atheism is a (religious position)

[RestlessSoul]

The problem I have, is that their standard is in effect that any word to be valid must have an objective referent, but the bold one for its reference has no objective referent. Its referent is a first person subjective evaluation for which the rule in effect is this:
I am allowed to be subjective, when it suits me, but you are not, because I subjectively decide for all humans, when subjectivity is relevant, because of reasons...

Language is as restless, animated and energised as the world it seeks to describe. Meaning cannot and should not be constrained; like it’s close relatives truth, knowledge and belief, it’s nature is mercurial.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're still presupposing an intentional design or setting of parameters.
Not making sense to us ≠ conscious designer. You're arguing from incredulity.

An event? The set of possibilities is part of nature.

Not my criteria. Reason, logic, Boolean algebra.

"Eppur si muove"

The problem with your cognition is that you don't allow for limits to human cognition and variation of human cognition.
Let me show you how that works reductio ad absurdum for nature.
I think something, I act on it and then I write it here.
Then you declare that is wrong. The problem is that I can think and act on it and you are observing that, so it is a part of nature. So how can it be wrong as a part of nature? Answer that and I will have learned something new, for which I have to reconsider what I already know.
You are confusing different cognitive versions of wrong for different aspects of nature.

 

[HonestJoe]

Oh sure it is, for some people. I see it on here all the time. Any pro-religious post or thread immediately gets it's share of "I'm an atheist! Everyone acknowledge my atheism, now!" responses.

That isn't practicing atheism, that is practicing being a jerk. That behaviour is neither implicit nor exclusive to atheism (especially when you remember that the vast majority of atheists never even talk about it). That'd be like saying that terrorism is practicing theism because some terrorists should about their religion when they're doing it.

Well, actually atheism describes an antithetical philosophical position. Not a person. The "atheist" is just what we call a person that subscribes or claimes to subscribe to that antithetical philosophical position.

You keep complaining that other people refuse to accept your definitions yet you continue to blindly ignore any other possibilities. That might be how you use the word but it is demonstratedly not how many other people use it. Even if you don't accept the semantic validity of their definitions, you have to recognise that when they use the term, especially about themselves, that is what they mean.

If someone calls themselves atheist, you can't just declare that they hold that "antithetical philosophical position" when they say (or even demonstrate) that they don't. You can say they don't fit your definition of atheist but that is all. And in general terms, you can't declare that all of the people identified as atheist (by themselves or others) automatically meet your definition.

Why are they a "subset" in your mind?

Subset doesn't imply a negative, it just means a part of the whole. My point is that they don't represent a majority of people who don't believe in any gods and therefore you need to be careful using their behaviour to judge all people who don't believe in any gods.

I am a theist by choice, not by knowledge or belief.

That is a strange concept to me. What reason would there be other than knowledge or belief?

I use the upper case to designate the meta-concept of God, as opposed to any specific religious god-concept. "God" as the English term referring to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

Interesting, it's almost as if the same word can have different meanings in different contexts isn't is?

Whatever God is, or isn't, it's by definition far beyond our comprehension.

If you don't know what God is, how can you know it is beyond our comprehension (especially since you've already claimed your theism isn't based on knowledge)?

"God" is written into our DNA.

I wouldn't say it is directly genetic but humans have certainly developed to have a desire (maybe even a need) to have some kind of explanation for all the things we don't understand, largely because we evolved a creative imagination and so have a fear of the unknown. That doesn't mean any of the things we imagine (individually or collectively) to explain those unknowns are actually real (either the gods or all the other things - fairies, ghosts, aliens etc.).

You can reject it if you want to, but as there is no reason for doing so, and there are some good reasons for NOT doing so, rejecting the possibiities seems foolish, to me. But you do you, as they say.

I'm not rejecting the possibility though. Your definition of atheist means someone who rejects the possibility but that is not the definition most people use and certainly not the one I'd use. Again, you can argue about the validity of the labels (which is why I generally don't use them in the first place) but you can't argue that I believe something I don't.

 

[syo]

Atheism is a modern abrahamic religion. And equally disgusting.

 

[PureX]

Language is as restless, animated and energised as the world it seeks to describe. Meaning cannot and should not be constrained; like it’s close relatives truth, knowledge and belief, it’s nature is mercurial.

That's no excuse for deliberate deception. And in this instance we are engaging is a philosophical discussion, requiring that the words be used in their proper philosophical context.

