Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Falvlun]

When we're trying to decide whether a person is a theist or an atheist, we use their own understanding of "god" to determine whether someone is a theist or an atheist. This is how a pantheist who considers the universe to be God can be a theist, while an atheist who also believes the universe exists but doesn't consider it to be God can be an atheist.

That's precisely what I've been saying.

My concept of god does not matter if we are discussing whether you believe god exists or not.

You don't need a concept of god to recognize that none of your beliefs are anything you'd call a god.

Logic broken, does not compute.

"Anything you'd call a god" is the same thing as your "concept of god".

If "god" is meaningless to you, of course you aren't applying the term to things.

Sure, you aren't. But you also can't claim you don't have a belief in gods.

Do you believe that zekon exists?

Meaningless term. You don't know. You can't know. You don't know whether you believe that zekon exists or not.

What if zekon is bread? In that case, you do believe that zekon exists. You just didn't know it (your belief).

I also question the assertion that "god" is a meaningless term. Zekon is meaningless. God has multiple meanings, and is difficult to precisely pin down. But it is not meaningless.

 

[Thumper]

the problem is that your argument hinges upon you denying normal senses of the word "belief".

Using a different word is exactly what you want. Just because you refuse perfectly valid and common uses of a word should not force me to concede that the word shouldn't be used, or aquiesce to using only the words you approve of.

To be clear, you can say "I have confidence in the truth of evolution" rather than "I believe in evolution." But if someone then comes and says "well, confidence in the truth of something is exactly what belief is", you cannot deny that it is so.

That would be true. UNTIL someone comes along and argues that biological evolution is just a belief and therefore no different than creationism.

Emotional satisfaction is the criteria by which you define gods?
I guess I expected something a little more logic-y.
I also don't think this quote addressss my criticism: Namely, if you have no concept of god, how do you know you don't believe in one?
Or, more specifically, belief regarding the existence of gods, and the propensity for the modern atheist to postpone belief because of the possibility of future information.

Are you suggesting that someone should believe in something which hasn't been defined? Now that's silly.

 

[Thumper]

Firstly, no that is not what it would take. Atheism is a belief system. And while knowledge is a particular type of belief it is not required for atheism, or what many posters here refer to as "strong atheism."

I say the proposition "god does not exist" is true.

But I can cite you a valid reference that says my definition is true. And I dare say I can find others that say something else.

And that's the problem. "Strong/weak" are too vaguely defined.

Terminology matters.

 

[Willamena]

Complement, not negation.

No, I meant negation.

And none of this means that a noun has a subject.

Good.

Object, not subject. In the phrase "I believe in God", the subject is "I" and the object is "God".

In the phrase, "Belief in God," God is the subject.

 

[Falvlun]

So, if that requires belief, then I believe in basically everything. Everybody will believe in basically everything.

You believe that everything is true?

Belief refers to "something that is accepted to be true." That shouldn't encompass "everything".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's precisely what I've been saying.

My concept of god does not matter if we are discussing whether you believe god exists or not.

But this leads to the "lack of belief" definition that you reject.

Logic broken, does not compute.

"Anything you'd call a god" is the same thing as your "concept of god".

So if you call anything "god", you must have a coherent concept for what "god" means generally? Nonsense.

Sure, you aren't. But you also can't claim you don't have a belief in gods.

Of course you can. It's trivially true that you don't believe in anything you haven't even conceived.

Do you believe that zekon exists?

I wouldn't call anything that I believe in a zekon, so no.

Meaningless term. You don't know. You can't know. You don't know whether you believe that zekon exists or not.

What if zekon is bread? In that case, you do believe that zekon exists. You just didn't know it (your belief).

This only works if "zekon" has an objective definition, and isn't independent on what each person believes.

Applying this back to "god": based on your objective definition, if you have one, is the universe a god or not?

If "god" has an objective definition, then either:

- pantheists are mistaken atheists, or
- atheists are mistaken monotheists (and classical monotheists are mistaken polytheists).

Which is it?

I also question the assertion that "god" is a meaningless term. Zekon is meaningless. God has multiple meanings, and is difficult to precisely pin down. But it is not meaningless.

Great. What are those multiple meanings, then?

 

[Thumper]

People have been arguing over the definition of "strong" vs "weak" atheism since post #6 on page 1. These are obviously not good terms for clear communications.

The most this thread has been able to agree on (I think) is theists believe in at least 1 deity and atheist don't. Nothing more can be said about either one that clearly delineates individuals.

Isn't that enough?

Both are just general categories. Beyond that is countless grey area and each individual person has his/her own take. Let it go.

