Arguments for Atheism

[Audie]

It's not facts that are significantly lacking from the evidence so much as truth. Hence, it is a statement of belief. Not all objectively worded statements are facts. We often pose things objectively for rhetorical value, to point a finger at truth.

Whatever, as before, you may mean by
"truth".

Whatever it is that your royal "we" does,
I avoid statements of facts not in evidence.

Ir is a fact that I do not believe there is a god,
or life on Mars.

For me to say "There is no life on Mars" is a
type of stupid / dishonest I do not indulge in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think we'll have to introduce a new word for your particular tenet, ADEISM...... how would that work for you?

I don't need new language. My existing formulation works quite well to describe the kinds of people around us. Those that believe in gods of any nature are theists, and everybody else is an atheist. For me, the important distinction is how one thinks: by faith or using reason applied to evidence, not the nature of the particular god or gods ones chooses to believe in by faith. Theists can be further subdivided by their god beliefs.

This works for me.

So now we have three definitions of atheism:
1. Believing that there are no gods.
2. Saying that you can't see any evidence for gods (aka agnostic)
3. Believing that god(s) take no interest in humans (aka deist)

But you don't have the definition that many if not most atheist use - anybody that lacks a god belief. One does not have to believe that there are no gods to be an atheist, just that he has no reason to believe that any exist. That's my position. I don't deny that @oldbadger 's deist god exists or existed, just that I have no reason to believe that it does or did, and so must remain agnostic on the matter (no claim of knowledge).

I believe that one cannot impose a view on people who cannot or will not made a choice has to whether they are atheist or not

Who's imposing a view on others? They tell us their view, and we tell them what we call it as I just did with oldbadger, who I believe calls himself an atheist. There was no attempt to change his beliefs. I just pointed out that I considered deists to be a type of theist, whereas if I recall correctly, he doesn't.

Notice that we don't need to agree on definitions to communicate effectively as long as we are clear about what each of us means when we use a particular word.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

But you don't have the definition that many if not most atheist use - anybody that lacks a god belief.

Notice that we don't need to agree on definitions to communicate effectively as long as we are clear about what each of us means when we use a particular word.

Language is a social phenomenon. The meaning of a word is what the average person takes it to mean, not what one minority group decrees. To say that we can communicate so long as we are clear what we mean by a word is nonsense: to communicate, our hearers must be equally aware of our usage.

I can see the reasons why the atheists here and elsewhere like the definition you are trying to foist on us.
1. It enables you to pass off atheism as the null hypothesis, rather than a claim.
2. It turns atheists from a tiny minority to a small minority.
In other words, it's dishonest.

 

[Willamena]

For me to say "There is no life on Mars" is a
type of stupid / dishonest I do not indulge in.

So... the made-up objectively posed statement is nothing you believe, it fails to be a fact, and it has no truth value. While, on the other hand, the epistemic statement easily has truth value.

For a statement to be honest, it must simply have truth value.

"There is no god," as an objectively-posed statement of my belief, has truth value, which is to say that I honestly believe it.

 

[Audie]

So... the made-up objectively posed statement is nothing you believe, it fails to be a fact, and it has no truth value. While, on the other hand, the epistemic statement easily has truth value.

For a statement to be honest, it must simply have truth value.

"There is no god," as an objectively-posed statement of my belief, has truth value, which is to say that I honestly believe it.

Oh-good-grief.

You "philosophers" can make nonsense out of anything.

Try your "truth value" in a deposition sometime.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can see the reasons why the atheists here and elsewhere like the definition you are trying to foist on us.

Nobody is trying to foist anything on you. Feel free to use the words as you choose. I do.

1. It enables you to pass off atheism as the null hypothesis, rather than a claim.

What is the claim of atheism apart from the fact that the atheist thinks that ought to be a sound reason based in reason applied to evidence before believing anything, and that nobody has met this requirement for that atheist yet?

Atheism is the default position (or as you say, the null hypothesis) for those who do not believe in gods. I simply don't accept denying that all such people aren't atheists.

