Arguments for Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

un

1. a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
   "a deity of ancient Greece"
   synonyms: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; More
   • divine status, quality, or nature.
     "a ruler driven by delusions of deity"
   • the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
     noun: Deity; noun: the Deity

Also, one definition is something of "divine status" which can be anything that person labels that thing or person as divine.

Add commentary. Not good with one-post sarcasm or reaction without context

No, I think a sarcastic reaction is entirely appropriate:



Read the example in the quote you copy-pasted: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity." It's saying that the ruler falsely considers themself to be a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what I was taught in my philosophy classes, this is correct.

You were taught in your philosophy classes that there are atheists who believe in gods?

I find that very hard to believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you accepting dictionary definitions to define god for all possible gods now?

What?

 

[Rival]

You were taught in your philosophy classes that there are atheists who believe in gods?

I find that very hard to believe.

Yes, because we were using the strict definitions, which I have just given you. This is why I am saying that I don't expect laypeople to use them, because the philosophical definitions may be very different, and surprising, to them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh. @9-10ths_Penguin

I mentioned:

All deities are considered gods, not all gods (i.e. sun, moon, pencils, airplanes) are deities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I think a sarcastic reaction is entirely appropriate:



Read the example in the quote you copy-pasted: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity." It's saying that the ruler falsely considers themself to be a god.

Read the one definition out of many instead of singling out one part of a whole. English just doesn't that work. Its always in flux.

The one guiding link is the word divine. Both god (say plants and trees to an pantheist) and to a christian (such as jesus christ) are seen as divine. So, they share the concept of divinity insofar the word divine goes.

The other part of the definition, some gods such as Pagan gods are considered deities or entities of some sort. But not all Pagan deities are considered divine, so the appropriate term would be god. Word salad--but rightfully so.

EDIT

 

[Milton Platt]

Well apparently not everyone believes that. You are free to define the word god however you want. It is apparent that to you a god is a deity. That is fine. But not everyone has the same god concept that you do.

Is it not true that no matter what you call a god, you are deifying that thing?

 

[Curious George]

What?

If memory serves, you have stated the opinion that god cannot be defined in a way that is inclusive of all god concepts conceived and yet to be conceived. Consequently, god cannot readily be defimed in a meaningful manner to assert that no god exists.

If such is the case, one cannot, with internal consistency, claim a definition of god such that god=deity.

 

[Curious George]

Is it not true that no matter what you call a god, you are deifying that thing?

Only if you are going to define god as something which is deified.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or, if you like me, I stick to as being an atheist because I dont believe in deities (entities and powerful supreme beings), but since god can mean anything, I do revere gods such as the earth, ancestors, and so forth. But, since they are not entities nor powerful and nor considered divine, they are just objects and people of reverence aka gods.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is it not true that no matter what you call a god, you are deifying that thing?

For some people. Others dont deify gods. The thing is, why call them gods if they are have no divine characteristics (that makes them a deity). Some Pagans on RF dont consider gods as divine but everything in the physical word as gods. So, its hard to pin the definition. Deity is more specific.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve...

I get what you are saying, but agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. Those are two different things. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You can believe something without knowing it is true, but you cannot know something (have sufficient convincing evidence of it) and not believe it without being irrational.

One can be an agnostic atheist or claim to be a gnostic atheist.

The latter is not the case: no one can claim what you appear to be claiming about the "gnostic atheist." And the reason this is so is because knowledge is a subset of belief. No one in their right mind calls themselves "gnostic atheist." The hard atheist who states that there is no god is expressing his belief. Atheism is a statement of belief. He has posed it objectively rhetorically, but makes no claim about knowledge. No one honestly claims to know something they don't, especially something claimed to be unknowable. There is no burden of proof possible for such statements, and so no statement of knowledge made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was your choice of site!
that came out of www.philosophy. .....

And simple logic and reason will always win over just any 'sources'....... you should know that, believing in sound method and such....

