Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Why not just ask that one simple question instead?

Why should I ask which god(s) the atheist doesn't believe in when I know all atheists don't believe in all gods?

 

[ArtieE]

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

Then you are a theist.

 

[Bunyip]

Then you are a theist.

What is the point of telling somebody what they think?
I am an atheist, and you keep ignoring everything I say to try to further explain - you have not engaged on a word of it.

 

[ArtieE]

What is the point of telling somebody what they think?
I am an atheist, and you keep ignoring everything I say to try to further explain - you have not engaged on a word of it.

If you believe in the existence of one or more gods you are per definition a theist. Are you ok?

 

[Bunyip]

If you believe in the existence of one or more gods you are per definition a theist. Are you ok?

You are not engaging on a word of what I say to address this, so what can I say?

 

[ArtieE]

You are not engaging on a word of what I say to address this, so what can I say?

You can say that you understand that an atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods and that a theist is a person who does believe in the existence of one or more gods and that there's no such thing as an atheist who believes in the existence of god(s) or a theist who doesn't believe in the existence of any gods?

 

[Bunyip]

You can say that you understand that an atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods and that a theist is a person who does believe in the existence of one or more gods and that there's no such thing as an atheist who believes in the existence of god(s) or a theist who doesn't believe in the existence of any gods?

I'll wait until you respond to my prior responses ok? You keep ignoring them and repeating yourself.

 

[ArtieE]

I'll wait until you respond to my prior responses ok? You keep ignoring them and repeating yourself.

I don't see any point of responding to your prior responses if you don't understand what I told you in my post 2206.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't see any point of responding to your prior responses if you don't understand what I told you in my post 2206.

Ok. Fine with me.

 

[ArtieE]

Ok. Fine with me.

OK. We might take up this conversation later if you come to understand the truth of what I wrote in post 2206.

 

[Bunyip]

OK. We might take up this conversation later if you come to understand the truth of what I wrote in post 2206.

I don't think so thanks. Lets leave it.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think so thanks. Lets leave it.

Sure. See you later on another occasion.

 

[Shad]

Reducing your rebuttal to absurdity by trying to bring up the philosophical positions of inanimate objects does not challenge the usage in question mate - it reflects on you.

Wrong, it is a valid logical counter. It shows the usage is illogical and those that using it are mistaken no matter how much they complain.

 

[Shad]

No. Dictionaries record usages - they do not define terms. As I said, this is a fundamental understanding of how English operates.
Usages change over time, this is driven by society - by the way local communities use these words. Dictionaries record these usages, they do not and can not dictate an official definition.

Wrong. Dictionaries have definitions of words and terms. It's one of the purposes of dictionaries. Go look up the word definition in a dictionary. All while actually mention dictionaries in the definition of definition

http://www.yourdictionary.com/definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/definition
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary

Let me explain how this works; People in Perth (for example) start saying 'cool' whenever they see something amazing. This gets popular, and lots of people pick up saying 'cool'.
Now at the time the dictionary definition of 'cool' was all about temperature. The dictionary does not have a police force to go in there and kick butt until Perth people start applying the 'correct' definition. Nope!
Instead, the dictionary boffins add another usage to the definitions of 'cool'.

Which is just slang not proper English.

As a second example, imagine you meet a man who claims to have a new religion and the God is called 'The Great Ono'. You ask him to explain the characteristics of his God and he does.
Now if those characteristics do not fit with the definition of God you have in your dictionary - you could either start arguing with his misuse of the word 'God' because it does not fit with your dictionaries definition (which can never achieve anything other than be an obstacle), OR you could just accept that he is applying the term 'God' to the being he has described and have a meaningful discussion.

God is simply defined as a deity. So as long as it meets this minimum of requirements there is no issue. The only issue would be if God is solely defined as a specific God from Islam or Christianity.

The issue is your flawed definition is being used to an vain attempt to rally babies as atheist so more people can be on the bandwagon, nothing more. Just because some peoples have shoddy language usages does not mean their usage is of any value.

 

[Shad]

Bunyip, let's not equivocate over the meaning of the verb "define". You are using it to mean something like "authorize usage", and that is one possible sense of the word. However, this is where people start talking past each other, because there is another sense--the one I was using. Lexicographers define words when they come up with a succinct expression that captures popular usage. That is actually what lexicographers do. They define words. But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that their definitions do not establish how people ought to use words.

Wrong. This is one of the purposes of dictionaries. So people use the correct words rather than sting together a bunch of words in a sentence that have no meaning.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary

 

[Shad]

Why do you keep, applying philosophical views to rocks? That is not reducing anything to absurdity other than your response.

It is a valid counter to the "lack of" definition. Logic 101.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. Dictionaries have definitions of words and terms. It's one of the purposes of dictionaries. Go look up the word definition in a dictionary. All while actually mention dictionaries in the definition of definition

http://www.yourdictionary.com/definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/definition
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary



Which is just slang not proper English.



God is simply defined as a deity. So as long as it meets this minimum of requirements there is no issue. The only issue would be if God is solely defined as a specific God from Islam or Christianity.

The issue is your flawed definition is being used to an vain attempt to rally babies as atheist so more people can be on the bandwagon, nothing more. Just because some peoples have shoddy language usages does not mean their usage is of any value.

Sorry, but no. Dictionaries describe usages, they do not define terms.

 

[Bunyip]

It is a valid counter to the "lack of" definition. Logic 101.

Sorry. What do you mean?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I agree the atheist does not have a default position.

Atheism is based upon a reading of the evidence for God and, implicitly at least, puts forward a supposedly better reading of the evidence (essentially a metaphysic). All this requires as much of an argument as the theist position.

The burden of proof, so far as it is meaningful at all, is for those making arguments. It has no bearing on those just going about their lives. If anyone makes a claim in an argument, positive or negative, he needs to support it. If you are critiquing someone's larger argument then all you need to do is provide enough to support your critique.

 

[Shad]

No mate it isn't. Dictionaries record USAGES, they do not define terms. That is an elementary misunderstanding you have there. What is the point in undermining usages? All that could achieve is to prevent whoever you are talking to from explaining their position. It would be a totally fatuous tactic for preventing meaningful dialogue and nothing more.

Wherever you got this idea from of 'refuting usages', you really need to let it go - it is a misconception that will prevent you from ever even getting as far as allowing whoever you are talking to to explain what they mean.

It is a tactic of distraction and obfuscation, not discussion, debate or even meaningful dialogue.

I hope you understand - undermining and refuting usages is just a barrier to meaningful dialogue.

Covered this in another response for the most part.

You ignore the logical counters, you ignore the purpose of dictionaries. You have no counter argument beside complaining. I cut right to the heart of the discussion by rendering one sides claim as untenable. Just as poking holes in the usages of theory, as in it's just a theory, into it's proper scientific context when talking about evolution. It's not like one can not search for theory under your username and find you arguing for theory in it's proper context. Yet you decline to do so here.