2. It turns atheists from a tiny minority to a small minority.
In other words, it's dishonest.

The small minority are the atheists who claim to know that gods do not or cannot exist - so-called strong or gnostic atheists. Realizing the limits of knowledge and what can and cannot be known, most atheists are agnostic about the matter and simply say that we are not convinced that gods exist, but have no way to rule them out, either.

Saying otherwise is a leap of faith, something careful rational skeptics are loathe to do. Being both atheists and agnostic about gods, we call ourselves agnostic atheists. That seems natural and reasonable to me.

We are still a minority in the States, but a substantial one, and expect to be the majority in a few generations. According to the ARIS and Pew studies tracking these trends since 1990, self-identifying Christians are expected to comprise less than 50% of the American population in less than 20 years. This is the age of the rise of the "nones" - those with no religious affiliation.

Also, many atheists don't like to use the word atheist to describe themselves. They'll call themselves unbelievers, skeptics, freethinkers or any of a number of euphemisms to avoid a word that has been badly derogated by theists, who seem to like to describe us as morally unfit. It wasn't long ago that atheists were considered unfit to teach, coach, adopt, sit on juries, and the like. So the word is stigmatized.

But as long as such people don't have a god belief, they are atheists to me, all others being theists. That is a sensible nomenclature. Everybody fits into one group or another, with nobody being in both, a relationship called mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

It's interesting that you should call the atheists' defining themselves dishonest. I see it the other way around. It is this larger group of atheists - the agnostic atheists - who those that insist that one cannot be both agnostic and atheistic at the same time would like to exclude from the total atheist number, most likely in an effort to marginalize us and make our numbers appear smaller than they actually are. I can't think of another reason why theists would care how we define ourselves.

 

[oldbadger]

Theism is the general term for belief in a god or gods. Deists believe in a god and are therefore theists.

Says you!

Well you got that wrong, according to my google dictionary:-
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
So, NO... to that! My Deity is quite detached from all of that.

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
See? Now you cannot be suggesting that a Deist is a Theist are you? Where is the logic in that?
I am an Atheist because I am a Deist.

Wanna hold hands? .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says you!

Well you got that wrong, according to my google dictionary:-
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
So, NO... to that! My Deity is quite detached from all of that.

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
See? Now you cannot be suggesting that a Deist is a Theist are you? Where is the logic in that?
I am an Atheist because I am a Deist.

Wanna hold hands? .

Mine does not say "specifically" it says "especially". Are you sure that you quoted that correctly?

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...7j69i61j0l4.1782j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

Deism would still be a theistic belief with that definition. Deism is an exception, but not a term that is not covered by that definition. Most theists do believe in an intervening god. But if you believe in a non-intervening god you are still a theist. Just not a usual one.

ETA: It is usually a wise practice to include a link to easily linkable claims, like yours. That way people can easily check out your claim to see if you were being accurate. If you do not do so and someone finds the article or source (ahem) and it does not match your claim it makes you look dishonest, or incompetent. And I am sure that you do not want to appear as being either.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't need new language. My existing formulation works quite well to describe the kinds of people around us. Those that believe in gods of any nature are theists, and everybody else is an atheist. For me, the important distinction is how one thinks: by faith or using reason applied to evidence, not the nature of the particular god or gods ones chooses to believe in by faith. Theists can be further subdivided by their god beliefs.

This works for me.

It might work for you, but it's illogical hogwash for me!
1. I don't have Faith.
2. Theism is about interested, intervening, aware God/s, which I don't believe in any more than you do.
3. Deism is not Theism, and so Deists are, by very definition, Atheists.

If you want to believe that Deists have Faith in an aware and connected God then I can't help you, I'm afraid. You'll be calling cyclists truckers next.....
Canoeists are master-mariner ULCC skippers.....

But you don't have the definition that many if not most atheist use - anybody that lacks a god belief. One does not have to believe that there are no gods to be an atheist, just that he has no reason to believe that any exist. That's my position. I don't deny that oldbadger's deist god exists or existed, just that I have no reason to believe that it does or did, and so must remain agnostic on the matter (no claim of knowledge).

Ah......... you see, an agnostic can also be an atheist because this person is unsure about the possibility of an unaware or disinterested Deity, such as a PanDeity, etc....

Many atheists just don't realise that Deists and agnostics can also use this title, 'Atheist', as can Buddhists I believe.

