Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is a funny red herring isn't it? Let us count the ways to 'not' believe something to distract from the insanity of the belief itself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is Religion see Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) and again in 2005 the Wisconsin Federal Court ruled Kaufman v. McCaughtrythat Atheism is Religion.

If atheism is not a religion in your opinion, even though it was ruled as such by a federal court of law then intelligent design as ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, case (2005) would also not be true.

American courts don't define reality. They define how a law or part of the US Constitution is to be understood and acted upon by the government. Atheism isn't a religion any more than theism is.

And court decisions are neither true nor false. Intelligent design isn't a pseudoscience because Judge Jones called it one. It's a pseudoscience because once one knows what pseudoscience and intelligent design are, it is apparent that it meets the criteria. Atheism meets none of the criteria for a religion. It has no beliefs or belief system, no rituals, no supernatural agents, no holy book or even a concept like holy or sacred, etc..

And even if it were a religion, so what? You admire religion. Did you want to be thought of like this:

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

 

[1137]

If you ever encounter a militant atheist, you will see what you do when you encounter a militant Christian or Muslim: Blood and bodies

.

You expend a lot of energy trying to malign and demean atheists. What are you so afraid of?

If you ever encounter a militant atheist, you will see what you do when you encounter a militant Christian or Muslim: Blood and bodies

.

You expend a lot of energy trying to malign and demean atheists. What are you so afraid of?

Well, people who are able to read will have seen I've said fundamentalist, pseudo, or religious atheist. Pseudo fits best. I don't have an issue with atheism or atheists, I have a problem with dishonest logic and philosophical games, and I hate Fideism and fundamentalism. I love and respect several atheists, and have been one myself so certainly don't find it stupid or ignorant. But this is exactly why we need to differentiate between an actual, philosophical atheist and these modern, trolling, reactionary beast which have arisen who also just happen to not believe in gods.

 

[Augustus]

Well, people who are able to read will have seen I've said fundamentalist, pseudo, or religious atheist. Pseudo fits best.

I'd go with evangelical as the best adjective.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, people who are able to read will have seen I've said fundamentalist, pseudo, or religious atheist. Pseudo fits best. I don't have an issue with atheism or atheists, I have a problem with dishonest logic and philosophical games, and I hate Fideism and fundamentalism. I love and respect several atheists, and have been one myself so certainly don't find it stupid or ignorant. But this is exactly why we need to differentiate between an actual, philosophical atheist and these modern, trolling, reactionary beast which have arisen who also just happen to not believe in gods.

I'm able to read, and I saw what you posted. It was "militant atheist," the most recent in a series of characterological attacks on atheists. Your sentiments are evident, and I've called you on it several times. You declined to defend your actions.

 

[Vaderecta]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Its not wrong is it? Atheist and theist believe different things. A mate that believes unicorns exist but has never seen one and another mate who believes that unicorns don't exist but has never seen one both have beliefs.

Some people have talked to and have known god and thus believe and they also have beliefs. Where does one draw the line?

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure we do have different definitions. When I say that agnostics believe that the existence of gods is unknowable, I don't mean to say that they think it's permanently unknowable.

So, not really unknowable. Agnostics are liars.

 

[Willamena]

Weak atheism is implicit atheism: it's the lack of belief in gods.

I don't believe that's the case. I think implicit atheism is actually implicit, and weak atheism is actually weak.

 

[Falvlun]

What frustrations? I don't need to be understood, although I do make effort to be. I tell others what the words I use mean. The other party needs to make a good faith effort to understand. Lacking that, there's really no basis for discussion anyway, is there?

"Cooperative principle - In social science generally and linguistics specifically, describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way."

Hm. Your post didn't seem particularly cooperative. It was more "my way or the highway."

You still seem to think it is entirely encumbant upon the listener to passively accept whatever word or definition you choose, as long as you explain yourself. If someone wanted to use the word "cat" to describe a "limbless reptile", they are free to do so. But even if they explain their word choice, I should think the listener could protest its practicality and communicative effectiveness.

