Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

I haven't made any argument, as I said I am only defining and exploring relatability without personal bias.

I know you haven't (here, anyway) but I've seen the argument from contingency (to a 'necessary entity') presented many times before, and, as I said, it doesn't stand up regardless.

My point being that you seem to be connecting the necessity, or otherwise, of reality to atheism, and I see no connection.

 

[GoodAttention]

The only way I ever heard anyone use the word "antitheist" was to describe someone who is opposed to god (well, opposed to a hypothetical (in most cases, the biblical) god, if he existed). Not theists.

Wouldn't the correct term be antideist not antitheist?

I read antitheist like i would read antifascist, which is against the belief system specifically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only way I ever heard anyone use the word "antitheist" was to describe someone who is opposed to god (well, opposed to a hypothetical (in most cases, the biblical) god, if he existed). Not theists.

Yes, antithiests will be atheists. Atheism is the "Big tent". Do you not understand that concept? Would you be right or wrong if you called a Muslim a Christian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't the correct term be antideist not antitheist?

I read antitheist like i would read antifascist, which is against the belief system specifically.

Deists are another group according to some. To others they are a subset of theism. Deists believe in a "god" but that god is a nonpersonal god that just started everything and let it run on its own from there. Their god is neither moral or immoral. It is an amoral god. A god that is without morals. That does not make it good or bad, it just is.

 

[vijeno]

Yes, antithiests will be atheists. Atheism is the "Big tent". Do you not understand that concept? Would you be right or wrong if you called a Muslim a Christian?

For clarification: I mean emotionally or morally opposed - as in "god is evil". Obviously, they're a subclass of atheists.

I read antitheist like i would read antifascist, which is against the belief system specifically.

I agree - but I guess language isn't always completely logical and precise. If everybody uses a term a certain way, then I generally accept that, even if I think it's not quite correct. It's a matter of choosing one's battles.

 

[GoodAttention]

I know you haven't (here, anyway) but I've seen the argument from contingency (to a 'necessary entity') presented many times before, and, as I said, it doesn't stand up regardless.

My point being that you seem to be connecting the necessity, or otherwise, of reality to atheism, and I see no connection.

Yes, because I believe before God can be considered, the question of the necessity of reality needs to be asked.

To me, a theists believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as knowable.
Therefore I believe an atheist should be defined as a person who believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as unknowable.

The difference between a theist and atheist shouldn't be if God exists, it should be if God is knowable or unknowable.

 

[ChristineM]

@GoodAttention ... A case in point.

A case of what, facts hurting?

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, because I believe before God can be considered, the question of the necessity of reality needs to be asked.

Why?

To me, a theists believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as knowable.

Not sure you'll manage to get all theists to sign up to that.

Therefore I believe an atheist should be defined as a person who believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as unknowable.

And I should care about this arbitrary, personal view because........?

The difference between a theist and atheist shouldn't be if God exists, it should be if God is knowable or unknowable.

That's just a bit silly. Sorry.

 

[GoodAttention]

I think necessary has to meaings, one philosophical and another psychological. Which one are you talking about?

I actually meant the physical nature of reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, because I believe before God can be considered, the question of the necessity of reality needs to be asked.

To me, a theists believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as knowable.
Therefore I believe an atheist should be defined as a person who believes in the necessity of reality AND an answer XYZ/God as unknowable.

The difference between a theist and atheist shouldn't be if God exists, it should be if God is knowable or unknowable.

That is gnostic versus agnostic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I actually meant the physical nature of reality.

Yeah, depending on belief system that is know/unknown or true/false if you like.

 

[GoodAttention]

Why?

Since there are those who would deny reality is necessary.

Not sure you'll manage to get all theists to sign up to that.

There are no absolutes?

And I should care about this arbitrary, personal view because........?

You shouldn't. I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did discussing this, well done.

That's just a bit silly. Sorry.

Don't be.

 

[GoodAttention]

That is gnostic versus agnostic.

That would be for a theist to determine, and I don't believe they would come to that conclusion.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes, antithiests will be atheists. Atheism is the "Big tent". Do you not understand that concept? Would you be right or wrong if you called a Muslim a Christian?

What is the difference between an antitheist and an atheist?

 

[PureX]

Objective reality is the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

Well, no. Our senses send impulses to our brain that have been set in motion by external phenomena. Our brains then try to "make sense" of these impulses by comparing and contrasting them with each other, and with remembered impulse experiences. And over time our brains create a whole imaginary landscape through which to"understand" them, and successfully interact with them.

What you are calling knowledge is really just being able to predict the results of this interaction. This is a form of understanding, surely, but we would be dishonest to mistake it for true knowledge.

So unbelief in reality would seem a rather unexamined view

Actually, it's just the opposite. It's our belief that the reality we create in our minds IS that external reality that gets us in trouble. Because it's just not so. And the more tightly we hold onto that belief the more resistant we become to accepting new and contradicting information. And the more unable we are to learn.

 

[Pogo]

I would argue that the question of God isn't reached if you don't believe reality is necessary.

Another country to hear from.
No, reality is not necessary, we could be Boltzmann brains or brains in a vat and nothing about what we think reality is would be necessary to our beliefs.

 

[ratiocinator]

Since there are those who would deny reality is necessary.

And plenty of us who simply don't know one way or the other.

There are no absolutes?

Without the question mark, this would have made sense. As it is, not sure what the question has to do with what you quoted.

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did discussing this, well done.

Bit of light banter is a change from my long and careful replies to @PureX (that he's totally ignored, of course).

 

[Pogo]

Well at least one atheist disagrees with you:

Quote from the site of American Atheists:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
..."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

What an atheist thinks atheist means, is decided by that atheist.

Yes and I already explained that the statement by one group does not a definition for all make.
In this case while many here are atheists, we don't qualify as "American Atheists" so drop that silly little thought Lero, I mean Mikkel.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, depending on belief system that is know/unknown or true/false if you like.

Yes, I like to see the outcomes this way.

 

[PureX]

And plenty of us who simply don't know one way or the other.


Without the question mark, this would have made sense. As it is, not sure what the question has to do with what you quoted.


Bit of light banter is a change from my long and careful replies to @PureX (that he's totally ignored, of course).

I'm on an iPad. It limits my responses.