Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

There is Atheism (philosophical) and then there is atheism (colloquial) and unfortunately it is too late to prevent atheism from being the nearly universally used meaning.
I try to establish at least the distinction in writing (capital/lower a).
The same goes for Agnosticism.

But disbelief is just disbelief, not atheism. As gaiety is just gaiety, not homosexuality. And no matter how many of us are in the habit of misusing these terms, and others, or how many dictionaries record the misuse, it's still a misuse of the term, and it's still based on an irrational bias. And we're still perpetuating it when we do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The things you tend to post, suggest otherwise.

No! Solipsism as you use it, is that the only thing that exists is the first person mind. I am not of that belief. Knowledge in regards to solipsism is that the only thing, which can be known, is that the first person mind exists. I am not of that belief.

That you don't understand methodological solipsism in the philosophical version and can't differentiate that from the 2 other versions of solipsism in philosophy, is your problem, not mine.

 

[ratiocinator]

But disbelief is just disbelief, not atheism.

Nonsense, atheism is a specific example of disbelief.

As gaiety is just gaiety, not homosexuality. And no matter how many of us are in the habit of misusing these terms, and others, or how many dictionaries record the misuse, it's still a misuse of the term, and it's still based on an irrational bias.

The word 'gay' now has a sense that means homosexual, in fact the original meaning is considered dated. Words have always changed meaning and new senses have been added. It's a denial of reality to pretend otherwise. The irrationality is all yours.

Perhaps you can give a date at which you want the meanings or words to stop changing, or is it just that you want everybody to accept your definitions?

 

[PureX]

It goes to why one's an atheist, no doubt, but doesn't alter that fact that one is.

Of course it does. If I claim to be an atheist just because I hate organized religion, then my claim is convoluted, because I'm really just an organized religion hater. I have not responded to the theist proposition at all. I reacted to organized religion. Atheism is a philosophical rejection of the theist proposition. Not a reaction to organized religion. (Or a state of "unbelief".)

 

[PureX]

So you went from gibberish to now defining atheism as being nothing"?

To define atheism as "unbelief" is to define is as nothing. And to defend it as such, anyway, is disingenuous.

 

[blü 2]

If I claim to be an atheist just because I hate organized religion, then my claim is convoluted, because I'm really just an organized religious hater.

If it's correct to say of someone in that situation that they don't think God exists then they're an atheist. If it's not true ─ if instead, for example, the correct translation of their words is no more than a vulgar injunction to certain churches or churchmen ─ then you're not.

Atheism is a philosophical rejection of the theist proposition. Not a reaction to organized religion.

Atheism is lack of belief in God / gods. The question can be debated philosophically, as you say, but philosophy doesn't have to be present for the speaker to be an atheist.

 

[Heyo]

But disbelief is just disbelief, not atheism. As gaiety is just gaiety, not homosexuality. And no matter how many of us are in the habit of misusing these terms, and others, or how many dictionaries record the misuse, it's still a misuse of the term, and it's still based on an irrational bias.

It's simply based in ignorance and it is not misuse if it is used in the correct context. (And we can debate whether we have a philosophical discussion or just small talk.)

And we're still perpetuating it when we do it.

I don't. I discern atheism and Atheism.

 

[night912]

Atheism is a philosophical position, not an "unbelief". As such it engenders reasoned justification, which "unbelief" is not.

First of all, that's irrelevant to the definition of atheism.

And second, no it's not. Before you start claiming something as being a "philosophical position," you must first know what "philosophical position" means. So before more disingenuous gibberish comes out of you, go read up on that. You need to do that in order to understand if something is qualified as being one or not.

To define atheism as nothing, means nothing, and is basically just gibberish. To then insist on it in the face of this criticism is worse than gibberish, it's disingenuous gibberish.

Now all you have to do is admit that that's what you have been doing this whole time. It's illogical for you to demand reason justification for a word that you have no definition for. That's not how philosophical logic works.