Maybe we should hear from a theists on what is meant by the term "god".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I meant negation.

I know. I was correcting you.

In the phrase, "Belief in God," God is the subject.

Object (grammar) - Wikipedia
Subject (grammar) - Wikipedia

 

[Thumper]

No, I meant negation.


Good.


In the phrase, "Belief in God," God is the subject.

Well, it is the subject of a preposition.

This is not a complete sentence with a noun-verb agreement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I say the proposition "god does not exist" is true.

Only the one god?

 

[Falvlun]

"Do god(s) exist?"

1. Yes they do I know they do. (Gnostic theist).
2. No they don't I know they don't. (Gnostic atheist).
3. Yes I believe so. (Theist).
4. No I don't believe so. (Weak atheist).
5. No I believe they don't. (Strong atheist).

Do you believe that gods exist?

1. Yes, I do.
2. No, I don't.
3. I don't know. (I neither believe that gods exist, nor believe that gods don't exist.)

The agnostic/gnostic designation is unnecessary at this level. That is a question about a person's belief regarding (specific) knowledge, not about their belief in the existence of gods. You can always add categories within the big 3. The "yes, I do's", for instance, would be separated into monotheists, deism, polytheism, pantheism, etc. But we don't need those labels right off the bat.

 

[Willamena]

I know. I was correcting you.

You are saying something other than what I am, then.

Object (grammar) - Wikipedia
Subject (grammar) - Wikipedia

I am aware, thanks. I even linked the latter earlier.

 

[Repox]

"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?

The basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is the Old Testament. Read the prophets and what they wrote about God, angels and various other supernatural phenomena. Science cannot explain those stories except to say the prophets lied or they were crazy. I have mentioned by dream experiences as supernatural phenomena. No, I am not crazy, deluded or senile. You don't have believe it. If you don't believe it, we can't have a discussion.

 

[Valjean]

People have been arguing over the definition of "strong" vs "weak" atheism since post #6 on page 1. These are obviously not good terms for clear communications.

They are well defined concepts that have been used practically forever. Theists imputing their own values don't change anything.

The basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is the Old Testament.

Wait -- I thought it was the Vedas?
Seriously, what is a supernatural phenomenon? If we can see or measure it it's not supernatural, is it? If not, it's mere folklore.

Read the prophets and what they wrote about God, angels and various other supernatural phenomena. Science cannot explain those stories except to say the prophets lied or they were crazy.

The OT is a tribal narrative of conquest and tyranny. It sanctions atrocities that make ISIS look like pikers. It's precepts are Bedouin authoritarianism.
Science generally ignores the stories. They're not the kind of thing science deals with. What science exists casts serious doubt on the whole narrative.

 

[Falvlun]

But this leads to the "lack of belief" definition that you reject.

I'm not connecting the dots on this one.

So if you call anything "god", you must have a coherent concept for what "god" means generally? Nonsense.

If you are calling something a god, then you must have an idea of what a god is. Likewise if you claim something isn't a god (love, the sun, Haile Salassie I, etc), you must have a concept of god in order to exclude those things.

Of course you can. It's trivially true that you don't believe in anything you haven't even conceived.

Beliefs can be unconcious (see bias, prejudice).

Beliefs can be unknown due to ignorance or lack of information. (See atheists who with-hold belief that gods don't exist due to the possibility of belief in a god they haven't heard of yet.)

Also, I don't think it can be argued that any of us have not conceived of gods. We are here, currently talking about them.

I wouldn't call anything that I believe in a zekon, so no.

This only works if "zekon" has an objective definition, and isn't independent on what each person believes.

Applying this back to "god": based on your objective definition, if you have one, is the universe a god or not?

If "god" has an objective definition, then either:

- pantheists are mistaken atheists, or
- atheists are mistaken monotheists (and classical monotheists are mistaken polytheists).

Which is it?

Are you saying words are meaningless if they do not have objective definitions? Are "love" and "person" similarly meaningless?

While there is a subjective component to "gods", there is an objective component as well. At the most rudimentary level, it's what allows us to distinguish "gods" from "pencils". You don't mistake a pencil for a god. Why not? How is that possible unless you have some concept of what a god entails?

I would not consider the universe to be "god", just like I would not consider a fetus a "person". this doesn't not make the words meaningless; it just means there is some disagreement. Pantheists are theists regardless of my beliefs because they believe that the universe is god. They have a god belief.

Great. What are those multiple meanings, then?

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly atheists appear to forget every single god concept they have ever heard of.