Calling homosexuals "gay" or "queer" in a pub is foolish but excusable. Calling them "gay" or "queer" in a psychology classroom is not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's no excuse for deliberate deception. And in this instance we are engaging is a philosophical discussion, requiring that the words be used in their proper philosophical context.

Calling homosexuals "gay" or "queer" in a pub is foolish but excusable. Calling them "gay" or "queer" in a psychology classroom is not.

Pretty sure gay as a synonym for homosexual is acceptable in pretty much any context these days. Language is like that, it’s organic, mutable, ever evolving.

Queer probably qualifies as an insult reclaimed by the intended target, and should generally be used with caution.

Words are defined by context, mostly. Change the context, change the meaning. Humans are intuitively inclined to nuance in this regard, though misunderstandings inevitably occur; as they always do among humans who don’t see eye to eye.

 

[PureX]

That isn't practicing atheism, that is practicing being a jerk.

Potayto, potahto.

That behaviour is neither implicit nor exclusive to atheism (especially when you remember that the vast majority of atheists never even talk about it). That'd be like saying that terrorism is practicing theism because some terrorists should about their religion when they're doing it.

Same can be said of every crime the atheists so love to attribute to religion and to religious people. And they never fail to do so.

You keep complaining that other people refuse to accept your definitions yet you continue to blindly ignore any other possibilities.

They refuse to accept the proper definitions. Even when I explain why they are the proper definitions. Yet they never explain why my definitions aren't correct. Instead, they do what you're doing and say, "nut-huh! YOU did!"

That might be how you use the word but it is demonstratedly not how many other people use it.

The world is full of liars and idiots that can't justify most of the things they say. I can justify logically the proper use of these terms. Feel free to offer your logical rebuttal. "Lots of people do it" isn't going to pass muster, though.

Even if you don't accept the semantic validity of their definitions, you have to recognise that when they use the term, especially about themselves, that is what they mean.

The way they use the term 'atheist' means nothing. That's why they use it that way. They want to attack others without having to defend themselves.

If someone calls themselves atheist, you can't just declare that they hold that "antithetical philosophical position" when they say (or even demonstrate) that they don't.

You can call yourself anything you want. But the term atheist refers to someone that adheres to the antithetical philosophical position to theism. And if that is not an accurate assessment of your position, then you are deceiving others by labeling yourself that way.

You can say they don't fit your definition of atheist but that is all.

It's not my definition. I don't own and I didn't create it. The term has been around a very long time and it's always referred to the antithetical position to theism.

And in general terms, you can't declare that all of the people identified as atheist (by themselves or others) automatically meet your definition.

That's not for me to decide. When someone calls themselves an atheist but does not adhere to the atheist position, they are being deceptive. It's that simple.

Subset doesn't imply a negative, it just means a part of the whole. My point is that they don't represent a majority of people who don't believe in any gods and therefore you need to be careful using their behaviour to judge all people who don't believe in any gods.

That is a strange concept to me. What reason would there be other than knowledge or belief?

Results would be a good reason for choosing faith when knowledge and belief are not options.

Interesting, it's almost as if the same word can have different meanings in different contexts isn't is?

But in this instance the philosophical context is singular, and clear.

If you don't know what God is, how can you know it is beyond our comprehension (especially since you've already claimed your theism isn't based on knowledge)?

Please reread your own sentence. I think it will become clear if you think on it.

I wouldn't say it is directly genetic but humans have certainly developed to have a desire (maybe even a need) to have some kind of explanation for all the things we don't understand, largely because we evolved a creative imagination and so have a fear of the unknown. That doesn't mean any of the things we imagine (individually or collectively) to explain those unknowns are actually real (either the gods or all the other things - fairies, ghosts, aliens etc.).

Imagination is what makes us human. That and our desire to understand. And they go hand in hand. When we are confronted by the unknown, we begin to imagine the possible solutions. Then we test them by acting on them. It's who we are.

I'm not rejecting the possibility though. Your definition of atheist means someone who rejects the possibility but that is not the definition most people use and certainly not the one I'd use. Again, you can argue about the validity of the labels (which is why I generally don't use them in the first place) but you can't argue that I believe something I don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's no excuse for deliberate deception. And in this instance we are engaging is a philosophical discussion, requiring that the words be used in their proper philosophical context.

