Atheism and Leperchauns-ism

[Sir Doom]

"I assume he shows these threads to his fellow believers and they all pat him on the back for exposing heathens or whatever."

I have not shown "these threads" to anyone, here one is wrong,please.

Regards

I state my disappointment at the thread devolving into semantics and you respond by doubling down.

If you were hoping for an apology you'll have to do much better than that.

So, despite the evidence you present here to the contrary, I still believe in the self-indulgent Paarsurrey.

 

[David1967]

@ 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

I'm not entirely sure what your asking. Are you addressing that someone equated believing in God as equivalent to believing in Leprechauns? I'm just trying to understand your question.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This thread is yet another example of people trying to twist the burden of proof around so that it means the opposite of what it really means.

What some people want is a situation where they can claim that anything exists without any evidence that it exists, and then shift the burden of proof onto those who doubt them. They literally think that anyone who doubts the existence of undetectable Leprechauns has to disprove that Leprechauns exist, otherwise they should consider the existence of undetectable Leprechauns to be true. Just replace Leprechauns with any imagined thing you want, and the argument (does not) work equally well.

 

[Sir Doom]

Theism is a belief in deities, as described in every dictionary. A-theism literally means "without a belief in deities". That's it. Theism requires belief and it simply isn't a question that one asks.

Its a good thing humanity is not confined by dictionaries. We also have encyclopedias:

Theism | religion
atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism

It seems the word 'theism' and 'atheism' may be a bit more nuanced than the dictionary would have us believe.

Its almost like the dictionary was meant to provide quick reference to terms we may be unfamiliar with as opposed to actually explaining the concepts assigned to said words.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Its a good thing humanity is not confined by dictionaries.

Then Christianity is the belief in the Devil. Are you a Christian?

 

[Sir Doom]

This thread is yet another example of people trying to twist the burden of proof around so that it means the opposite of what it really means.

What some people want is a situation where they can claim that anything exists without any evidence that it exists, and then shift the burden of proof onto those who doubt them. They literally think that anyone who doubts the existence of undetectable Leprechauns has to disprove that Leprechauns exist, otherwise they should consider the existence of undetectable Leprechauns to be true. Just replace Leprechauns with any imagined thing you want, and the argument (does not) work equally well.

Does the principle I've placed in bold work with the imagined concept of 'burden of proof' ?

 

[Sir Doom]

Then Christianity is the belief in the Devil. Are you a Christian?

No. Relevance?

EDIT: Do I come off as Christian? I hope not.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. Relevance?

I am not limited by the dictionary, so I will define Christianity however I want. Also, relevance means "making pancakes" because I define it as so.

The point is that words mean things. If you base an argument on using different definitions of words then you don't have much of an argument.

 

[Sir Doom]

I am not limited by the dictionary, so I will define Christianity however I want. Also, relevance means "making pancakes" because I define it as so.

The point is that words mean things. If you base an argument on using different definitions of words then you don't have much of an argument.

Wow, you took my post to mean that I just make up whatever I want? You might want to read the entire post. Its only a few lines, dude. Get to it.

EDIT: Unless of course you are suggesting the dictionary somehow trumps the encyclopedia? I hope its that... I mean its likely just a mistake on your part... but I hope you think the dictionary trumps the encyclopedia.

 

[paarsurrey]

Theism is a belief in deities, as described in every dictionary. A-theism literally means "without a belief in deities". That's it. Theism requires belief and it simply isn't a question that one asks.

We are Believers of religion/s and identify ourselves with our relative religion, we don't prefer to identify ourselves as Theists, please.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are Believers of religion/s and identify ourselves with our relative religion, we don't prefer to identify ourselves as Theists, please.

Regards

It does not matter, like it or not if you believe in a god or if you prefer G-d, you are a theist.

 

[Sir Doom]

Argue with an atheist, get labeled a Christian. Tale as old as time...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

EDIT: Unless of course you are suggesting the dictionary somehow trumps the encyclopedia?

theism: 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

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We are Believers of religion/s and identify ourselves with our relative religion, we don't prefer to identify ourselves as Theists, please.

Regards

That's like a soccer player saying they don't want to be labeled as an athlete.

 

[Sir Doom]

theism: 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

AND AGAIN, its a good thing we are not confined to the dictionary. If that's all that theism meant then it would be a crying shame that they wrote so much about it in the encyclopedia. HOW ARE YOU MISSING MY POINT?

 

[paarsurrey]

That's like a soccer player saying they don't want to be labeled as an athlete.

It is my own prerogative to name my religion, I was just doing that, please.
Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

AND AGAIN, its a good thing we are not confined to the dictionary. If that's all that theism meant then it would be a crying shame that they wrote so much about it in the encyclopedia. HOW ARE YOU MISSING MY POINT?

It is a crying shame that you fail to see how they are saying the same thing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It is my own prerogative to name my religion, I was just doing that, please.
Regards

If your religion involves a personal God who created things, then you are a theist, by definition. You can call the religion whatever you want, but it is still theism.

 

[Sir Doom]

It is a crying shame that you fail to see how they are saying the same thing.

Its a crying shame that you think I fail to see that. You're grouping me with the wrong group. The dictionary is simplistic in comparison to the encyclopedia. It is meant (as I said) for quick reference to terms we are unfamiliar with, where as the encyclopedia takes a far more comprehensive approach to defining the term as it is less concerned with proper usage and more concerned with the actual concept actually being discussed by actually using the word in actuality.

In other words, by invoking the dictionary, you are doing nothing more than devolving the argument into semantics. You pretend to be right by casting light on the lack of perfect adherence to two lines of text when in reality those two lines are insufficient from jump street. The concepts never even enter into it because you're too busy trying to prove how well you read dictionaries. Its so beyond the point, but you make it the entire point. So much so that you are literally trying to convince me I should take the dictionary definition over the encyclopedic one. In what weird universe does that seem correct?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

In other words, by invoking the dictionary, you are doing nothing more than devolving the argument into semantics.

Using the words as defined is not an argument from semantics.

You pretend to be right by casting light on the lack of perfect adherence to two lines of text when in reality those two lines are insufficient from jump street. The concepts never even enter into it because you're too busy trying to prove how well you read dictionaries. Its so beyond the point, but you make it the entire point. So much so that you are literally trying to convince me I should take the dictionary definition over the encyclopedic one. In what weird universe does that seem correct?

The point is that a-theism is without a belief in deities as compared to theism which is a belief in deities. The whole point is that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief.