How do you define "Athesim"?

[Warren Clark]

Its not that vague, and wind isn't honestly much more precise. Wind is apart of air.

But regardless, the expression stands, regardless of its vagueness. And I say that because I know by your reaction, that you understood what I meant.

Well its the wind that moves particles in the atmosphere we breath. All we see is a reaction to an action. Just because we don't know what caused the reaction, it doesn't give the green light to presume supernatural involvement.

And what if I said "God" were a circumstantial being, what if I said I was "God" or that right now, "God" was speaking to you, through me?

Well it would be completely based on my believing you. There is no evidence for it. Thus it would be circumstantial for such claims to be made without evidence.
So its just convenient to blame it on God and not take responsibility for the actions.

But what does real time or "reality" have to do with the right things happening at the right time?

A person surviving an accident and then saying the cause of their survival is God is so cliche and overused when it comes to atheist's trying to make a debate out of "God(s)" nonexistence.

I don't need miracles to debate the existance of God.
I will however say when "miracles" are brought up that the credit belongs to science and physics, not god.

Realistically the matter isn't about what happened and didn't happen, but what the individual did after it happened. If they didn't believe in God and after a car wreck they believe in God doesn't that tell you a little something about the psychology of the matter?

Same being said about a person that loses a loved one, therefore losing faith in whatever God they believed would save them feeling certain emotions.

That is where experience comes to play with the emotional strength of the person.
Those that can accept the truth don't make up fairy tales.
We tell our kids we will see grandpa in heaven so that they don't go to bed scared and upset.
And then we have adults that need the same comforting.
Its nothing to be ashamed of.

If there is no room for God to be inserted, then how come we have discussion and topic about it? Realistically speaking, there is room for anything.



This isn't part of the OP, but for the sake of debate I'm just going respond...

What if the viable explanation or reason was us? Not to put us on a pedestal or anything...

But if you look at the universe, you will see certain parts that have a higher concentration of a certain material, and you will see other parts that lack the essential building blocks of life.

Believing in a God is subject for the most part to desire and emotion. Once we push these aside "like a man" then its easier to narrow down the sincerity of the belief.

Some people like to learn and study all there is, some just need the notion of a "fatherly" figure beyond our "biological" fathers, some don't care, and others need the energy so they can try and overcome it. The human and its psychology is very vast and fascinating, especially when applying and trying to learn the psychology of the matter when talking about the metaphysical realm.

This is where I agree with you and most satanists. We are the ultimate reason for believing in God in the first place.
The reason I am an atheist is because I see science behind everything. And psychology is a science that goes hand in hand with biology and the theory of evolution.

We evolved from a primitive being that was no more conscious than a deer to its surroundings. We weren't always developed to think cognitively and so deeply. But then we evolved. Our over developed brains came with a price.

We experience emotions and cognitive dissonance.
A normal animal cannot experience cognitive dissonance.
Its a very scary thing. Its what makes lying and trickery possibly intentional.

Say you have a yellow ice cream cone. I not only tell you that the ice cream is hot but it is blue.
You will experience cognitive dissonance and disagree with me.
The only way you can remove one thought to allow the other is if you had reason to.

This is what brings us to this forum.
We all have our own beliefs and disbelief.
Its the fact that there are so many different beliefs that we come to question our own and others.
Its a curious thing.
But when you look at it in terms of evolution.
Our conjuring of Gods is what keeps most of us alive.

Read Dr. Victor E Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning for reference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Can't a person be atheist in regard to another's concept of "god" and theist as it relates to god(s)? Everything is, after all, relative.

Sure. But Copernicus' definition said otherwise. It said that an atheist is a person who rejects belief in one or more gods. By that definition, most all Christians are atheists. They reject all gods but their own.

Here's my major point: I don't think we can define 'atheists' by their thought. They're just like Christians or anyone else who is labelled according to their thought. If we are theologically involved, we might claim that one can only be a Christian if he believes that Jesus physically rose from the grave. But our Christian brother might argue that being a Christian requires much more than that. We can't be a Christian unless we accept the doctrine of the trinity, for example.

Me, I'm not theologically involved in Christianity. I don't care about it. So I define a Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian in what seems to me a sincere way. That's a Christian.

Same with atheists. If someone claims to be an atheist and seems sincere to me, I consider him an atheist. Even if he believes in God. Actually I myself am an atheist who believes in God. Except I'm not really an atheist. It's just a word I'll someone take as a label and sometimes reject as a label, depending on the purpose of my current self-labelling.

Just my (perplexing) view of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can't a person be atheist in regard to another's concept of "god" and theist as it relates to god(s)? Everything is, after all, relative.

So every single person who's put any thought into the issue of "god" is an atheist?

I'll let you be the one to tell the fundamentalists that they're atheists.

 

[Willamena]

So every single person who's put any thought into the issue of "god" is an atheist?

*swoosh* How do you figure that? How do you figure that "putting any thought" into something equates to "rejecting" it?

You tell 'em.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*swoosh* How do you figure that? How do you figure that "putting any thought" into something equates to "rejecting" it?

You tell 'em.

IMO, just about anyone who's encountered at least a few god-concepts and thought about them has ended up rejecting at least some of them... even if only by "I accept god 'X' that's incompatible with god 'Y', so I reject god 'Y' without really considering it."

 

[Warren Clark]

Many atheists, particularly those who have way to much time on their hands, very much believe that they are different statements, and are very careful to only phrase their atheism in terms of the first definition: lack of belief.

It stems from people claiming you need faith to not believe. which is just moronic.

 

[Willamena]

Sure. But Copernicus' definition said otherwise.

Not really.

It said that an atheist is a person who rejects belief in one or more gods. By that definition, most all Christians are atheists. They reject all gods but their own.

As I said, it's relative. They can be atheist relative to someone else's concept of "god" and theist about god(s).

Here's my major point: I don't think we can define 'atheists' by their thought. They're just like Christians or anyone else who is labelled according to their thought. If we are theologically involved, we might claim that one can only be a Christian if he believes that Jesus physically rose from the grave. But our Christian brother might argue that being a Christian requires much more than that. We can't be a Christian unless we accept the doctrine of the trinity, for example.

Me, I'm not theologically involved in Christianity. I don't care about it. So I define a Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian in what seems to me a sincere way. That's a Christian.

Same with atheists. If someone claims to be an atheist and seems sincere to me, I consider him an atheist. Even if he believes in God.

Yay--thank you.

Actually I myself am an atheist who believes in God. Except I'm not really an atheist. It's just a word I'll someone take as a label and sometimes reject as a label, depending on the purpose of my current self-labelling.

Just my (perplexing) view of it.

A fellow Just Me.

 

[Willamena]

IMO, just about anyone who's encountered at least a few god-concepts and thought about them has ended up rejecting at least some of them... even if only by "I accept god 'X' that's incompatible with god 'Y', so I reject god 'Y' without really considering it."

So "putting some thought" into it doesn't equate to "rejecting" it. My swoosh is justified.

 

[idav]

IMO, just about anyone who's encountered at least a few god-concepts and thought about them has ended up rejecting at least some of them... even if only by "I accept god 'X' that's incompatible with god 'Y', so I reject god 'Y' without really considering it."

Sometime it is a matter of choosing which book god actually wrote. God obviously wrote the bible and not other books cause my grandma said so.

 

[Falvlun]

When I say that I have a perfect pitching record in Major League Baseball, I know full well that this creates an impression that I'm good at baseball (which I'm not - I stink at it) even though my statement was entirely accurate.

I don't think that statement is either honest or accurate. It's not even "technically" correct.

 

[Falvlun]

But the set of "things I consider god" also, by default, includes the general idea (concept) of god composed of (the most shiney) bits and pieces of all the things in the first set strung together. Rejecting that concept, then, is enough to cover rejecting all those things.

Well said, and concise to boot! Thanks. :yes:

 

[Falvlun]

I've heard the notion that it takes more faith in belief that there is no god.

I don't "believe" there isn't a god. There not being a god isn't a figment of my imagination. I don't think there is NO GOD or any possibility.
I just lack the sufficient evidence. I lack the belief. There is no belief.
I can't NOT believe something that I don't have evidence to think of one way or the other.

Birds have feathers. But if I have never seen a bird, I wouldn't be able to say whether it is true or not or even if birds truly exist. But I wont say I believe they don't exist. Because there is no proof one way or the other.

According to your definition you can't have any beliefs, really, because nothing is 100% sure. Gods aren't the only things that lack sufficient evidence to be 100% certain about. Do you merely lack a belief in evolution? Hate to break it to you, be even science doesn't claim that evolution, or any of its theories, are 100% certain.
EDIT:
Also, and this seems to be something that people have a hard time remembering, you don't need to be 100% certain about something to develop a belief about it.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually I myself am an atheist who believes in God. Except I'm not really an atheist. It's just a word I'll someone take as a label and sometimes reject as a label, depending on the purpose of my current self-labelling.

Just my (perplexing) view of it.

Haha. Aptly named, you are.

 

[Falvlun]

Sure. But Copernicus' definition said otherwise. It said that an atheist is a person who rejects belief in one or more gods. By that definition, most all Christians are atheists. They reject all gods but their own.

Just a minor quibble: He said that atheism is a rejection of one or more gods. I'm inclined to believe that statement. Rejecting belief in god(s) is what atheism is.

In normal modern-day speech, the label atheist is usually reserved only for those who have rejected the general concept of gods and/or all the god concepts they have encountered. But historically, people who didn't believe in the god or gods of the culture in which they found themselves were labeled as atheists, regardless of other god concepts they may believe.

 

[Copernicus]

Sure. But Copernicus' definition said otherwise. It said that an atheist is a person who rejects belief in one or more gods. By that definition, most all Christians are atheists. They reject all gods but their own.

Then you are reading my words too narrowly, and not my intent. I didn't mean to give you an ambiguous definition, AmbiguousGuy, so let me revise it to more accurately reflect what I meant:

An atheist is a person who rejects belief in any and all gods, as we usually understand the word "god".

By my definition, Christians are not atheists, because there is some conventionally understood "god" that they believe in. Theists are not people who believe in every conceivable god. They believe in some specific god or gods. They are not atheists just because they reject belief in some particular god. If that were the case, then every theist would actually be an atheist, which is nonsensical.

Here's my major point: I don't think we can define 'atheists' by their thought. They're just like Christians or anyone else who is labelled according to their thought. If we are theologically involved, we might claim that one can only be a Christian if he believes that Jesus physically rose from the grave. But our Christian brother might argue that being a Christian requires much more than that. We can't be a Christian unless we accept the doctrine of the trinity, for example.

The problem with your approach to definitions is that words can mean anything individual speakers of a language choose them to mean. That would make it easy on dictionary makers, since they could give every word in English the same definition--"whatever a speaker wants it to mean". However, there would be no need to buy dictionaries, in that case. We buy dictionaries in order to look up definitions of how people conventionally use words, and there are conventional meanings for words like "atheist" and "god".

Me, I'm not theologically involved in Christianity. I don't care about it. So I define a Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian in what seems to me a sincere way. That's a Christian.

But that isn't necessarily what the word "Christian" means in English. It means what people usually think it means. The question that a lexicographer attempts to answer is "What do people usually mean by the word Christian?"

Same with atheists. If someone claims to be an atheist and seems sincere to me, I consider him an atheist. Even if he believes in God. Actually I myself am an atheist who believes in God. Except I'm not really an atheist. It's just a word I'll someone take as a label and sometimes reject as a label, depending on the purpose of my current self-labelling.

If someone claims to be an atheist and seems sincere, but really isn't, then that person is not an atheist. If someone sincerely claims to be an atheist, but doesn't understand what the word means and believes in a god, then that person is not an atheist. (And please note that you earlier said we couldn't define atheists by their "thought", but you do just the same thing by appealing to the "sincerity" of people calling themselves Christian.)

We can always choose to give words any meaning we want. It's just that you can't have a conversation in any language if you make no attempt to use words with the same meanings. A conversation would become nothing more than a collection of soliloquies under that circumstance.

 

[idav]

So "putting some thought" into it doesn't equate to "rejecting" it. My swoosh is justified.

What if they choose not to invest faith into a particular concept even if they believe multiple god scenarios are actually plausible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that statement is either honest or accurate. It's not even "technically" correct.

My professional record so far is zero earned runs. There isn't a pitcher who's ever played professionally who can match that.

I'm sure that if I ever did pitch in the major leagues, I would be quickly whupped badly, but nobody's offering me a major leage pitching spot so far, so my perfect record is likely to stand for the foreseeable future.

 

[Willamena]

What if they choose not to invest faith into a particular concept even if they believe multiple god scenarios are actually plausible.

Assuming you mean belief and not "faith," I would say that they don't know what "plausible" means.

 

[idav]

Assuming you mean belief and not "faith," I would say that they don't know what "plausible" means.

My point is that atheists don't have necessarily reject the belief. Even if is possible that it were true doesn't mean someone has to invest belief in it. The belief requiring an affirmative where as an atheist doesn't even have to decide let alone reject belief of some theists.

 

[Copernicus]

My professional record so far is zero earned runs. There isn't a pitcher who's ever played professionally who can match that.

I'm sure that if I ever did pitch in the major leagues, I would be quickly whupped badly, but nobody's offering me a major leage pitching spot so far, so my perfect record is likely to stand for the foreseeable future.

There is a technical reason why your argument about "accuracy" is misleading. A more accurate statement would be that you have no professional record at all, so assigning a value to it implies that you have one.

Over the past 50 years, Philosophers and linguists have worked out the rules that govern speech acts. Much of it started with the celebrated philosopher H Paul Grice, who recognized 4 maxims governing all conversation. Your scenario violates his first "Maxim of Quantity." That is, you said something that was "more informative than is required":

Maxim of Quantity: Information

• Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
• Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxim of Quality: Truth

• Do not say what you believe to be false.
• Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of Relation: Relevance

• Be relevant.

Maxim of Manner: Clarity (“be perspicuous&#8221

• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity.
• Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
• Be orderly.[35]