Calling homosexuals "gay" or "queer" in a pub is foolish but excusable. Calling them "gay" or "queer" in a psychology classroom is not.

No, not really. In psychology there is a concept of "stealing the word", but it works in both directions.
So here it is for the word "tosset"(crazy) and other variants of it, I could be invited to talk about being tosset as something I am and how I understand the different meanings of the word and how it has both a clinical, negative or positive usage.
So no, everyday words have a place in psychology and how they work, including that their meaning can change and depend on contexts.

So in effect you want to be right for the correct usage of words, but that is in you. Just as evidence is the power words for some non-religious people

 

[Mock Turtle]

Atheism is a modern abrahamic religion. And equally disgusting.

This deserved a laughter frubal because presumably that is what was intended - a joke.

 

[PureX]

Pretty sure gay as a synonym for homosexual is acceptable in pretty much any context these days. Language is like that, it’s organic, mutable, ever evolving.

And often wrong and misleading, as homosexuality doesn't make anyone any more gay than anyone else.

Just because we learn to accept these kinds of biased, ignorant misuse of words doesn't make their misuse any less biased or ignorant. The term "gay" implied frivolousness and insignificance right from the start. It was always a back-handed insult. But because no one bothered to actually consider the implications of it's misapplication, now it's a slight that people use without even being aware of it.

Does my pointing this out change that? Nope.

Queer probably qualifies as an insult reclaimed by the intended target, and should generally be used with caution.

There was no need to use it all. We already had a perfectly good term we could use. But that term didn't imply our bias, or promote our ignorance, so we started using some terms that did. I understand that we humans do thus sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I'm going to condon it, or join them.

Words are defined by context, mostly. Change the context, change the meaning. Humans are intuitively inclined to nuance in this regard, though misunderstandings inevitably occur; as they always do among humans who don’t see eye to eye.

I have explained many times what atheism is, and it's proper context. Which then defines what calling someone an atheist properly implies. But this doesn't serve the bias and ignorance of some folks, and so they complain when I point out their misuse of the terms. But I'm still not going to condon it, or join in it.

 

[syo]

This deserved a laughter frubal because presumably that is what was intended - a joke.

?

 

[RestlessSoul]

And often wrong and misleading, as homosexuality doesn't make anyone any more gay than anyone else.

Just because we learn to accept these kinds of biased, ignorant misuse of words doesn't make their misuse any less biased or ignorant. The term "gay" implied frivolousness and insignificance right from the start. It was always a back-handed insult. But because no one bothered to actually consider the implications of it's misapplication, now it's a slight that people use without even being aware of it.

Does my pointing this out change that? Nope.

There was no need to use it all. We already had a perfectly good term we could use. But that term didn't imply our bias, or promote our ignorance, so we started using some terms that did. I understand that we humans do thus sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I'm going to condon it, or join them.

I have explained many times what atheism is, and it's proper context. Which then defines what calling someone an atheist properly implies. But this doesn't serve the bias and ignorance of some folks, and so they complain when I point out their misuse of the terms. But I'm still not going to condon it, or join in it.

Sounds to me like you are trying to police the use of language. That never works.

The poet Ted Hughes once said that the greatest breakthrough for any artist came when he learned to outwit his inner policeman.

 

[Mock Turtle]

?

Atheism is not a religion and not simply about no belief in a God (the Abrahamics, if you like), but all such. Disgusting they may be though.

 

[PureX]

Sounds to me like you are trying to police the use of language. That never works.

It has to work if we are to have an honest philosophical discussion or debate. Without honesty and clarity, it's just another ego-boxing match that wastes time and no one wins, anyway.

The poet Ted Hughes once said that the greatest breakthrough for any artist came when he learned to outwit his inner policeman.

This isn't art. It's a discussion about the necessary morality of philosophical discourse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has to work if we are to have an honest philosophical discussion or debate. Without honesty and clarity, it's just another ego-boxing match that wastes time and no one wins, anyway.

This isn't art. It's a discussion about the necessary morality of philosophical discourse.

Who made you the master of the humankind?
You are doing what some of the atheists are doing. Trying to control humans by claiming you can decide for us all. Stop that!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sipportable with what? "No evidence"?

When you have faith based unfalsifiable claims (ie: claims without evidence and no way to falsify them even in principle), agnostic disbelief is the only rationally justifiable position.

Being "incredulous" in the face of someone else's belief would be a better term for it.

I don't care for your semantic wordgames.

But the mistake is in focusing on belief at all.

"Belief" is all theistic claims have. There's nothing else to focus on.

What anyone believes is irrelevant

Agreed. What matters is evidence.

What matters is what one asserts to others as true

Which is what beliefs are.... truth assertions.

Then my car is an atheist

Your car isn't a conscious agent. It's an object.
The word does not apply.

You're making the term meaningless.

The term, in a sense, is meaningless.
Generally, we use labels for positive attributes / properties. Not for the lack of them.

This is why we don't have a word for people who don't collect stamps.

 

[HonestJoe]

Same can be said of every crime the atheists so love to attribute to religion and to religious people. And they never fail to do so.

Some certainly do, and they're wrong too. I don't, which is why I used that example in the first place. The fact other people do something bad isn't any defence for doing the same kind of thing yourself, though it is an implicit acknowledgement that you're also in the wrong.

They refuse to accept the proper definitions. Even when I explain why they are the proper definitions. Yet they never explain why my definitions aren't correct. Instead, they do what you're doing and say, "nut-huh! YOU did!"

The meanings of words are determined by usage and context, and hence can change over time and place. Haven't you been presented mainstream dictionary definitions of these words (which specifically reflect common usage) but just dismissed them as wrong?

The way they use the term 'atheist' means nothing.

It clearly doesn't mean nothing. It refers to something that, on it's own, doesn't have a lot of practical significance, but that doesn't mean a definition is wrong. Loads of words refer to relatively insignificant things or concepts.

That's why they use it that way. They want to attack others without having to defend themselves.

How would that work? If an individual attack others, that individual can be challenged on that. The only reason to apply a generic label to that person would be to attack other people for that individuals' actions. And we've already agreed that is wrong.

That's not for me to decide. When someone calls themselves an atheist but does not adhere to the atheist position, they are being deceptive. It's that simple.

Not if the people they're talking to use the same definition. That is why common usage is a key factor in the definition of words. If you only accepted the word "gay" to mean happy and so used it in that way without additional context you'd likely cause confusion (arguably deception) since, like it or not, most people today will take it to mean homosexual.

With something as complex and potentially controversial as belief and religion, I find the best way to avoid that kind of confusion (or deception) is not to use such generic labels, even if you're confident of your understanding of the meaning, but to explain your intent in more detail (at least initially).

Results would be a good reason for choosing faith when knowledge and belief are not options.

What results? Does anything change between someone not believing in any kind of god and someone believing in a general god concept as you described? Anyway, results are only going to happen as a consequence so you'd still need a reason to "choosing" faith in the first place.

Please reread your own sentence. I think it will become clear if you think on it.

Maybe I misunderstood your meaning but I took that as we don't know what God is and therefore it will always be beyond our comprehension. If you just meant that God is currently beyond our comprehension but that could theoretically change, I'd agree (though including the possible comprehension that it is non-existent).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some certainly do, and they're wrong too. I don't, which is why I used that example in the first place. The fact other people do something bad isn't any defence for doing the same kind of thing yourself, though it is an implicit acknowledgement that you're also in the wrong.

...

Now be honest, Honestjoe. What does the bold mean?

 

[PureX]

When you have faith based unfalsifiable claims (ie: claims without evidence and no way to falsify them even in principle), agnostic disbelief is the only rationally justifiable position.

Lots of truth is unfalsifiable. That demand is your limitation, not the limitation of truthfulness.

I don't care for your semantic wordgames.

"Belief" is all theistic claims have. There's nothing else to focus on.

There is plenty more, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Agreed. What matters is evidence.

Only if you're willing and able to recognize fairly and assess it.

Which is what beliefs are.... truth assertions.

The only truth being asserted by the phrase "I believe" is the assertion that the person doing the asserting presumes he's right. Otherwise the phrase means nothing. To an ego-boxer, that assertion is fightin' words. But to anyone else, belief doesn't matter.

Your car isn't a conscious agent. It's an object.
The word does not apply.

Exactly why your definition was useless.

The term, in a sense, is meaningless.
Generally, we use labels for positive attributes / properties. Not for the lack of them.

This is why we don't have a word for people who don't collect stamps.

And it's why "unbelief" wasn't a word, either, until atheists just made it up to lie about themselves.

 

[PureX]

You are doing what some of the atheists are doing.

Yeah, but I'm doing it for the right reasons.