Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Koldo]

So you're saying there's no burden of proof on beliefs?

Yes, that's what I am saying. There's only a burden of proof once you want to convince someone.

 

[Valjean]

This is why people who play philosophy should be versed on logic! If there are no gods, then the universe has to be godless and explainable without gods. Very, VERY simply deduction.

And so it is. Scientists are researching the explanation as we speak.
As for gods, goddidit isn't an explanation, it's an assertion of agency. The question of mechanism remains -- with or without Gods.

I think that an important aspect of atheism is the absence of belief in the beings that are considered gods not just by our own selves but also in our own cultures.

The one definitive feature of atheism is absence of belief. Individual atheists may believe or not believe all sorts of other things, but this is the one thing all atheists have in common.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I might not be understanding this example and I might not be part of this demographic, but the things that stood in contrast to my belief:

Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance,

I have a stance. I don't believe the evidence for the existencr of god(s) as presented are compelling. So I do not believe in gods, until at which point evidence which is compelling to me crosses my table.

The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I do not believe the two stances are identical or mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic because I don't have certainty of knowledge (if it's even possible to have certainty if knowledge) about the existence of gods. But i do not believe in them because I don't see reason to. Hence agnostic atheist.

This in mind, what would your follow-up question be to me? In what way do you think I need to clarify further?

 

[1137]

Sorry.
I can no longer take you seriously.
You have basically admitted to being a bold faced liar.

Have a nice day.

And now an atheist has sunk so low as to call logical deduction lying. #atheistlogic

 

[1137]

"The probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low" is the claim that Dawkins made. You do not need to make this claim to be an atheist.

So now you can be an atheist without finding gods unlikely? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha that's side splitting!!!!

 

[Koldo]

The one definitive feature of atheism is absence of belief. Individual atheists may believe or not believe all sorts of other things, but this is one thing all atheists have in common.

But an absence of belief over what ? Gods ? What should we understand by this term ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If words get their meaning from usage, how can the most common definition of a word be 'obsolete'? That's absurd.

The "rejection of gods" definition only works when there's at most a small number (or pantheon that can be accepted or rejected as a unit) of to reject. The term "god" only stays coherent when we're only considering a small number of belief systems.

In a multicultural society that includes not only classical monotheists but also polytheists, pantheists, deists, cargo-cultists, sun-worshippers, etc. to a non-negligible degree, we end up with a definition of "god" that shifts around depending on which belief system we happen to be talking about at the time: for instance, a Christian or Muslim who believes in both God and the divine messenger Gabriel/Jibreel is still a monotheist despite the fact that there's no relevant difference between Gabriel and the divine messenger Mercury that manes one a god and the other not.

By acknowledging that the theists of all sorts of religions are indeed theists, we have ended up with a meaning for "god" that's incoherent when we try to come up with a definition that applies to all god-belief. And we can't just draw a wide circle that includes everything that anyone believes is a god, because we also have a large number of things that definitively *aren't* gods that we have to be careful not to include (e.g. angels).

The end result of all this is that the only way to define what "god" means is to do it with a list of gods: Yahweh, Apollo, and Thor are on the list; Gabriel, human kings, and Superman are not.

The "rejection" definition of atheism only really worked when there was a single predominant religion that could be rejected. It also helped when it was largely based in religious practice: a person either participates in a ritual or he doesn't. The "rejection" definition was only tenable as long as rejection of the predominant religion couldn't be associated to a significant degree with belief in some other god.

In the situation we have now, there are only two options that could allow the "rejection" definition to work:

- base it on rejection of some workably small set of gods, i.e. "you're an atheist as long as you reject primary god 'X'... as long as you don't accept any secondary gods." But how do you decide which god(s) are primary and which ones are secondary in a multicultural society?

- don't play favourites, and instead base atheism on rejection of every god. Since this is an impossible task, this this approach implies that no atheists exist in the real world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So now you can be an atheist without finding gods unlikely? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha that's side splitting!!!!