 

[Repox]

They are well defined concepts that have been used practically forever. Theists imputing their own values don't change anything.
Wait -- I thought it was the Vedas?
Seriously, what is a supernatural phenomenon? If we can see or measure it it's not supernatural, is it? If not, it's mere folklore.
The OT is a tribal narrative of conquest and tyranny. It sanctions atrocities that make ISIS look like pikers. It's precepts are Bedouin authoritarianism.
Science generally ignores the stories. They're not the kind of thing science deals with. What science exists casts serious doubt on the whole narrative.

You a

They are well defined concepts that have been used practically forever. Theists imputing their own values don't change anything.
Wait -- I thought it was the Vedas?
Seriously, what is a supernatural phenomenon? If we can see or measure it it's not supernatural, is it? If not, it's mere folklore.
The OT is a tribal narrative of conquest and tyranny. It sanctions atrocities that make ISIS look like pikers. It's precepts are Bedouin authoritarianism.
Science generally ignores the stories. They're not the kind of thing science deals with. What science exists casts serious doubt on the whole narrative.

There are lot of people who reject the Bible, and there are many who accept it. There is no way to convince one of its merits, either you do or you don't like it. That is the way I see it.

There are questions science can't answer such as those about immortality and moral dilemmas. However, modern secular society has in one way or another addressed those concerns. It is a matter of individual choice.

 

[Valjean]

You a

There are lot of people who reject the Bible, and there are many who accept it. There is no way to convince one of its merits, either you do or you don't like it. That is the way I see it.

There are questions science can't answer such as those about immortality and moral dilemmas. However, modern secular society has in one way or another addressed those concerns. It is a matter of individual choice.

If it's merely an aesthetic choice, why such concern over it's implications?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Linguistic anarchy. I really don't think that everyone with their own personal definitions, with the need to constantly explain what they mean, is an effective means of communicating.

Hyperbole. I am resisting being pressured to use a particular word in a way that doesn't represent my thinking, and that becomes anarchy.

And if the constructive suggestion is ignored? Should we just roll on our backs and play dead? Would you?

Hyperbole again. What is rolling over and playing dead in the context of me telling you how I use a particular word and asking you to try and understand me when I do?

You don't need to cooperate or make the effort. It's not important to me that I reach everybody.

I think that because there are three distinct ways to answer the question "Do god(s) exist?", that three separate labels make more sense.

Fine. Those answers are covered by my preferred schema:

[1] Yes: Gnostic theist
[2] No: Gnostic atheist
[3] I don't know: Agnostic atheist and agnostic theist according to whether the unknower also believes or not. My method provides more information,since it answers that.

The very existence of this thread demonstrates issues your definition causes: misunderstanding, confusion, and push-back.

Disagree. Those would all be the doing of the reader.My definitions are crystal clear.

Understanding does not equate to acceptance.

Correct. I don't require acceptance. Nor do I really understand resistance. I'm not asking you to do anything but understand me. If doing that peacefully and cooperatively is not something you want to do, fine.

My understanding you does not necessarily indicate that you chose the most effective means of communication.

Disagree. You understanding me defines my optimal way to communicate.

Also, I really don't consider my non-acceptance of your definition an indication that I am forcing you to use a different one.

You can't force me to use words as you prefer.You can only try to force or pressure me.

You ask me why I pressure you to accept my definition, as you pressure me to accept your definition. I think a little introspection would answer your question.

Disagree again. I don't ask you to adopt my usage, just to understand it without all of this objection.

I get it that you reject my approach to communication. It works for me. Work with me here or don't. I still call myself an agnostic atheist, you still understand what that means, and if that's a problem for you, sorry.

 

[1137]

FYI: as was pointed out a few pages back, @1137 misunderstood the analogy. The box or the coins/marbles in it don't represent God, belief in God, or anything like that.

The point of the analogy is to present a scenario that's a real dichotomy - the number of coins in the box is either even or odd; no other possibilities exist. Despite this, our positions on whether the number of coins is even or odd is not a dichotomy: saying "I think you have no justification for saying that there's an even number of coins in the box" doesn't create any burden of proof to justify why you think there are an odd number of coins in the box.

Likewise, saying "you've given me no reason to believe in the god(s) you claim exist" doesn't create the obligation to argue for why you think they don't exist.

That's what the analogy is actually getting at, not that mess in the OP.

This is the perfect explanation, thank you! You even blatantly admit you're forcing a dichotomy by pretending agnosticism is not a choice, that you prefer that example because it forces this (false) dichotomy. Well said!

 

[Repox]

If it's merely an aesthetic choice, why such concern over it's implications?

I am answering questions about it from posters. I am not an authority, I just have opinions. I think it is an important topic because it digs up a lot about who we are, and why.