Atheism is not a default position

[Curious George]

@ all posters
And here I thought we all finally agreed to disagree to pursue some greater discussion lol.

so then, shall we assume:

1) something in the greater debatehinges on definition?

2) there is no greater debate?

3) none of us have any actual substance to add?

4) it is just too entertaining to play with words and quibble over semantics?

5) or something else entirely?

 

[Bunyip]

@ all posters
And here I thought we all finally agreed to disagree to pursue some greater discussion lol. (Not directed at you bunyip just quoted last post).

so then, shall we assume:

1) something in the greater debatehinges on definition?

2) there is no greater debate?

3) none of us have any actual substance to add?

4) it is just too entertaining to play with words and quibble over semantics?

5) or something else entirely?

Given that is not directed at me, please remove the reference to me from it.

 

[Curious George]

Given that is not directed at me, please remove the reference to me from it.

Done

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are only two options.
NAZI and Not-NAZI.

There are only two options: either there are 4 options, or not.
There are only two options: either colorless green ideas sleep furiously, or not.
There are only two options: either there are default positions, or not.
Enumerating pointless, irrelevant dichotomies is almost as illogical as is assuming that these dichotomies reflect meaningful assertions/distinctions capable of demonstrating anything.
It is meaningless to ascribe a default epistemic claim to any entity incapable of making this claim, much less one incapable of making ANY such claims. Hence the ridiculously mistaken view that attempts at defining some epistemic position as "default" are anything but nonsense

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

@ all posters
And here I thought we all finally agreed to disagree to pursue some greater discussion lol.

so then, shall we assume:

1) something in the greater debatehinges on definition?

2) there is no greater debate?

3) none of us have any actual substance to add?

4) it is just too entertaining to play with words and quibble over semantics?

5) or something else entirely?

I'm sticking with colorless green ideas sleep furiously. It's the only logical conclusion

 

[Ouroboros]

@ all posters
And here I thought we all finally agreed to disagree to pursue some greater discussion lol.

so then, shall we assume:

1) something in the greater debatehinges on definition?

2) there is no greater debate?

3) none of us have any actual substance to add?

4) it is just too entertaining to play with words and quibble over semantics?

5) or something else entirely?

All of the above.

My problem is that I'm stubborn to a fault. Can't leave things unresolved however hard I try. But I'll keep trying.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

There are only two options: either there are 4 options, or not.
There are only two options: either colorless green ideas sleep furiously, or not.
There are only two options: either there are default positions, or not.
Enumerating pointless, irrelevant dichotomies is almost as illogical as is assuming that these dichotomies reflect meaningful assertions/distinctions capable of demonstrating anything.
It is meaningless to ascribe a default epistemic claim to any entity incapable of making this claim, much less one incapable of making ANY such claims. Hence the ridiculously mistaken view that attempts at defining some epistemic position as "default" are anything but nonsense

Oh, wow, you are still at it!

I did not know it was humanly possible for someone so educated to be so reliably and consistently irrelevant. You never fail to read like a fortune cookie at the end of a very broken telephone. Good job!

At least you took my advice from earlier, and are trying to make points. Baby steps, I suppose.

 

[Bunyip]

Did I offend you? I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were incompetent, rather the opposite. With time you might understand what I was trying to say.

I was not offended, the problem is that your comment had so many redundant double, triple and quadruple negatives that whatever it is you are trying to say is lost.

I suggest removing them.

Read your post 2156 to anyone you can find close by - I bet nobody can follow it.

So instead of writting : Doesn't not disbelieve in no-God.
If you remove the redundant negatives you get: Doesn't believe in God.

 

[Bunyip]

I think it's quite self-explanatory what my point is.

I asked you what you mean by disliking certain usages - they are just ways people describe their positions, what point is there in refusing to listen to them by challenging the way they describe their position?
Wouldn't it make more sense to challenge their position, rather than the way they describe it?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't believe in the definition of atheist as "lack of belief in God".

