Atheism and Leperchauns-ism

[PureX]

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.

Keep telling yourself that, and you'll be able to hold on to that bias forever.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Keep telling yourself that, and you'll be able to hold on to that bias forever.

What bias?

 

[Sir Doom]

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

But arguing on the basis of adherence to the dictionary IS. Which is what you did and continue to do below...

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.

And as long as you confine your thinking to the dictionary, this will remain true. If, on the other hand, you accept the far more comprehensive definition provided by an encyclopedia, you might see how its not so simple as that. Considering the direction of your arguments with me, I'm pretty sure you're not going to do that, as it would require you to accept that you aren't exactly right, even if you aren't exactly wrong either.

Nothing more hard-headed in this world than a fundamentalist. Thump that dictionary as if it has all the answers, friend. I, however, remain unconvinced of its infallibility.

 

[Sir Doom]

Back to the actual topic...

From an atheist standpoint, which statement is more correct?

"I do not believe in supernatural beings."
"I believe supernatural beings are false constructs of the human mind."

From a theistic standpoint:

"I believe in supernatural beings."
"I do not believe supernatural beings are false constructs of the human mind."

I hope my point is clear, but I'm sure I'll get some kind of semantic counter-point from someone. Here is to hoping.

 

[LuisDantas]

Back to the actual topic...

From an atheist standpoint, which statement is more correct?

"I do not believe in supernatural beings."
"I believe supernatural beings are false constructs of the human mind."

Supernaturalism is not the same as theism.

But leaving that aside for a moment, both are equally true.

From a theistic standpoint:

"I believe in supernatural beings."
"I do not believe supernatural beings are false constructs of the human mind."

I hope my point is clear, but I'm sure I'll get some kind of semantic counter-point from someone. Here is to hoping.

Actually, I am seeing no point whatsoever.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But arguing on the basis of adherence to the dictionary IS.

No, it isn't. Using the proper definition of words is just using the words.

And as long as you confine your thinking to the dictionary, this will remain true. If, on the other hand, you accept the far more comprehensive definition provided by an encyclopedia, you might see how its not so simple as that. Considering the direction of your arguments with me, I'm pretty sure you're not going to do that, as it would require you to accept that you aren't exactly right, even if you aren't exactly wrong either.

What we are speaking to is the twisted logic of trying to define atheism as a religion. Simple dictionary definitions are enough to head this argument off at the pass. If we were really talking about the subtleties of theism, then your criticisms would be on point, but that isn't the case here.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Supernaturalism is not the same as theism.

But leaving that aside for a moment, both are equally true.

All atheists lack a belief in deities, but not all atheists claim that deities don't exist.

 

[Sir Doom]

Supernaturalism is not the same as theism.

But leaving that aside for a moment, both are equally true.

You didn't leave it aside, you opened with it. Tongue in cheek, I hope. Otherwise its just petty.

Actually, I am seeing no point whatsoever.

That positive and negative statements are interchangeable. Therefore saying 'atheism is not a belief, its the lack of it' is no more than an attempt to avoid the same scrutiny they generally level at theists.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That positive and negative statements are interchangeable. Therefore saying 'atheism is not a belief, its the lack of it' is no more than an attempt to avoid the same scrutiny they generally level at theists.

And there is the false equivalency that you have been striving for by torturing the definitions of words. Atheism is just a lack of belief. The only thing that all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods. Yes, there are some atheists who go further and say that gods don't exist, but that isn't a requirement for atheism. The person who is skeptical of the claim that gods exist is not under any burden of proof to demonstrate that gods do not exist. The burden of proof lies with those who say that gods exist.

 

[Sir Doom]

No, it isn't. Using the proper definition of words is just using the words.

Wrong. When you insist on attempting to ram the dictionary definition of a word down someone's throat as opposed to understanding the concept behind the 'incorrect' usage, then you are engaging in semantics instead of actually addressing the issue at hand. You are basically trying to pretend that until the OP rewrites his OP using your terms that you can't understand it. And even if you don't admit it, we both know that isn't the case.