I understand how you use the word "atheist". I just think it's a poor word choice to describe what you're describing.

 

[Falvlun]

Word definition always matters if I expect to have clear communications with someone.

Then why do you exclude valid uses of the word "belief"? As I said before, you can certainly clarify things further. What you cannot do is claim that it is not a belief. Because, as you say, word definitions matter. You cannot unilaterally change definitions because you don't like the associations.

No, I don't have a "set of properties for gods" - that's the point. I have never seen such a set.

I interpreted your statement ("I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist") to mean "I have found no being to exist that fits a cogent set of properties to be considered a god."

When I brought it up before, your cristicism was that you were only referring to gods that were beings. Not that you weren't referring to a set of properties for a god.

But no matter.

And again, word definition always matters if I expect to communicate in any meaningful way. If I don't understand your conception of "god" how can I talk to you about it. I certainly have no concept of such.

If you have no concept of God, then how do you know you don't believe in one?

After all, without any concept of god, god could be anything. God very well could just be love. And you do believe that love exists, right?

Now you're wanting to introduce the word "soul" without definition. You just make all kinds of assumptions.

Dude. Seriously. I was being facetious.

You refuse to believe that gods don't exist because at any moment, you may be given evidence of their existence. You might as well throw souls in the mix then too. What's the difference, eh?

However, more to the point of your statement. Verifiable evidence matters.

Beliefs matter too. They are how we make sense of a world in which we can know very little with absolute certainty.

 

[Repox]

Why?

Science is not in the business of pursuing supernatural phenomena.

 

[Blackdog22]

How can science confirm a revelation? Sorry, the idea is absurd.

I could have a revelation that there is a pig with an 8 under its belly in my backyard while in deep thought. To confirm I would just walk to my backyard to know whether I was just having the early signs of a brain tumor or whether I actually had a revelation. When dealing with things that have no basis in reality this becomes quite a bit more difficult though so I see your point....

 

[Curious George]

So, not really unknowable. Agnostics are liars.

That was an equivocation, albeit a funny one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What frustrations? I don't need to be understood, although I do make effort to be. I tell others what the words I use mean. The other party needs to make a good faith effort to understand. Lacking that, there's really no basis for discussion anyway, is there?

"Cooperative principle - In social science generally and linguistics specifically, describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way."

Hm. Your post didn't seem particularly cooperative. It was more "my way or the highway."

Maybe.

I'm saying that I do my best to express myself as clearly as I can, but that communication requires the cooperation of the listener/reader to make a good faith effort to understand the intent of the speaker/writer. It's possible for them to use the same word in different ways and still communicate effectively if each understands what the other means when using it.

Perhaps what you were sensing was my attitude that when we communicate, we each need to make the effort to understand one another, but was objecting to others trying to force me to use a word in the way that they prefer, intend to use the word my way when it's my turn to speak/write, and at that time, it's your turn to try to understand me.

You still seem to think it is entirely encumbant upon the listener to passively accept whatever word or definition you choose, as long as you explain yourself. If someone wanted to use the word "cat" to describe a "limbless reptile", they are free to do so.

Why shouldn't they be free to do so? Presumably, they have a reason for that and can explain it.If it seems irrational,that might not be the best person to have a conversation with.

But even if they explain their word choice, I should think the listener could protest its practicality and communicative effectiveness.

Yes, the listener could suggest alternative usage and the reasons. But why object? Make a constructive suggestion and leave it at that.

I understand how you use the word "atheist". I just think it's a poor word choice to describe what you're describing.

OK.

I disagree, however. I think it's a good definition of atheist, the best in fact. It includes everybody that does not have a god belief and excludes everybody who does. That's a group of people that I refer to at times. And I can subdivide that group with the use of the modifiers "gnostic" and "agnostic." That's the way I model such people in my mental map: believer or not, claims to know or not.