If a person tells you he's an atheist what does that automatically tell you about that person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. Every single person on the face of the earth who calls himself an atheist is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist. So how can you possibly say that that is not the definition of an atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

That's one of the better definitions. Unfortunately, the definition of the word becomes a very emotional--and political--issue for people on both sides of the theist-atheist debate. Much of the problem stems from a common definition that sounds relatively straightforward and unambiguous: An atheist is a person who does not believe that gods exist. Unfortunately, that sentence is ambiguous between two senses:

1) An atheist is a person who believes that no gods exist.
2) An atheist is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.

That is, the scope of negation can either include "believe" or be inside the scope of "believe". This is a well-known ambiguity in linguistics, but it can be unfamiliar to people who have never studied syntactic theory.

If a person tells you he's an atheist exactly what does that tell you with 100% certainty about this person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. You don't know whether he's just not a theist or actively believe that gods don't exist. If the person was familiar with the distinction and wanted to further specify what he was he might have said "I'm a strong atheist" which would tell you that he not only is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods but also actively believe that gods don't exist.

Some people are trying to claim that only strong atheists are actually atheists despite the simple fact that every single person on the planet saying he's an atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. It is disrespectful to every single weak atheist who is just not a theist and has done nothing wrong that he should have to be defined as "Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good." just for saying he's an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

If a person tells you he's an atheist what does that automatically tell you about that person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. Every single person on the face of the earth who calls himself an atheist is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist. So how can you possibly say that that is not the definition of an atheist?

Well because some Gods do exist. Not all conceptions of God are theistic, or conflict with atheism. Deism for example, pantheism, panentheism, Tao, Shinto etc.

 

[ArtieE]

Well because some Gods do exist. Not all conceptions of God are theistic, or conflict with atheism. Deism for example, pantheism, panentheism, Tao, Shinto etc.

SO WHAT!? If a person tells you he's an atheist you know he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. Of course you could require that every person saying he's an atheist give you a book listing the name of every god or conceptions of gods he doesn't believe in and every religion that is or isn't covered but that would just make you look ridiculous.

 

[Bunyip]

SO WHAT!? If a person tells you he's an atheist you know he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. Of course you could require that every person saying he's an atheist give you a book listing the name of every god or conceptions of gods he doesn't believe in and every religion that is or isn't covered but that would just make you look ridiculous.

You only have to ask what God they are referring to - one question. No idea what you are worried about.

 

[ArtieE]

Bunyip I have a good idea! Representatives of all governments and all religions and all theists on the planet must come together and produce an official list of all entities who are to be considered gods and all religions or systems or conceptions that are to be considered theistic. Until we have such a list nobody are allowed to call themselves atheists. OK with you?

 

[ArtieE]

You only have to ask what God they are referring to - one question. No idea what you are worried about.

I'm worried about the fact that you stated and I quote: "Well because some Gods do exist." Please give us a list of all gods who do exist Bunyip. Does the list include the Christian God, Allah or Brahma?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm worried about the fact that you stated and I quote: "Well because some Gods do exist." Please give us a list of all gods who do exist Bunyip. Does the list include the Christian God, Allah or Brahma?

I gave you many examples. Please re-read.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip I have a good idea! Representatives of all governments and all religions and all theists on the planet must come together and produce an official list of all entities who are to be considered gods and all religions or systems or conceptions that are to be considered theistic. Until we have such a list nobody are allowed to call themselves atheists. OK with you?

Why not just ask that one simple question instead?
Wouldn't your list idea be so inconvenient? How would you enforce your ruling?

Are you ok?

 

[ArtieE]

You only have to ask what God they are referring to - one question. No idea what you are worried about.

And why would I ask that when I know all atheists refer to all gods?

 

[Bunyip]

And why would I ask that when I know all atheists refer to all gods?

How can you know that? It would be false knowledge. I'm an atheist, and am not referring to all Gods.