What we are speaking to is the twisted logic of trying to define atheism as a religion. Simple dictionary definitions are enough to head this argument off at the pass. If we were really talking about the subtleties of theism, then your criticisms would be on point, but that isn't the case here.

Semantics again. Please do tell me the fundamental, functional or practical difference between a philosophical position and a religious position, especially as it relates to atheism. Good luck.

PS: keep in mind I never stated that atheism is a religion in a single post of mine, nor did the OP. In other words TRY TO DO THIS WITHOUT SEMANTICS. PLEASE.

 

[LuisDantas]

You didn't leave it aside, you opened with it. Tongue in cheek, I hope. Otherwise its just petty.



That positive and negative statements are interchangeable. Therefore saying 'atheism is not a belief, its the lack of it' is no more than an attempt to avoid the same scrutiny they generally level at theists.

Uh, no. You failed to make a clear point, that is all.

 

[Sir Doom]

And there is the false equivalency that you have been striving for by torturing the definitions of words.

Not one single post of mine has disputed a single definition you've given as false in any way, shape or form. I implied that the dictionary definition is confining. I also stated that it was insufficient. I also implied that it was not comprehensive as compared to the encyclopedia.

Shame me for that if you like. Do NOT however shame me for something I'm not doing. I don't consider atheism a religion, but I also don't think calling it a religion changes what it actually is. Terms get assigned after the concept is created. It doesn't work the other way. Atheism is what it is regardless of what category we try to fit it in. In other words, its a pointless argument that means nothing at all to anyone. If categorizing atheism as a religion would somehow alter your personal beliefs/philosophies surrounding atheism then I submit you have much larger issues to address within yourself.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. The only thing that all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods. Yes, there are some atheists who go further and say that gods don't exist, but that isn't a requirement for atheism.

So, instead of allowing for the OP to possibly, maybe, probably be talking about an atheist of a particular stripe, you instead insist on stating and restating the dictionary definition to them of what the most basic qualifying factor of atheism is in an attempt to force them to be talking about ALL atheists and therefore you feel safe to respond to them as if they are using the dictionary definition. Even though they clearly are not. You just pretend you don't know any better. But you do. Because that is an argument you can 'win' you choose to engage in THAT debate instead of responding to what they are 'improperly' stating.

The person who is skeptical of the claim that gods exist is not under any burden of proof to demonstrate that gods do not exist. The burden of proof lies with those who say that gods exist.

Actually, the burden of proof is never on anyone. Proof is not a thing. There is only convinced and unconvinced. The standards by which any individual human becomes convinced of one thing or another are internal and subject to change at any time for any reason.

If you require me to provide proof of a claim in order to be convinced, so be it. But I am obviously under no obligation to comply, I simply have to live with not convincing you if I don't meet your standards.

Conversely, if a theist requires you to prove a lack of gods (yes, I realize its silly) before they abandon them... guess what? You're under as much obligation to comply as I am in the previous example. That is to say, none at all. You will obviously fail to convince, but that's your choice.

 

[Sir Doom]

Actually, I am seeing no point whatsoever.

Uh, no. You failed to make a clear point, that is all.

I didn't realize you equated 'no point whatsoever' with 'no clear point'. I know the language can be tricky sometimes, I'll try to remember that you equate these two in the future so that we don't get bogged down discussing the semantic difference between the two. In the future, when you say 'no point whatsoever' I will know you need clarity and subsequently provide it for you. Oh wait... that's exactly what I did this time too... its almost like knew what you meant without you actually saying it properly... THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE!

By the way... did you understand my point now that I have un-no-point-whatsoevered (clarified) it? You didn't really say anything about it so perhaps its still too no-point-whatsoevery (unclear) to understand. Let me know and I'll see if I can't un-no-point-whatsoever it some more.

Or you can just stop pretending to be stupid since we both know better.

 

[David T]

@ 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

That's how southern baptists understand the Bible too!!! Congratulations you have the reading in comprehension of Roy Moore.

 

[Duke_Leto]

I don't think this is something specific to @paarsurrey .

