Atheism is not a default position

[Norrin-6-]

And Satan is a theist as he believes in the existence of God, so black is implicitly theist.

And Satan has a lot of control over the music industry, and puts out songs with explicit lyrics. So black is explicitly implicitly theist.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Is an atheist expected to have a well organized rejection of every god thrown at them? I should hope not.

It depends entirely on the claims being made about the god (or gods). If someone earnestly insisted to me that money was their god (and how much of a stretch would a proposition like that really be?) ... I wouldn't bother to gainsay them. Obviously, we all know that currency exists. I might agree with them that the target of their worship exists, but I'd still question their mindless veneration of it.

The same way I might reject fairies ...

All fairies? Or just some?

Perhaps the operative word there is "might?" Anyway, how can you reject the fairies? I mean ... look at the toadstools!

...

Q. - Why do you hate fairies? Why are you angry with fairies?

You know that if you really look for fairies you'll see them everywhere, don't you? Open your heart to the fairies and they'll make themselves known to you yada yada yada yada yada yada.

 

[Bunyip]

Negative since I pointed out a logical counter in the lack of definition.

What is the point? You could point out such logical counters to all definitions - so what is the point?

Which I have repeated politely and aggressively several times.

I know, and I keep explaining to you why it is a useless tactic, but you ignore everything I say.

You have yet to provide any refutation other than complaining about correct definition

Why would I want to refute your 'logical counter' to a definition that like all definitions is imperfect and contextual? Why would I want to refute a logical counter to a definition I never thought was universally applicable anyway - and which forms no part of my argument? You keep insisting that I refute your logical counter to a definition I am not even defending. Why would I need to do that?

Sure one can not defeat a usage but no one is obligate to entertain such a usage which can not pass simple logic checks. So define away. Again it has nothing to due with a correct definition, I only supported a definition which passed scrutiny and has for centuries, nothing more. Also by admitting the definition is subjective you just provided an defeater for your own definition thus argument.

I am not positing a definition mate. You are ignoring everything I say and demanding that I refute your logical argument against a definition that I am not employing and never thought for a second was universally correct.
At least tell me why you think I am obliged to refute your logical counter to a definition I am not arguing for, when you know that I think refuting definitions is absolutely pointless anyway?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

All definitions are flawed ...

Let's give that assertion a test drive, shall we?

Helium: an inert, gaseous element present in the sun's atmosphere and in natural gas, and also occurring as a radioactive decomposition product,used as a substitute for flammable gases in dirigible balloons. Symbol:He; atomic weight: 4.0026; atomic number: 2; density: 0.1785 g/l at0°C and 760 mm pressure.

Would anyone care to enumerate this definition's flaws? Does it have any?

Addendum: Anyone who feels compelled to go all Edgar Rice Burroughs on us will be docked points.

 

[Bunyip]

Let's give that assertion a test drive, shall we?

Helium: an inert, gaseous element present in the sun's atmosphere and in natural gas, and also occurring as a radioactive decomposition product,used as a substitute for flammable gases in dirigible balloons. Symbol:He; atomic weight: 4.0026; atomic number: 2; density: 0.1785 g/l at0°C and 760 mm pressure.

Would anyone care to enumerate this definition's flaws? Does it have any?

Addendum: Anyone who feels compelled to go all Edgar Rice Burroughs on us will be docked points.

Sure, helium is also the name of a popular app, a form of browser window, a net content management system, a popular bicycle travelling case and a place name.

So just as people are trying to 'refute definitions' of atheism as if that somehow acheived anything - you can do the same for helium;

"John filled the Hindenberg with helium and prepared for take-off."

Oohh...no, no, no - that definition is illogical, I have 'refuted' it! Yay! What a dummy, you can't fill a Zeppelin with bicycle travel cases and expect to fly!

 

[Willamena]

I apologize. It's just that there was so much going on in your post(s) that it seemed best to address the idea(s) individually, rather than trying to comment on the entire edifice as a whole.



It seems to me that atheism does not ... in fact can not ... reside anywhere (unless of course you're only speaking poetically). It is simply a rational conclusion regarding the alleged truth claims made by theism. There's no need to anthropomorphize it.

