists adhere to it is irrelevant. None need to at all. Its not about WHO believes anything.

You think I'm a theist? WOW, another atheist thinks I'm something I'm not on the simple basis that I disagree with them in a thread.

For the last time, I am not stating what any or all atheists must believe. Not even close. I've said this so many times I don't know how you can even type this out with a straight face. You are arguing with someone else.

I've demonstrated countless times in this thread how atheism can be a belief and therefore also can be believed in. If you took the time to consider atheism in its entirety as opposed to the strictest of dictionary terms, you might understand that (as I've stated numerous times) atheism is not simply 'that which all atheists have in common' (the dictionary definition) since that's only the most common denominator. It also encompasses everything that would, could, or should be done that qualifies as atheistic. This in turn includes atheistic beliefs (NOT THINGS THAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE BUT THINGS WHICH ARE BELIEVED AND ARE ALSO ATHEISTIC), which necessitates that atheism does also encompass positive belief statements regardless of whether any atheist chooses to adopt them or not. That's why nuance matters and that's why the encyclopedia is just better than the dictionary in every way. But not, as it turns out, better than the forum.

Yes, I understand that these are also parallels, and that they make much better parallels than leprachaunism and atheism. That's why I said, "You, as a reasonable human being are more than capable of imagining atheism and leprechaunism (not aleprechaunism) being parallel, even if it makes more sense that they aren't."

Just because its better that way doesn't mean you can't think of it the other way. Its called imagination. Try your best. I'm sure you can do it.

Dude, I'm saying you are failing to convince. I'm not saying you shouldn't be trying. You absolutely should be trying. But you are repeating the same exact failed method over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter that you are logically right. Paarsurrey remains unconvinced! Your task remains incomplete due to repetitious failure of a proven ineffective method. The problem, as I said, is that you refuse to adhere to his standards of 'proof' and instead want him to adhere to yours. That's it.

"Paarsurrey remains unconvinced! Your task remains incomplete due to repetitious failure of a proven ineffective method. The problem, as I said, is that you refuse to adhere to his standards of 'proof' and instead want him to adhere to yours. That's it."

I like one's above comments, and this describes an aspect of frustration of my Atheism's friends here about me.
Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I've demonstrated countless times in this thread how atheism can be a belief . . .

I've demonstrated countless times that the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you took the time to consider atheism in its entirety as opposed to the strictest of dictionary terms, you might understand that (as I've stated numerous times) atheism is not simply 'that which all atheists have in common' (the dictionary definition) since that's only the most common denominator.

So you tell me to look at atheism in its entirety, then you tell me to ignore the very thing that all atheists have in common in its entirety. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑

"why you equate belief in leprechauns with unbelief" in G-d's existence.

Both are without evidences. Aren't these, please?

Regards

The analogy is that just as there is no evidence in the existence of leprechauns, there is no evidence of the existence of God. Unbelief in God is as reasonable as unbelief in leprechauns, because there is no evidence for either.

This conversation might be getting slightly off topic, but I don't think a keyring is a particularly good analogy. If the ring itself is "God", and each individual key is a "person" of the Trinity, "God" becomes nothing more than a title for an association of three deities.

What I have most trouble understanding is whether each "person" can really be a "person". If the Father and Son are always agreed in everything, can they really be said to be different "people"? If not, can they really be the same "being"?

The Trinity always struck me as an attempt to redefine the word "God" to mean something analogous to some type of organization or legal construct; an association of three deities that could itself be referred to as a "person" of sorts and referred to in the singular, like we could talk about "the ACLU's decision" or something like that. That's the only way I can really see any sort of coherency behind the idea. It's possible I'm misunderstanding it, I guess.

I mentioned the analogy, please.

Regards

 

[Sir Doom]

I've demonstrated countless times that the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

And I've never disputed that. But that isn't all it is. Atheism is more than what all atheists agree on. AGAIN. DICTIONARY=CORRECT, ENCYCLOPEDIA=ALSO CORRECT

Do you get it now?

So you tell me to look at atheism in its entirety, then you tell me to ignore the very thing that all atheists have in common in its entirety. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I did not tell you to ignore anything. You are limiting yourself to only that which all atheists agree on. as opposed to anything that is atheistic.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I did not tell you to ignore anything. You are limiting yourself to only that which all atheists agree on. as opposed to anything that is atheistic.

So do you want me to look at atheism in all of its entirety, or just the limited cases you think are most important?

 

[Sir Doom]

So do you want me to look at atheism in all of its entirety, or just the limited cases you think are most important?

I do not want you to personally 'look at' atheism in any way other than you personally prescribe for yourself. Tricky language is petty, my friend.