Anedoctal evidence, but I have had personal witness on how difficult it is for a Muslim acquaintance of mine to even understand the idea of the Christian Trinity.

Not to agree or even to validate as internally consistent, mind you. To understand.

To be fair, I was Christian for most of my life and I'm still not sure I understand the idea of the Trinity -- at some point, I think, an idea which is sufficiently internally inconsistent, as you described it, becomes as meaningless (and therefore incomprehensible) as the statement "1 = 3". I think it's reasonable for someone not familiar with Christian theology to have trouble grasping what's meant to be expressed when people talk about the Trinity, because it's inherently contradictory.

Regarding the rest of the thread, though, I'd like to ask you, @paarsurrey, why you equate belief in leprechauns with unbelief in deities, rather than belief in leprechauns with belief in deities.

 

[paarsurrey]

To be fair, I was Christian for most of my life and I'm still not sure I understand the idea of the Trinity -- at some point, I think, an idea which is sufficiently internally inconsistent, as you described it, becomes as meaningless (and therefore incomprehensible) as the statement "1 = 3". I think it's reasonable for someone not familiar with Christian theology to have trouble grasping what's meant to be expressed when people talk about the Trinity, because it's inherently contradictory.

Regarding the rest of the thread, though, I'd like to ask you, @paarsurrey, why you equate belief in leprechauns with unbelief in deities, rather than belief in leprechauns with belief in deities.

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

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not one single post of mine has disputed a single definition you've given as false in any way, shape or form. I implied that the dictionary definition is confining. I also stated that it was insufficient. I also implied that it was not comprehensive as compared to the encyclopedia.

Shame me for that if you like. Do NOT however shame me for something I'm not doing. I don't consider atheism a religion, but I also don't think calling it a religion changes what it actually is. Terms get assigned after the concept is created. It doesn't work the other way. Atheism is what it is regardless of what category we try to fit it in. In other words, its a pointless argument that means nothing at all to anyone. If categorizing atheism as a religion would somehow alter your personal beliefs/philosophies surrounding atheism then I submit you have much larger issues to address within yourself.



So, instead of allowing for the OP to possibly, maybe, probably be talking about an atheist of a particular stripe, you instead insist on stating and restating the dictionary definition to them of what the most basic qualifying factor of atheism is in an attempt to force them to be talking about ALL atheists and therefore you feel safe to respond to them as if they are using the dictionary definition. Even though they clearly are not. You just pretend you don't know any better. But you do. Because that is an argument you can 'win' you choose to engage in THAT debate instead of responding to what they are 'improperly' stating.



Actually, the burden of proof is never on anyone. Proof is not a thing. There is only convinced and unconvinced. The standards by which any individual human becomes convinced of one thing or another are internal and subject to change at any time for any reason.

If you require me to provide proof of a claim in order to be convinced, so be it. But I am obviously under no obligation to comply, I simply have to live with not convincing you if I don't meet your standards.

Conversely, if a theist requires you to prove a lack of gods (yes, I realize its silly) before they abandon them... guess what? You're under as much obligation to comply as I am in the previous example. That is to say, none at all. You will obviously fail to convince, but that's your choice.

"Actually, the burden of proof is never on anyone."

"If you require me to provide proof of a claim in order to be convinced, so be it. But I am obviously under no obligation to comply, I simply have to live with not convincing you if I don't meet your standards."

Good points.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

To be fair, I was Christian for most of my life and I'm still not sure I understand the idea of the Trinity -- at some point, I think, an idea which is sufficiently internally inconsistent, as you described it, becomes as meaningless (and therefore incomprehensible) as the statement "1 = 3". I think it's reasonable for someone not familiar with Christian theology to have trouble grasping what's meant to be expressed when people talk about the Trinity, because it's inherently contradictory.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Regards

Poorly written, but yes, there is no reliable evidence for either Leprechauns or your "G-d"'s existence. That is why you screwed up the analogy. You are the one with the "Leprechaun" belief. Atheists believe in neither gods nor leprechauns because there is no evidence for either.

 

[LuisDantas]

All atheists lack a belief in deities, but not all atheists claim that deities don't exist.

Therefore?