And it's not a private definition. It is widely used and becoming more widely used undoubtedly because that way of conceiving of believers and unbelievers appeals to them as well. It's been used by multiple posters on these threads.

You said earlier "my way or the highway." That's what we're resisting when we choose to not accede to pressure to use a word the way others prefer that we use it as you are doing now. You just told me that you understand what I mean by atheist, then criticized that usage anyway. If you understood me, then I communicated effectively.

If you can suggest a better way to use the word "atheist,"please do. But why try to pressure me into adopting it if I prefer not to?

 

[Thumper]

Then why do you exclude valid uses of the word "belief"? As I said before, you can certainly clarify things further. What you cannot do is claim that it is not a belief. Because, as you say, word definitions matter. You cannot unilaterally change definitions because you don't like the associations.

I am not trying to change the definition, just ensure we are using the word in the same way. But if we can't come to an agreement about how we use a particular word within our discussions, then it is better to find other words to express our meaning.

I interpreted your statement ("I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist") to mean "I have found no being to exist that fits a cogent set of properties to be considered a god."
When I brought it up before, your cristicism was that you were only referring to gods that were beings. Not that you weren't referring to a set of properties for a god.
But no matter.
If you have no concept of God, then how do you know you don't believe in one?
After all, without any concept of god, god could be anything. God very well could just be love. And you do believe that love exists, right?

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. ~ Carl Sagan

Dude. Seriously. I was being facetious.
You refuse to believe that gods don't exist because at any moment, you may be given evidence of their existence. You might as well throw souls in the mix then too. What's the difference, eh?
Beliefs matter too. They are how we make sense of a world in which we can know very little with absolute certainty.

Because we were talking about gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I don't have a "set of properties for gods" - that's the point. I have never seen such a set.

And again, word definition always matters if I expect to communicate in any meaningful way. If I don't understand your conception of "god" how can I talk to you about it. I certainly have no concept of such.

If you have no concept of God, then how do you know you don't believe in one?

"God" is a word like "religion." There seems to be a continuum of meanings for it, a condition called "polysemy." From Wiki (edited):

"Polysemy is the capacity for a word, phrase, or symbol to have multiple meanings, usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field."

I never know exactly what the other person means by "God," but if I can determine that they are referring to the god of the Christian Bible, then it's enough to know that they probably mean a conscious, superhuman agent that created the universe and is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, hates sin, sent a son to earth to be crucified to redeem mankind from sin, and will judge us after death.

But that's not what I mean when I say that I don't believe in any god or gods, and that should be clear from context. What I am not believing is that there is a conscious, superhuman universe builder and nothing more. It needn't be omnipotent, immaterial, or even still alive.

That's my basic set of properties for what it is an atheist doesn't believe in, but I assume that when I say that I don't believe in any gods, especially to a believer, something else is often understood - something closer to that person's concept of a god.

Still, I think we understand one another.

But if we begin looking at this closely, things begin to unravel. In the polytheistic religions like that of the ancient Greeks and the Vikings, "god" means something else, something I also don't believe in. Here's the Norse creation myth. Not all of these gods are universecreators:

"Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky ... The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths." http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html

These gods created the world, but apparently from a giant that was presumably in a different world that these gods might not have created. And what is the role of Bor, father of the three creator gods, but himself assigned no creative role? And what of gods like Thor that aren't included in the creation story.

I also don't believe in Thor, but he isn't included in my definition.

The point being that when we examine these issues very closely, lines blur, meanings aren't exact, and headaches and fatigue set in.

The word "religion" is also polysemous. It doesn't have a definition with clear borders, and if you interview 100 people, you'll probably get no two with the same definition, and I'm not including metaphorical usages like "He's turned football into his religion" - just literal ones. What definition of religion are people using when they say that atheism or evolutionary science are religions? How about those that say that they are not religious, just spiritual?

