Atheism and Leperchauns-ism

[LuisDantas]

I didn't realize you equated 'no point whatsoever' with 'no clear point'.

I usually do not.

Here, though, there is indeed no point whatsoever in what you have expressed. And since you seem to believe otherwise, I have a bit of a duty to clarify that such is not the case.

Best of luck in the future. I am looking forward for an actual point from you.

 

[Sir Doom]

My point is that to state something like, "I believe leprechauns are only myths." Is an atheistic statement (or at least can be depending on the speaker's intent). This regardless to wether or not any particular atheist stands behind the statement. It is a statement of atheistic belief. An atheism, if you will.

Maybe this example is too narrow.

How about, "I believe that atheism is positive."

Isn't this clearly a statement of belief in atheism? Recognizing of course that the statement contains little value in and of itself.

What I'm trying to say is that despite what the dictionary might tell you, atheism is more than the lack of belief in deities, even if that is the only unifying quality among you. It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent. Just because you as an atheist are not bound by your atheism to believe any particular statement of atheistic belief does not mean they simply aren't part of atheism.

Thus, believing in atheism is a thing that is done. Even if you do not expressly state it as such.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

The issue at hand is the difference between theism and atheism. The dictionary definition does a fine job of concisely describing those differences.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

The dictionary definition is sufficient for what we are discussing. I don't see how a long diatribe about the nuances of theism benefits any of these discussions.

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.

So you are arguing semantics?

Actually, the burden of proof is never on anyone.

Pretty sure there is:

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

The burden of proof has been a part of logic for a long time. If someone is arguing that they are simply stating their personal beliefs, then that is fine. However, if they are arguing with others that God really does exist, then they bear the burden of proof. That's how logic works.

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.

You are certainly not compelled to give a reasoned and logical argument. No one ever said that you were. However, if you are claiming to have a logical and reasoned argument then there are rules to follow.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Therefore?

Therefore, "belief that there are no gods" is not a valid definition for atheists. It's a bit like defining theism as believing in the Christian God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Therefore, "belief that there are no gods" is not a valid definition for atheists. It's a bit like defining theism as believing in the Christian God.

I am not following you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am not following you.

Not all atheists take the position that gods do not exist, so defining atheism as "belief that no gods exist" is not the best definition. In an earlier post you said these two statements were equally correct for atheists:

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."

 

[LuisDantas]

Not all atheists take the position that gods do not exist, so defining atheism as "belief that no gods exist" is not the best definition. In an earlier post you said these two statements were equally correct for atheists:

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."

Of course I said that. They are.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Of course I said that. They are.

So if an atheist does not believe that gods are necessarily a construct of the human mind, then they really aren't an atheist?

 

[LuisDantas]

So if an atheist does not believe that gods are necessarily a construct of the human mind, then they really aren't an atheist?

Pairing off "to believe" with "necessarily" is a bit tricky, but yeah, I would say so.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Pairing off "to believe" with "necessarily" is a bit tricky, but yeah, I would say so.

So what would you call someone who doesn't believe in gods?

 

[LuisDantas]

So what would you call someone who doesn't believe in gods?

An atheist, of course

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

An atheist, of course

I don't believe in gods, but I also don't believe that gods are necessarily the contructs of human minds. There seems to be a contradiction in your definition.

 

[wandering peacefully]

"It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent."

Sir doom,


As an atheist I would be interested in knowing what whole slew of things I believe in are? You have stated you know what I believe so can you please expound? What are some examples of things of atheistic nature or intent?

"Thus, believing in atheism is a thing that is done."

No

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe in gods, but I also don't believe that gods are necessarily the contructs of human minds. There seems to be a contradiction in your definition.

I guess it is much too small a distinction for me to find worth of acknowledgement in everyday situations.

Even now I have a hard time even figuring what it would be.

 

[Sir Doom]

"It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent."

Sir doom,


As an atheist I would be interested in knowing what whole slew of things I believe in are? You have stated you know what I believe so can you please expound? What are some examples of things of atheistic nature or intent?