Yes. You can be an atheist without ever giving gods a single thought.

In my case, I've never assigned a numeric value to the likelihood of gods. Do you think I'm not an atheist?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So now you can be an atheist without finding gods unlikely? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha that's side splitting!!!!

I don't believe likeliness is a factor because how do you argue probability of supernatural claims, especially where the supernatural force/entity/thing is not well defined? To me making a probability argument is like an argument over how many angels you can fit on a pin. Worse, even, since angels have a better definition.
Calculating probability of natural events with defined parameters is one thing (though that can easily fall into the 'lies, damn lies and statistics' category too if you're not careful).
But, long story short, I don't find the existence of gods probable or improbable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't that mean that atheism is a label about word usage rather than a distinct view about what is believed to exist ?
According to your use, two people can believe that the same set of things exist, and yet, merely because they label them differently, one might be a theist while the other an atheist.

It can be. That's precisely the case for me with pantheism and sun-worship: I don't dispute that the universe or the Sun exist; I acknowledge that they exist but object to calling them gods.

I think that an important aspect of atheism is the absence of belief in the beings that are considered gods not just by our own selves but also in our own cultures.

There are a lot of people in my culture who say "God is love." I'm not going to argue that love doesn't exist.

There just isn't one "standard" way to disbelieve in god-claims. For some claims, it's going to be "I don't think that exists," but for others, it's going to be "I don't think that's a god."

 

[Koldo]

It can be. That's precisely the case for me with pantheism and sun-worship: I don't dispute that the universe or the Sun exist; I acknowledge that they exist but object to calling them gods.


There are a lot of people in my culture who say "God is love." I'm not going to argue that love doesn't exist.

There just isn't one "standard" way to disbelieve in god-claims. For some claims, it's going to be "I don't think that exists," but for others, it's going to be "I don't think that's a god."

I am inclined to label any theism that falls completely in line with naturalism as de facto atheism, but I am afraid hell might break loose for saying this.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, so here we are quibbling about definitions again. Obviously, there is no problem with the gumball or box metaphors. The problem is with the definition.

The battle always comes to the same two definitions. One side wants to say atheists believe no god exists the other side wants to say that atheists do not believe god exists.

People treat these as unequal. They are not in classical logic. Equivocations will abound, words will be twisted, and meanings stretched. In the end, everyone will say their piece, no one will be convinced, but hopefully we will be able to understand what the people mean when they apply the various definitions. And all of this over trying to shift the burden of proof. It is silly. I am an atheist, I believe no god exists. I act in my life according to this belief. However when I come across a person who defines atheism as a lack of a belief, I understand what they mean. I can communicate with them assuming their definition and I hope they can communicate with me assuming mine. If they can't, it's okay. I don't mind meeting them for discussion on their side. Not everyone's minds are flexible enough to accommodate more than one thought. If they are cognitively deficient in this regard I do not hold it against them. I may have in the past, but I no longer do.

 

[Augustus]

The "rejection of gods" definition only works when there's at most a small number (or pantheon that can be accepted or rejected as a unit) of to reject. The term "god" only stays coherent when we're only considering a small number of belief systems.

You are changing the topic to what you believe is the most logical definition. I've mentioned several times that I haven't posited a 'best' definition in this thread.

As you know, I personally believe the lack of belief definition is inane. But I won't convince you of this and you won't convince me otherwise so there is not much to be gained from rehashing it.

When a word has multiple definitions, any of them can be used legitimately.

This is what you said earlier and was the context of the discussion.

I agreed that language is use of language, words get meaning from usage and context.

You then said that the most common usage of the word was 'obsolete' which is logically absurd if language is simply use of language.

The end result of all this is that the only way to define what "god" means is to do it with a list of gods: Yahweh, Apollo, and Thor are on the list; Gabriel, human kings, and Superman are not.