Anyway, atheism is in no way contingent upon a single statement being made about the world. One can have reached the conclusion that religion is a load of twaddle and taken that opinion to your grave. In fact, I'd imagine countless millions have done so down through the ages.

Perhaps it'd be easier to stop saying "atheist" and just say "skeptic?" That's all atheism really is: Skepticism regarding the claims made about religion.

Q. - Does skepticism reside in our statements about the world?

...

And if so ... what's the rent like?

Ideas reside where they are to be found, atheism is no exception. I was speaking nonliterally, yes. It doesn't have to be a statement verbalized. It's when that 'rational conclusion' statement is fully formed that atheism has sprung to life.

I believe skepticism is a lot more broad and useful than atheism, which is particular to one subject. Skepticism is a method.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, helium is also the name of a popular app, a form of browser window, a net content management system, a popular bicycle travelling case and a place name.

So just as people are trying to 'refute definitions' of atheism as if that somehow acheived anything - you can do the same for helium;

"John filled the Hindenberg with helium and prepared for take-off."

Oohh...no, no, no - that definition is illogical, I have 'refuted' it! Yay! What a dummy, you can't fill a Zeppelin with bicycle travel cases and expect to fly!

Wait, are you saying helium can only be defined one way in order to avoid being "flawed"?

 

[Bunyip]

Wait, are you saying helium can only be defined one way?

So I listed six different meanings, but you read that I am saying there is only one?

No Willa, I listed six different usages of 'helium' to demonstrate that there are many different usages, not to say that there is only one.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Sure, helium is also the name of a popular app, a form of browser window, a net content management system, a popular bicycle travelling case and a place name.

So just as people are trying to 'refute definitions' of atheism as if that somehow acheived anything - you can do the same for helium;

"John filled the Hindenberg with helium and prepared for take-off."

Oohh...no, no, no - that definition is illogical, I have 'refuted' it! Yay! What a dummy, you can't fill a Zeppelin with bicycle travel cases and expect to fly!

Do I need to point out that you failed to address the cited definition and instead opted to supply a new one (which you then proceeded to dismantle)?

 

[Willamena]

So I listed six different meanings, but you read that I am saying there is only one?

No, I'm asking if that's what you're saying. When asked how it was that all definitions are flawed, you responded by listing alternative uses for the word helium, which was defined but one way.

 

[Bunyip]

Do I need to point out that you failed to address the cited definition and instead opted to supply a new one (which you then proceeded to dismantle)?

I was addressing it. By pointing out that the definition you gave does not cover all usages and circumstances.

The definition you gave is imperfect (just as are the definitions of atheism, god and theism), if you apply it to other usages of 'helium' you get nonsense claims.

Just as you get nonsense claims when applying a definition of atheism in other contexts.

You asked me to enumerate the flaws in the definition of helium you gave , I did so by pointing out usages that it does not cover.
This is the approach I am challenging in regard to atheism, people seem to think that if you can apply a given definition in another context where it does not make sense - they have somehow disproven the position it defined. Which is nonsense. That definitions do not apply in all circumstances and to all usages is not a flaw, it is not a logical failure - it is just how language works.

Just like the excellent definition of helium you gave - it does not apply to all usages, or in all contexts. Just as definitions of atheism do not apply to all usages, or in all contexts.

So what is the point of attacking such definitions?

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm asking if that's what you're saying. When asked how it was that all definitions are flawed, you responded by listing alternative uses for the word helium, which was defined but one way.

Because the definition of helium given, just like the definitions of atheism being discussed does not cover all usages and contexts.
Definitions tend to be that way. This is not a problem. Which is why I find it so bizzarre that people are arguing over which is the right definition.

 

[Willamena]

Because the definition of helium given, just like the definitions of atheism being discussed does not cover all usages and contexts.
Definitions tend to be that way. This is not a problem. Which is why I find it so bizzarre that people are arguing over which is the right definition.

Okay, but why do you consider that to be a "flaw"?