Who knows? Still, we understand them in the main.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science is not in the business of pursuing supernatural phenomena.

"Supernatural" is another problematic word. Just exactly what are we claiming exists or doesn't exist if we say that we believe or don't believe in the supernatural?

Frankly, I don't see how anything that exists can be anything but natural, that is,part of natural reality. If it turns out that there are realms, spaces, agents, and substance outside of our universe that are causally connected to it, that is, can affect our universe, then that's nature, too, and we have a more complete understanding of nature, that's all. If our universe is a bubble in a multiverse, and the multiverse is a substance in a space outside of our universe, isn't that as natural as our universe in it?

So I can't find a use for that word, and don't know exactly what the other guy means when he uses it.

Do you mind explaining what did you mean? What are supernatural phenomena? What precisely is science not in the business of pursuing?

 

[Thumper]

"God" is a word like "religion." There seems to be a continuum of meanings for it, a condition called "polysemy." From Wiki (edited):

"Polysemy is the capacity for a word, phrase, or symbol to have multiple meanings, usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field."

I never know exactly what the other person means by "God," but if I can determine that they are referring to the god of the Christian Bible, then it's enough to know that they probably mean a conscious, superhuman agent that created the universe and is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, immaterial, hates sin, sent a son to earth to be crucified to redeem mankind from sin, and will judge us after death.

But that's not what I mean when I say that I don't believe in any god or gods, and that should be clear from context. What I am not believing is that there is a conscious, superhuman universe builder and nothing more. It needn't be omnipotent, immaterial, or even still alive.

That's my basic set of properties for what it is an atheist doesn't believe in, but I assume that when I say that I don't believe in any gods, especially to a believer, something else is often understood - something closer to that person's concept of a god.

Still, I think we understand one another.

But if we begin looking at this closely, things begin to unravel. In the polytheistic religions like that of the ancient Greeks and the Vikings, "god" means something else, something I also don't believe in. Here's the Norse creation myth. Not all of these gods are universecreators:

"Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky ... The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths." http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html

These gods created the world, but apparently from a giant that was presumably in a different world that these gods might not have created. And what is the role of Bor, father of the three creator gods, but himself assigned no creative role? And what of gods like Thor that aren't included in the creation story.

I also don't believe in Thor, but he isn't included in my definition.

The point being that when we examine these issues very closely, lines blur, meanings aren't exact, and headaches and fatigue set in.

The word "religion" is also polysemous. It doesn't have a definition with clear borders, and if you interview 100 people, you'll probably get no two with the same definition, and I'm not including metaphorical usages like "He's turned football into his religion" - just literal ones. What definition of religion are people using when they say that atheism or evolutionary science are religions? How about those that say that they are not religious, just spiritual?

Who knows? Still, we understand them in the main.

I just get so tired of the theistic arguments about "strong atheism". It's a strawman argument that attempts to shift the responsibility for proof away from their god(s) belief.

I have come to think that theists actually process their worldview differently that atheists. Perhaps theists primarily use deductive reasoning, while atheists primarily use inductive reasoning? The arguments about "not belief" is a form of "belief" do tend to infer this dichotomy. As does any number of other impasses we encounter.

 

[ArtieE]

I just get so tired of the theistic arguments about "strong atheism". It's a strawman argument that attempts to shift the responsibility for proof away from their god(s) belief.

Nonsense. Nothing "theistic" about it. Some atheists are weak atheists which means they are simply not theists and without god beliefs, some atheists are strong atheists and actively believe gods don't exist just like theists actively believe their god(s) do exist. A weak atheist has no burden of proof a strong atheist does. That's just the way it is.

 

[Thumper]

Nonsense. Nothing "theistic" about it. Some atheists are weak atheists which means they are simply not theists and without god beliefs, some atheists are strong atheists and actively believe gods don't exist just like theists actively believe their god(s) do exist. A weak atheist has no burden of proof a strong atheist does. That's just the way it is.

Show me a "strong atheist".