I did not state that YOU believed in anything. I do not have to be talking about YOU specifically in order to be correct. I specifically stated that no particular atheist is bound to adhere to any particular statement of atheistic belief at all, this fact of course does not negate their existence. I've given at least 4 examples directly and described what I was trying to say TWICE. You, of course, omitted all that in your response as if I didn't say any of it. Did you think I wouldn't notice that, or what?

"Thus, believing in atheism is a thing that is done."

No

Do you consider that an argument? I don't.

 

[Sir Doom]

The dictionary definition is sufficient for what we are discussing. I don't see how a long diatribe about the nuances of theism benefits any of these discussions.

You mean you don't see how it benefits your position in these arguments. It doesn't it argues against it.

So you are arguing semantics?

I am arguing that you are arguing semantics. Don't get it twisted.

Pretty sure there is:

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

The burden of proof has been a part of logic for a long time. If someone is arguing that they are simply stating their personal beliefs, then that is fine. However, if they are arguing with others that God really does exist, then they bear the burden of proof. That's how logic works.

I know how logic works. We decided the rules and then decided we'd stick to them. Its not a bad idea. Its an amazing idea. I believe logic works perfectly. See how that works?

Now see how it can be applied! The following are NOT hypothetical statements. They are statements of what I personally believe.

I believe the God described in the Bible is little more than a storybook character.
I believe the Quran was written by a human being and no more.
I believe Thor and Odin are ancient myths.

Would you consider any of these atheistic in nature? I believe they are. All of the above are true statements from me, but that doesn't make a difference to the fact that they are atheistic statements. Because 'atheist' doesn't just mean what you identify as, as an atheist. Its also a way of describing anything that is atheistic. Thus, one can believe something atheistic, and it then follows that one CAN believe in atheism even if that is not a requirement to be an atheist. Because you don't have to be an atheist to say, do, or think something atheistic. Do you?

You are certainly not compelled to give a reasoned and logical argument. No one ever said that you were. However, if you are claiming to have a logical and reasoned argument then there are rules to follow.

Yes, but you and everyone else in the world is capable of abandoning that standard any time we wish (and in my opinion we all do this habitually to facilitate believing what we want), therefore... that only matters when YOU say so. I recognize that you are, in fact, saying so. But that's the basis of my argument. You are literally stating your standards to me, even if they are also more or less universally adhered to by most intelligent human beings. That doesn't prevent you from saying, doing or thinking something illogical and in so does not prevent you from deciding to say, do, think something illogical.

The point is that, you are deciding by what standards you will convince someone as opposed to deciding what your standards to be convinced are. The truth is, if you do not adhere to paarsurrey's illogical standard, you will never convince him of anything. Your insistence that you don't have to is irrelevant. Of course you don't have to. You also don't have to force him to use logic and then give him a logical solution, either. But here we are.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I did not state that YOU believed in anything. I do not have to be talking about YOU specifically in order to be correct. I specifically stated that no particular atheist is bound to adhere to any particular statement of atheistic belief at all, this fact of course does not negate their existence. I've given at least 4 examples directly and described what I was trying to say TWICE. You, of course, omitted all that in your response as if I didn't say any of it. Did you think I wouldn't notice that, or what?



Do you consider that an argument? I don't.

Hmmm. I just went back and searched for your examples of " slews of atheistic beliefs and intents.

Still didn't see any unless you are referring to the a-leprechaunism you mentiined?

You said you were explaining what atheists believe. That in fact would include me because I am an atheist. I will post what you stated as fact again and ask again if you care to explain in depth (expound) on what "atheistic beliefs" are since you are the one who claimed there were such beiiefs. No need to get upset, I thought it was a valid question about your claim.

This was you:


"What I'm trying to say is that despite what the dictionary might tell you, atheism is more than the lack of belief in deities, even if that is the only unifying quality among you. [It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent.] Just because you as an atheist are not bound by your atheism to believe any [particular statement of atheistic belief] does not mean they simply aren't part of atheism."