I think you're just a bit worried about your chosen title being invaded, somewhat....

You don't have any logic. All you have is "I told you so". By simple logic you are wrong since for simple logic one would use the approach of analyzing etymology and when one does that it is obvious that sexism fits in the theism big tent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer & @Subduction Zone

This simple 'equation' came from a quora debate...... quite nice:-

A = theism
B = intervention/miracles
C = deism

If A accepts B, but C rejects B, then C can’t be A.


And......... in that case, Deists are non-Theists, = Atheists.

Ergo, Quad Erat Demonstrandum, Deism is no part of Theism, and Deism is anti-theistic = Atheistic

Thankyou..... thankyou..... *oldbadger humbly bowing to left and right*

When you don't understand logic it is easy to abuse it. A, your premise, does not imply B. In fact both B and C are subsets of A. This is face palmingly bad on your part. It is only circular reasoning dressed up as logic.

Try again.

Please note you asked for a source that explicitly supported my claim. I found one. You have not been able to find any sites that support your claim. That should tell you something.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve...


The latter is not the case: no one can claim what you appear to be claiming about the "gnostic atheist." And the reason this is so is because knowledge is a subset of belief. No one in their right mind calls themselves "gnostic atheist." The hard atheist who states that there is no god is expressing his belief. Atheism is a statement of belief. He has posed it objectively rhetorically, but makes no claim about knowledge. No one honestly claims to know something they don't, especially something claimed to be unknowable.

If god is always unknowable and no one can say he does not exist only believe he doesn't, wouldn't that logic be the same with the famous spaghetti monster where since it is also unknowable no one can claim it does not exist regardless our belief on the matter?

Can we say the spaghetti monster does not exist but cant say that about god even though they are both unknowable and the claim should be the same for both regardless their debate and popularity?

 

[Willamena]

If god is always unknowable and no one can say he does not exist only believe he doesn't, wouldn't that logic be the same with the famous spaghetti monster where since it is also unknowable no one can claim it does not exist regardless our belief on the matter?

Can we say the spaghetti monster does not exist but cant say that about god even though they are both unknowable and the claim should be the same for both regardless their debate and popularity?

Yes, that logic is the same with the mocking analogy* that was created just for the purpose of pointing out the ill-logic of it all.

The claim is the same for both.

Edit: *satire, that's the word I wanted

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, that logic is the same with the mocking analogy* that was created just for the purpose of pointing out the ill-logic of it all.

The claim is the same for both.

Edit: *satire, that's the word I wanted

That would mean you guys cant confirm there is no spaghetti monster?

So it could exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If memory serves, you have stated the opinion that god cannot be defined in a way that is inclusive of all god concepts conceived and yet to be conceived. Consequently, god cannot readily be defimed in a meaningful manner to assert that no god exists.

That's a slightly wonky version of what I believe, but I'm not sure i want to go off into the weeds about it.

If such is the case, one cannot, with internal consistency, claim a definition of god such that god=deity.

No. They're two terms for the same poorly-defined concept (or set of concepts).

... but since you obviously strained to make that argument, half marks for the effort.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the one definition out of many instead of singling out one part of a whole. English just doesn't that work. Its always in flux.

The one guiding link is the word divine. Both god (say plants and trees to an pantheist) and to a christian (such as jesus christ) are seen as divine. So, they share the concept of divinity insofar the word divine goes.

The other part of the definition, some gods such as Pagan gods are considered deities or entities of some sort. But not all Pagan deities are considered divine, so the appropriate term would be god. Word salad--but rightfully so.

EDIT

"Divine" = "godly"

Both terms can be applied to things that are from a god, or of a god, or reflect a god in some way.

 

[Willamena]

That would mean you guys cant confirm there is no spaghetti monster?

So it could exist?

That depends on your logic (or ill-logic). To suggest the possibility of a thing unknown (and/or unknowable) is to first assume its existence.

While I'm a fan of fiction, I rarely take seriously epistemological discussions that far.