Arguments for Atheism

[Subduction Zone]

We're done.
Honestly....


Last post to you......... do make something of it........ for once.

I cannot cure you of your ignorance and prejudice. And incompetence. You still do not know how to use smiley's and that was an easy lesson. If you can't learn the easy lessons there is no way that you can learn something more difficult.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Assuming sexism is actually deism...

Based on etymology it is not 'obvious'. The word theism has a complex history of multiple, contradictory usages. For example, theism actually used to mean deism, but it has also been used to mean belief in a creator god as opposed to deism.

Per OED:

theism, n.1

Frequency (in current use):

Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix . Compare French théisme (Voltaire).

(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n. (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n. (d) esp.Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.



As with most things on these issues, there is no ultimate 'correct' usage, just a series of personal preferences based on differing perspectives of what is most logical.

 

[Curious George]

A simple and useful definition of a god (excluding pantheonic minor gods like Loki) is a conscious agent that is the source of this or any other universe. That's something that is relatively clear and easily worked with.

I have no trouble defining gods. It would be hard for me to believe they do not exist otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

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.


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.

You can

Reading the above, what's the difference between a philosopher's claim, and a non-philosopher's claim, especially when they are in agreement? Come to think of it, what's the difference between a philosopher and a non-philosopher?

......and, btw, I'm sure that some members would have enjoyed reading a description of the definitions claimed and proposed, rather than just their brief introductions?

I agree (if this is a statement not a question). They are free to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming sexism is actually deism...

Based on etymology it is not 'obvious'. The word theism has a complex history of multiple, contradictory usages. For example, theism actually used to mean deism, but it has also been used to mean belief in a creator god as opposed to deism.

Per OED:

theism, n.1

Frequency (in current use):

Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix . Compare French théisme (Voltaire).

(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n. (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n. (d) esp.Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.



As with most things on these issues, there is no ultimate 'correct' usage, just a series of personal preferences based on differing perspectives of what is most logical.

The use of that argument was used to counter the argument that deism was obviously not theism. Yep, there are several different versions of the definition of "theism". There is the broad definition that includes deism and polytheism but there are more limited definitions. I never denied that. But including deism as part of theism clearly is not wrong. I think that some deists seem to think that a belief in a personal god is foolish and will do anything to distance themselves from that.

 

[Augustus]

But including deism as part of theism clearly is not wrong.

As the OED notes, it can be considered wrong if that's what floats your boat.

It isn't objectively right or wrong. It's a subjective preference of which usage you personally prefer. Legitimate and logical cases can be made for either.

Just like preferring a lack of belief definition of atheism over a disbelief definition. No one can claim others are 'wrong' unless they alter their preference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just like preferring a lack of belief definition of atheism over a disbelief definition. No one can claim others are 'wrong' unless they alter their preference.

Or unless the other's preference results in contradictions or logical absurdities... which the "disbelief" definition does.

 

[Augustus]

Or unless the other's preference results in contradictions or logical absurdities... which the "disbelief" definition does.

Well, in common usage, language doesn't have to be logically consistent or free of contradictions. And in philosophical usage you'll still find multiple definitions, and multiple arguments that find fault with your subjective preference and see it as the one containing logical absurdities. But we know that already...

Back to the drawing board

 

[Willamena]

Just like preferring a lack of belief definition of atheism over a disbelief definition. No one can claim others are 'wrong' unless they alter their preference.

Or unless the other's preference results in contradictions or logical absurdities... which the defining of 'belief' in terms of a psychological state clearly has.

 

[Revoltingest]

It occurs to me that there are no arguments for atheism.
It's just a default destination due to there being no good
arguments for any alternative.

 

[Klepperman]

There would be noone watching you at all times, when demonic forces corrupt you you think its yourself, you may never understand 3 billion people of this planet, there is more reason to sin, there is more reason to hate, there is more reason to deny the faith

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Deity generally equals god.

 

[Curious George]

Deity generally equals god.

That is getting rather loose with words. The point is that Atheism, Deism, and Theism are all related to a person's beliefs or a psychological state (given one definition of atheism). It is possible for a deist to define a god in such a way that a deity is not a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is getting rather loose with words.

No, it really isn't.

The point is that Atheism, Deism, and Theism are all related to a person's beliefs or a psychological state (given one definition of atheism). It is possible for a deist to define a god in such a way that a deity is not a god.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

 

[Curious George]

No, it really isn't.

Lol, yes it is. Generally is no longer the statement that a diety=a god. Generally, is a qualifier. Moving from the statement that x is y to generally x is y is indeed getting loose with words.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

Cute, but inapplicable. Unless you are asserting that igtheists assert that no person can be a theist. Now if a person believed that a tail was a leg, they would count that tail as one of the legs. Are you claiming different?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, yes it is. Generally is no longer the statement that a diety=a god. Generally, is a qualifier. Moving from the statement that x is y to generally x is y is indeed getting loose with words.

Then let's get pedantically precise:

A deity is a god. A god is a deity. The words are synonyms: "God" is the word that came from a Germanic root and "deity" is the equivalent word that came into English from Latin via French.

Cute, but inapplicable. Unless you are asserting that igtheists assert that no person can be a theist.

I don't follow.

Now if a person believed that a tail was a leg, they would count that tail as one of the legs. Are you claiming different?

Yes, I'm claiming different: the person who counts a tail as a leg is wrong. A (non-amputee) dog has four legs. Calling its tail a leg doesn't make the tail a leg.

 

[Milton Platt]

That is getting rather loose with words. The point is that Atheism, Deism, and Theism are all related to a person's beliefs or a psychological state (given one definition of atheism). It is possible for a deist to define a god in such a way that a deity is not a god.

Perhaps, but it is far from normal usage. That was my only point.

 

[Curious George]

Then let's get pedantically precise:

A deity is a god. A god is a deity. The words are synonyms: "God" is the word that came from a Germanic root and "deity" is the equivalent word that came into English from Latin via French.

Sounds like you are producing an etymological fallacy to resolve your error. Whatever the origin of the word, the way some people use the word clearly demonstrates that some deists can be atheists: They believe in a deity and they do not believe in a god.

I don't follow.

A dog's tail does note equal a dogs legs regardless of whether a person believes the tail is a leg. Theism, deism, and atheism are not contingent on the reality of what is but the reality of what a person believes.

Yes, I'm claiming different: the person who counts a tail as a leg is wrong. A (non-amputee) dog has four legs. Calling its tail a leg doesn't make the tail a leg.

And i would claim that a sun is not a god yet we acknowledge the person who believes the sun is a god is a a theist.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps, but it is far from normal usage. That was my only point.

It is far from normal usage to believe the Sun is a god, yet I wouldn't hesitate to recognize someone who did as a theist. Would you?

 

[Milton Platt]

It is far from normal usage to believe the Sun is a god, yet I wouldn't hesitate to recognize someone who did as a theist. Would you?

No, I would not. I would recognize that the person has deified the sun.