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm asking if that's what you're saying. When asked how it was that all definitions are flawed, you responded by listing alternative uses for the word helium, which was defined but one way.

Yes. Isn't that what people here are doing with the definitions of 'atheism'?

I have been arguing all along that there is no correct definition that applies universally, hence arguing for one is futile.

 

[Ouroboros]

Demonstration of drinking Helium infused beer:

The only flaw is that I can't buy this in the store.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay, but why do you consider that to be a "flaw"?

I don't.

I made the point because it is not a flaw in the definitions of atheism being discussed either - all definitions are similarly 'flawed'. There is no such thing as a correct definition of atheism, theism, God, or now helium that covers all usages and contexts. Which is why all this arguing over which is the correct definition, along with people trying to refute each others definitions is an exercise in futility.

The definition of helium given was excellent, very good. But it does not apply universally to,all contexts and meanings of 'helium'. That is not a fault, it is just how language works.

Same with the definitions of atheism and God being proffered, most of them are excellent. But they do not apply universally to all contexts and meanings of 'atheism' or 'God'. This is not a fault, it is just how language works.

People arguing about which is the correct definition, and trying to 'refute', or 'disprove' definitions are labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works. There is no 'correct' definition for most terms that applies universally to all possible usages and contexts.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Ideas reside where they are to be found

What? Laying around on the ground? Left behind in taxicabs? As prizes in Happy Meals?

atheism is no exception.

I'm skeptical about that claim. Ideas-as-objects strikes me as a leaden conceptualization.

I was speaking nonliterally, yes. It doesn't have to be a statement verbalized. It's when that 'rational conclusion' statement is fully formed that atheism has sprung to life.

I cannot grasp your need to anthropomorphize ideas. Anyway, those "rational conclusion statements" are formed in the brain, right? Or can they be formed elsewhere?

I believe skepticism is a lot more broad and useful than atheism, which is particular to one subject.

Skepticism can be applied to religion without resulting in atheism, correct?

Skepticism is a method.

Doubt is a method? Incredulity is a method? Thinking is a method?

I beg to differ. Testing is a method. Skepticism is what motivates testing.

Q. - Isn't theism also a method?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I was addressing it. By pointing out that the definition you gave does not cover all usages and circumstances.

OK. But I hope we'll both agree that that isn't what you initially asserted. You stated that all definitions are flawed.

Perhaps you meant to say that all definitions are incomplete?

Kind of like how Marcel Duchamp must have felt when he doodled a mustache on the Mona Lisa?

"All paintings are incomplete!"

The definition you gave is imperfect

How? Because it didn't include a few ephemeral, trademarked gizmos?

(just as are the definitions of atheism, god and theism), if you apply it to other usages of 'helium' you get nonsense claims.

Atheism is simply not being convinced regarding the truth claims of theism. It's very simple.

I'd like to invite anyone to "refute" that definition of atheism. I'd love to hear the arguments.

Just as you get nonsense claims when applying a definition of atheism in other contexts.

Aside from the religious context, what other context could there possibly be? I guess if one tries to apply a definition of ... veganism ... to ... NASCAR they should expect the results to be nonsense.

You asked me to enumerate the flaws in the definition of helium you gave , I did so by pointing out usages that it does not cover.

But you failed to point out any flaws inherent to that definition. You were obliged to redefine the word. Could you please point out the flaws of that definition?

This is the approach I am challenging in regard to atheism, people seem to think that if you can apply a given definition in another context where it does not make sense - they have somehow disproven the position it defined.

Again: Atheism = not being convinced regarding the truth claims made by theists. That's it.

What other context can we possibly be talking about? Is anyone trying to "debunk" atheism by claiming that it doesn't work when applied to grapefruit? To Easter Island? To those little rubber doohickeys that stop sliding doors from impacting against the frame of the door too hard?

Which is nonsense. That definitions do not apply in all circumstances and to all usages is not a flaw, it is not a logical failure - it is just how language works.

So "stop" doesn't always mean stop? Is that what you're saying?

Just like the excellent definition of helium you gave - it does not apply to all usages, or in all contexts. Just as definitions of atheism do not apply to all usages, or in all contexts.