Who's imposing a view on others? They tell us their view, and we tell them what we call it as I just did with oldbadger, who I believe calls himself an atheist. There was no attempt to change his beliefs. I just pointed out that I considered deists to be a type of theist, whereas if I recall correctly, he doesn't.

True, that........ I'm a Deist and therefore by definition an atheist.

Notice that we don't need to agree on definitions to communicate effectively as long as we are clear about what each of us means when we use a particular word.

Yeah, but it gets difficult when, for instance, dog owners insist that there are only cats in their homes....

 

[Subduction Zone]

It might work for you, but it's illogical hogwash for me!
1. I don't have Faith.
2. Theism is about interested, intervening, aware God/s, which I don't believe in any more than you do.
3. Deism is not Theism, and so Deists are, by very definition, Atheists.

If you want to believe that Deists have Faith in an aware and connected God then I can't help you, I'm afraid. You'll be calling cyclists truckers next.....
Canoeists are master-mariner ULCC skippers.....




Ah......... you see, an agnostic can also be an atheist because this person is unsure about the possibility of an unaware or disinterested Deity, such as a PanDeity, etc....

Many atheists just don't realise that Deists and agnostics can also use this title, 'Atheist', as can Buddhists I believe.


True, that........ I'm a Deist and therefore by definition an atheist.


Yeah, but it gets difficult when, for instance, dog owners insist that there are only cats in their homes....

Sorry, you can say that as often as you like but deists are still theists. At least according to the definition that you mentioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And let's find some sources. The first one I run into when I use Google is the Wikipedia article on the topic. Google is personalized a bit so your results may vary:

Theism - Wikipedia

"Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.["

It does go on to say that it normally refers to the belief in an intervening god, but deism is clearly included in the article.

The next is Encyclopedia Britannica which again has a very broad definition but then separates out Deism from other theistic beliefs:

Theism | religion

And Mirriam Webster also begins with a broad definition that would include desim but then says usually what is viewed as traditional monotheistic beliefs:

": belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"



Definition of THEISM

I could go on but the pattern is clear. Deism does fit a broad definition of "theism" . Based upon usage theism often refers to monotheism, though the existence of both monotheism and polytheism illustrates the flaw in that limited definition.

 

[oldbadger]

Mine does not say "specifically" it says "especially". Are you sure that you quoted that correctly?

OK, let's go with your choice of definition.... I'll scream (or something) when it separates from myself.:-

"belief in the existence of a god or gods,

Ok.......

especially belief in one god as creator of the universe,

Hmmmm...... No....... just everything and force and all nothingness that exists is part of the Deity. I haven't got a clue how it/we got there/here.

intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

AAaaaahhhhhh........ No! Never. Not Deism!

Deism would still be a theistic belief with that definition.

No it cannot........ as shown above.

Deism is an exception, but not a term that is not covered by that definition.

Oh come on.......... you're a logical person, so where's the logic in calling folks what they are not? You'll be calling mountain-climbers 'cave-explorers' next.

Most theists do believe in an intervening god. But if you believe in a non-intervening god you are still a theist. Just not a usual one.

No! All theists believe in an interested, or aware or intervening God! By definition that's what a theist is.
Deists are not theists.

I don't expect that you definitely believe that there is a reason for the Universe existing, or a cause, but if you do then another person could spin you into being a theist just with those tenets, by your own pov. Imagine how unsettling that might be for you...?

ETA: It is usually a wise practice to include a link to easily linkable claims, like yours. That way people can easily check out your claim to see if you were being accurate. If you do not do so and someone finds the article or source (ahem) and it does not match your claim it makes you look dishonest, or incompetent. And I am sure that you do not want to appear as being either.

But you've got a source. I am the source of my belief, and there's no value in getting anybody else to write down what am for your credence, is there?
I have written simple logical sentences to show how a Theist cannot be a Deist! If you need somebody somewhere else in the World to write that simple logic down again for you, and/or if you wish to discard your own choice of definition which absolutely excludes me from theism......... then that's just ....... amazing!

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, you can say that as often as you like but deists are still theists. At least according to the definition that you mentioned.