Some human kings could be on that list, including my namesake

 

[McBell]

And now an atheist has sunk so low as to call logical deduction lying. #atheistlogic

Then present the post where the claim you claim has been claimed was claimed.

Can't do it.
Because you have admitted that the claim you claim was claimed was never actually claimed but is based solely on your making assumptions based on your jumping to conclusions then declaring that your assumptions are someone else's claim.

I have already asked you to explain how that does NOT make you a bold faced liar.

Still waiting for an honest anything from you....

 

[Valjean]

And now an atheist has sunk so low as to call logical deduction lying.

Show your work. I'm still waiting for a diagram of your reasoning.

So now you can be an atheist without finding gods unlikely? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha that's side splitting!!!!

But why not? What about someone raised in the depths of a rain forest; who's culture has no concept of Gods; who's never heard of a God? He has no idea of God, the concept never occurred to him, so surely he hasn't given the question of likelihood any thought.

But an absence of belief over what ? Gods ? What should we understand by this term ?

Yes, God/s, and yes, the concept's fuzzy, as the mostly penguin pointed out.

 

[1137]

Then present the post where the claim you claim has been claimed was claimed.

Can't do it.
Because you have admitted that the claim you claim was claimed was never actually claimed but is based solely on your making assumptions based on your jumping to conclusions then declaring that your assumptions are someone else's claim.

I have already asked you to explain how that does NOT make you a bold faced liar.

Still waiting for an honest anything from you....

Because that's not at all what happened. I've made a logical deduction , not just "some assumption." I think I have to repeat these simple facts more here than teaching in a preschool.

 

[Falvlun]

Because I have often had the displeasure of people saying that scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution as if their confidence in the theory carries no more weight that a belief. There is a huge difference.

Your displeasure notwithstanding, it is still a belief. Belief covers a wide range of concepts, confidences, and justifications. It spans from blind faith to knowledge.

By all means, clarify when required. But remember, you can't just say a belief isn't a belief just because you don't like its bedfellows.

And I caveated my statement with the idea of "god" as a "being". As has been noted, "god" has been defined as "love" or as "nature" (such as Spinoza's God).

But again, give me a clear set of properties you would consider necessary to claim that a being is "god" and we can discuss it. This is what I mean by not 100% -- there's always the possibility that you could come up with a viable set of properties for such a being.

I don't need to provide you with a set of properties. After all, you're the strongest atheist around. You already have a set of properties for gods who are beings. Your beliefs are not dependent upon my concepts. How YOU define god is primarily what matters.

Personally, I would keep in mind that you need not accept every claim of godhood you come across. Just because someone calls a circle a square doesn't make it one.

Edit:
I forgot the best part about beliefs: they can change. So say you do come across some god concept in the future that speaks to your soul, or maybe God Almighty comes down from on high and says "Hello, humans!", you can adjust your beliefs accordingly.

 

[Willamena]

Because I have often had the displeasure of people saying that scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution as if their confidence in the theory carries no more weight that a belief. There is a huge difference.

No more weight than a belief is no more weight than the appearance of truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Once an atheist admits their belief they have to defend their position, rather than simply hide behind non belief.

I admit all my beliefs. I have no idea why you think I wouldn't. What do I stand to gain by believing in an idea and concealing it? You seem to see us as all having character defects for being atheists. Is that correct? Can an atheist be an honest or a good person according to your religious beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no strong or weak version of atheism. Atheism is a positive belief system and has been so defined by the supreme court.

Why would I care what the American Supreme Court thinks? What if they called a corporation a person or a black man 3/5ths human? Do you understand what that court is and does? That opinion's relevance is limited only to how the American government may treat atheists and atheism. Americans are 5% of the world, and their government has been only a fraction of their lives.

What does the Israeli Knesset have to say about the matter? Or the Danes or Armenians.

Incidentally, atheism doesn't rise to the level of a single belief, let alone a belief system.