 

[night912]

To define atheism as "unbelief" is to define is as nothing. And to defend it as such, anyway, is disingenuous.

In that case, it's good to know that none of us in here except for you, is disingenuous.

You're the only one in here who defines atheism as "unbelief" and is defending it.

BTW,
The next time you want to accuse someone of being disingenuous, make sure that that person is not you, yourself. That way you won't end up embarrassing yourself like what you just did here.

I

 

[night912]

Of course it does. If I claim to be an atheist just because I hate organized religion, then my claim is convoluted, because I'm really just an organized religion hater. I have not responded to the theist proposition at all. I reacted to organized religion.

You getting a little closer. At least you understand that atheism doesn't address religion. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to the definition of atheism, I'm gonna have to give you a pure X, for strike one. You got two tries.

 

[MikeF]

Philosophically speaking, if the "gods" have no affect on humanity, their existence is irrelevant.

I try to avoid speaking philosophically as philosophy is only limited by our imagination. It gives us no insight into the actual world, only the thoughts rattling around inside the head of a particular philosopher.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I try to avoid speaking philosophically as philosophy is only limited by our imagination. It gives us no insight into the actual world, only the thoughts rattling around inside the head of a particular philosopher.

That you apparently believe in an actual world, is a philosophical position. Further if you believe the actual world is natural, supernatural or whatever that is also a philosophical position.

 

[MikeF]

Atheism is a philosophical position, not an "unbelief". As such it engenders reasoned justification, which "unbelief" is not. To define atheism as nothing, means nothing, and is basically just gibberish. To then insist on it in the face of this criticism is worse than gibberish, it's disingenuous gibberish.

What if one's non-belief in the supernatural or supernatural entities is not a philosophical position, but rather, a scientific conclusion? Is there a different word for that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What if one's non-belief in the supernatural or supernatural entities is not a philosophical position, but rather, a scientific conclusion? Is there a different word for that?

Well, science is a form of philosophy if you look closer.

 

[ecco]

Tell me. Whats the "unsubstantiated assertion" I made?

Really?

All you had to do was follow the trail backward to where I quoted your unsubstantiated assertion. That's how I found it again. It took all of ten seconds.

I quoted it in my post #102.

If you didn't know which of your unsubstantiated posts I was referring to, how could you respond that you "already did" provide substantiation?

In any case here it is below for you to find a creative way to again duck and dodge for all to see.

There are atheists who believe in some supernatural power. You can call it "higher power". By definition they cannot be atheists, but by identity they are.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Well, science is a form of philosophy if you look closer.

Um, no.

 

[firedragon]

Really?

All you had to do was follow the trail backward to where I quoted your unsubstantiated assertion. That's how I found it again. It took all of ten seconds.

I quoted it in my post #102.

If you didn't know which of your unsubstantiated posts I was referring to, how could you respond that you "already did" provide substantiation?

In any case here it is below for you to find a creative way to again duck and dodge for all to see.

​

Right. So whats the evidence I provided for that?

 

[Goddess Kit]

That you apparently believe in an actual world, is a philosophical position. Further if you believe the actual world is natural, supernatural or whatever that is also a philosophical position.

Philosophy deals with the questions. There is no question that what we perceive as reality is real, unless you're a conspiracy nutter (or in some cases, a theist).

 

[ecco]

Here are 2 usage of "existence". Which one is made up?
Definition of EXISTENCE
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To me "existence" is a meaningless as "god" are to some people.
I don't accept "existence" just as you don't accept "god".

"Which one is made up"? Why are you conflating a definition with a philosophical discussion?


Nevertheless, the dictionary definition you referenced is quite clear and accurate:

existence
noun


ex·is·tence | \ ig-ˈzi-stən(t)s \
Definition of existence


1a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence​

 

[ecco]

I don't accept "existence" just as you don't accept "god".

Not even close. But if you think you are, then you must know why I don't accept "god". Care to try to tell me why I don't accept "god"?