No they are not!
Let's see what you write in your next post.......

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's go with your choice of definition.... I'll scream (or something) when it separates from myself.:-


Ok.......

Hmmmm...... No....... just everything and force and all nothingness that exists is part of the Deity. I haven't got a clue how it/we got there/here.

AAaaaahhhhhh........ No! Never. Not Deism!


No it cannot........ as shown above.


Oh come on.......... you're a logical person, so where's the logic in calling folks what they are not? You'll be calling mountain-climbers 'cave-explorers' next.


No! All theists believe in an interested, or aware or intervening God! By definition that's what a theist is.
Deists are not theists.

I don't expect that you definitely believe that there is a reason for the Universe existing, or a cause, but if you do then another person could spin you into being a theist just with those tenets, by your own pov. Imagine how unsettling that might be for you...?


But you've got a source. I am the source of my belief, and there's no value in getting anybody else to write down what am for your credence, is there?
I have written simple logical sentences to show how a Theist cannot be a Deist! If you need somebody somewhere else in the World to write that simple logic down again for you, and/or if you wish to discard your own choice of definition which absolutely excludes me from theism......... then that's just ....... amazing!

Try again without breaking up a post excessively. A short post such as that only merits a single response. You are not refuting with such a weak post, you are only making excuses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they are not!
Let's see what you write in your next post.......

Like I said, you can say that as often as you like. You will still be wrong. I don't think you will convince anyone by repeating this performance, but feel free.

 

[oldbadger]

And let's find some sources.

Go on then....
.

"Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.["

....which you deliberately didn't complete, and I don't accept that a Deist believes in Supreme anythings...... you and I and the spider on my office floor are part of my idea of the Deity.......

It does go on to say that it normally refers to the belief

No it didn't...... where's the 'normal creeping in from, eh?

in an intervening god,

And that confounds you right there, because no true Deist could accept that.,....

but deism is clearly included in the article.

Clearly? Where? You didn't show that at all...... and only a person with no-knowledge could have written such a thing, because by definition, by simple logic..... it's a totally nutty idea.

The next is Encyclopedia Britannica which again has a very broad definition but then separates out Deism from other theistic beliefs:

And Mirriam Webster also begins with a broad definition that would include desim but then says usually what is viewed as traditional monotheistic beliefs:

": belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

No part of that defines Deism, I'm afraid........
Transcends........ immanent in the World........ Huh?

I could go on but the pattern is clear. Deism does fit a broad definition of "theism" . Based upon usage theism often refers to monotheism, though the existence of both monotheism and polytheism illustrates the flaw in that limited definition.

So you cannot find any connection at all...... can you!
Deists cannot be described in terms such as monotheism or polytheism...... they can't.

You're drowning in your own writing.... honestly.

 

[oldbadger]

Try again without breaking up a post excessively. A short post such as that only merits a single response. You are not refuting with such a weak post, you are only making excuses.

Oh come on...!
You haven't found any connection between the two words at all.

As soon as you hit on words such as creator, aware, intervening, transcendant, poly-theism, mono-theism, connected, etc....... you've shot yourself in the foot.

You cannot logically call a Deist a Theist at all. But you can call me an Atheist because I am not a Theist. Logic is so easy to win such debates with......

 

[oldbadger]

Like I said, you can say that as often as you like. You will still be wrong. I don't think you will convince anyone by repeating this performance, but feel free.

Alright.......... in a nice and short post......

OldBadger is not a Theist and does not believe in Theism at all, therefore he is an Atheist.

OldBadger believes in a disconnected, disinterested Deity, a PanDeity, therefore he is a Deist, a PanDeist.

Now, pick that to death....... if you think you can.

 

[oldbadger]

@Subduction Zone , in case you write again, I'll have to answer in the UK morning..... it's 10.40 pm now and I must to bed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh come on...!
You haven't found any connection between the two words at all.

As soon as you hit on words such as creator, aware, intervening, transcendant, poly-theism, mono-theism, connected, etc....... you've shot yourself in the foot.

You cannot logically call a Deist a Theist at all. But you can call me an Atheist because I am not a Theist. Logic is so easy to win such debates with......

wrong again. According to all sources a wide definition includes deism.