Yes, but a definition isn't judged by it's universal applicability is it? Isn't a definition judged on it's own merits?

And it wan't my definition. I got hurried and forget to include a hyper link. Sorry. Here.

So what is the point of attacking such definitions?

If someone were to define atheism as a disbelief in Polar Ice Caps, I'd perhaps take issue with that definition.

Again, I guess the idea that one could apply atheism to any other context than the religious one is simply beyond me. Can you provide some examples of how people try to apply atheism in other contexts? Aside from the religious one, I mean.

 

[Bunyip]

OK. But I hope we'll both agree that that isn't what you initially asserted. You stated that all definitions are flawed.

Yes I did say that. And so explained that all definitions are similarly 'flawed', and that the fact that one definition does not apply in all contexts and usages is not really a flaw - it is just how language works.

Perhaps you meant to say that all definitions are incomplete?

No, I was responding to your terminology. But it is nevertheless correct, no definition is 'complete' or without 'flaws' as is being argued on this thread. All definitions are incomplete and flawed in the sense described.

Kind of like how Marcel Duchamp must have felt when he doodled a mustache on the Mona Lisa?

"All paintings are incomplete!"



How? Because it didn't include a few ephemeral, trademarked gizmos?

I said that it is because it does not apply universally. Several times.

Atheism is simply not being convinced regarding the truth claims of theism. It's very simple.

I'd like to invite anyone to "refute" that definition of atheism. I'd love to hear the arguments.

Sure, but lets finish this point first ok?

Aside from the religious context, what other context could there possibly be? I guess if one tries to apply a definition of ... veganism ... to ... NASCAR they should expect the results to be nonsense.



But you failed to point out any flaws inherent to that definition. You were obliged to redefine the word. Could you please point out the flaws of that definition?



Again: Atheism = not being convinced regarding the truth claims made by theists. That's it.

What other context can we possibly be talking about? Is anyone trying to "debunk" atheism by claiming that it doesn't work when applied to grapefruit? To Easter Island? To those little rubber doohickeys that stop sliding doors from impacting against the frame of the door too hard?



So "stop" doesn't always mean stop? Is that what you're saying?



Yes, but a definition isn't judged by it's universal applicability is it? Isn't a definition judged on it's own merits?

And it wan't my definition. I got hurried and forget to include a hyper link. Sorry. Here.



If someone were to define atheism as a disbelief in Polar Ice Caps, I'd perhaps take issue with that definition.

Again, I guess the idea that one could apply atheism to any other context than the religious one is simply beyond me. Can you provide some examples of how people try to apply atheism in other contexts? Aside from the religious one, I mean.

We appear to be writing in non-intersecting language. I never suggested applying atheism to any context other than religion.

 

[Norrin-6-]

I don't.

I made the point because it is not a flaw in the definitions of atheism being discussed either - all definitions are similarly 'flawed'. There is no such thing as a correct definition of atheism, theism, God, or now helium that covers all usages and contexts. Which is why all this arguing over which is the correct definition, along with people trying to refute each others definitions is an exercise in futility.

The definition of helium given was excellent, very good. But it does not apply universally to,all contexts and meanings of 'helium'. That is not a fault, it is just how language works.

Same with the definitions of atheism and God being proffered, most of them are excellent. But they do not apply universally to all contexts and meanings of 'atheism' or 'God'. This is not a fault, it is just how language works.

People arguing about which is the correct definition, and trying to 'refute', or 'disprove' definitions are labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works. There is no 'correct' definition for most terms that applies universally to all possible usages and contexts.

It doesn't cease to amaze me when people are so attached to the definitions they've ingrained in themselves that they fail to see that a particular word is given no context most of the time it is used. Knowledge of definitions for words like 'atheist' is primarily expedited through a sort of spaced repetition, and when the word is used in natural sentences all the meaning is lost (it only remains inside of our heads.) Atheism in particular is a really hard one to deal with when it comes to a head because in effect it is possible to just deprogram and reprogram, and neither of these definitions matter as much as the person is led to believe.