Note the sections within the brackets.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You mean you don't see how it benefits your position in these arguments. It doesn't it argues against it.

How so?

We are using the analogy of people who believe in leprechauns and those who don't. The obvious parallels here are those who believe in gods and those who don't (i.e. theists and atheists). I fail to see how the analogy is helped by the nuances of theism.

Now see how it can be applied! The following are NOT hypothetical statements. They are statements of what I personally believe.

I believe the God described in the Bible is little more than a storybook character.
I believe the Quran was written by a human being and no more.
I believe Thor and Odin are ancient myths.

Would you consider any of these atheistic in nature? I believe they are.

In common parlance I think it would be fair to call them atheistic. However, they aren't required beliefs to be an atheist. In the same way, "I believe Jesus was God's Son" is a theistic statement, but it isn't a required belief to be a theist. Does that make sense?

Yes, but you and everyone else in the world is capable of abandoning that standard any time we wish (and in my opinion we all do this habitually to facilitate believing what we want), therefore... that only matters when YOU say so. I recognize that you are, in fact, saying so. But that's the basis of my argument. You are literally stating your standards to me, even if they are also more or less universally adhered to by most intelligent human beings. That doesn't prevent you from saying, doing or thinking something illogical and in so does not prevent you from deciding to say, do, think something illogical.

The point is that, you are deciding by what standards you will convince someone as opposed to deciding what your standards to be convinced are. The truth is, if you do not adhere to paarsurrey's illogical standard, you will never convince him of anything. Your insistence that you don't have to is irrelevant. Of course you don't have to. You also don't have to force him to use logic and then give him a logical solution, either. But here we are.

In many, many discussions on the possible existence of God between theists and atheists it is the theists who strive for the mantle of having a logical and reasoned argument. I can't remember any instances where these discussions are started by a theist who says that a belief in God is illogical and unreasonable. Perhaps it is unfair, but there is an assumption that someone making an argument for the existence of God is doing so with the intention of making a logical argument. What is the point of having a debate if the intention is not to convince someone else that you are right?

 

[Sir Doom]

Hmmm. I just went back and searched for your examples of " slews of atheistic beliefs and intents.

Still didn't see any unless you are referring to the a-leprechaunism you mentiined?

The a-leprechaunist statement was one example, yes. A-leprechaunism is atheistic in nature. You don't think so? It isn't required for you to believe anything at all about leprechauns in order to be an atheist, but that doesn't change that it is atheistic in nature. Its not about what you believe. Its about the fact that the belief exists. Its an example of AN atheistic belief. It is not required that an atheist believes it in order for it to be atheistic. See how that works? Atheism isn't a club that you have membership to. Its a philosophical position. It is broader than your atheism. You don't get to decide what counts and what doesn't. Everything that counts, counts. A-leprechaunism does count.

You said you were explaining what atheists believe.

No I didn't.

That in fact would include me because I am an atheist. I will post what you stated as fact again and ask again if you care to explain in depth (expound) on what "atheistic beliefs" are since you are the one who claimed there were such beiiefs. No need to get upset, I thought it was a valid question about your claim.

No, it isn't a valid question. Its barely-disquised scorn. You are indignant that I am telling you what or that you believe something. I'm not. It is NOT required that I describe YOU when I am describing atheism, nor do I have to specifically state something that YOU personally believe in order to state an atheistic belief. I stated at least 4. I've given more since. You are not required to adhere to any of them in order to be an atheist (something I've stated at least four times now) any more than I am required to state something YOU believe in order to state something atheist in nature.

This was you:

"What I'm trying to say is that despite what the dictionary might tell you, atheism is more than the lack of belief in deities, even if that is the only unifying quality among you. [It is also the belief in a whole slew of other things that are atheistic in nature or intent.] Just because you as an atheist are not bound by your atheism to believe any [particular statement of atheistic belief] does not mean they simply aren't part of atheism."

Note the sections within the brackets.

Yes, I'm aware of what I wrote. Note the section outside the brackets where I noted that you weren't bound by atheism to believe any particular statement of atheistic belief, just as I am reiterating now.