What I want is for you to acknowledge that the definition of the word is not sufficient as the definition of the concept. Because it isn't. I'm not asking you to redefine atheism as something much broader than it is. I'm asking you to recognize that atheism is much broader than two lines of text in a dictionary.

The examples I gave are of things that count as beliefs and also count as atheist.

They are NOT examples of things an atheist believes.

Do you understand the difference?

I do not have to be an atheist to say something atheist. Just as I do not have to identify with any particular philosophical/religious/political ideology in order to say something that is of that ideology. If I say, "I believe that nothing has meaning." I am making a nihilistic statement even if I am not myself a nihilist, and even if that statement is false.

Please tell me that did it...

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not want you to personally 'look at' atheism in any way other than you personally prescribe for yourself. Tricky language is petty, my friend.

What I want is for you to acknowledge that the definition of the word is not sufficient as the definition of the concept. Because it isn't. I'm not asking you to redefine atheism as something much broader than it is. I'm asking you to recognize that atheism is much broader than two lines of text in a dictionary.

The examples I gave are of things that count as beliefs and also count as atheist.

They are NOT examples of things an atheist believes.

Do you understand the difference?

I do not have to be an atheist to say something atheist. Just as I do not have to identify with any particular philosophical/religious/political ideology in order to say something that is of that ideology. If I say, "I believe that nothing has meaning." I am making a nihilistic statement even if I am not myself a nihilist, and even if that statement is false.

Please tell me that did it...

Does one mean that Atheistic thinking has many shades? It could exist in other world-views that don't pronounce themselves belonging to Atheism. Right, please/

Regards

 

[Sir Doom]

Does one mean that Atheistic thinking has many shades? It could exist in other world-views that don't pronounce themselves belonging to Atheism. Right, please/

Regards

Yes. Atheistic thinking has many shades as does any other kind of thinking. That should be a given.

Atheistic thinking could and does exist in worldviews that don't specifically count as atheistic world views, yes. Pronouncement of such is mostly irrelevant.

This does not repeat does NOT transform said worldview into an atheist worldview just as holding an atheistic belief does not transform one into an atheist.

 

[Sir Doom]

I've thought of a hopefully useful example of what I'm driving at.

Consider a person of faith who believes that homosexuality is 'a sin' but also believes that their faith should be left out of politics and therefore does not believe homosexuality should be illegal to the degree that they exercise their voting rights and even speak publicly to maintain legality if it.

This person chooses to be atheistic in their approach to politics. Right?

I'm not suggesting the above is common, but I do believe there are plenty of people who are atheistic in their approach to politics without being atheists themselves.

PS this is purely hypothetical I am not the person in this example, please do not treat me as such.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes. Atheistic thinking has many shades as does any other kind of thinking. That should be a given.

Atheistic thinking could and does exist in worldviews that don't specifically count as atheistic world views, yes. Pronouncement of such is mostly irrelevant.

This does not repeat does NOT transform said worldview into an atheist worldview just as holding an atheistic belief does not transform one into an atheist.

So, it is to feel free doing anything wrong without any discipline. Atheism is an undisciplined behavior of the humans. Is it?
I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me.
Regards

 

[wandering peacefully]

So, it is to feel free doing anything wrong without any discipline. Atheism is an undisciplined behavior of the humans. Is it?
I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me.
Regards

You got it! We atheist wake up every morning, eat some kittens for breakfast, go out on the street and have sex with whoever is there followed by murdering them. That's just before noon. Afternoon, we pick a bank to rob, and steal some cars. Then we slay some animals at the stake, cutting out the hearts and eating them of course. And our evenings consist of thinking up the best ways to destroy all of the earth's ecosystems, start wars and spread hatred and bigotry.

Now maybe you will have all the answers to your questions about atheists no? Please, regards.


Edit: That is just some of us of course because everyone is an individual responsible for their own actions. Some are busy being ethical, loving, caring, learning, forgiving, moral, humanist human beings.

But because no atheists is the same other than lacking belief in Abrahamic deities, their milage will vary. If you still have questions about atheism after this, you will never learn and should find a better way to spend your time. Google is your friend.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What I want is for you to acknowledge that the definition of the word is not sufficient as the definition of the concept. Because it isn't.

Like I said before, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see a reason to keep pounding the same points.

 

[Sir Doom]

So, it is to feel free doing anything wrong without any discipline. Atheism is an undisciplined behavior of the humans. Is it?
I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me.
Regards

You are wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

@ friend Subduction Zone: "One does not 'believe in Atheism' ".
It is not worth believing in Atheism as is not worth believing in "Leprechauns-ism". Is it correct to state that, please?
No offense intended to any person, please.
Regards

____________
Post #59

If someone is an atheist because they believe in atheism, they're doing it wrong.