Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Context. That was in response to you saying "why shouldn't they be free to do so" in response to my hypothetical "what if someone defined "cats" as "limbless reptiles".

Your position seems to be as long as you can make someone understand you, it is acceptable to use whatever words or definitions you like. This would be linguistic anarchy, to apply such reasoning everywhere. This wasn't about your definition of "atheism" specifically; it was about this particular argument you used to justify it


Context, again. This was in response to you saying "Make a constructive suggestion and leave it at that." What should I do if my constructive suggestion is ignored?


So me disagreeing with you means I am not cooperating or making an effort?


As I mentioned to Artie, the whole gnostic/agnostic schema refers to a different question, and as such, isn't needed at the outset.

Also, where would me and Curious George go? We do not fall under 2 or 3. (We believe gods don't exist, we do not claim to know that god's don't exist.)


Of course. If someone understands, it's because you are an effective communicator. If someone doesn't understand, or disagrees, it's because the reader is uncooperative. Nice set-up you got there.


Hm. It seems to me that you want me to peacefully and cooperatively understand you. Else why include that last sentence? If understanding is all you want, then what does it matter that I don't think your definition rocks? I've already told you I understand it.


I could understand you if you spoke pig Latin, but that wouldn't make it an optimal method of communication. I suggest you rethink this one.


Aha! So mere understanding isn't enough, as I suspected.

You're repeating yourself. By responding to this again, I would be repeating myself.

Let's just agree that neither of us has much choice but to allow others the freedom to use language as they see fit, and we can make an effort to understand them or not.

 

[ArtieE]

...And the inevitable lumping together of 2&3

Let me ask you this, Artie. What makes #3, objectively speaking, atheist and not theist?

3 is not a theist. That's what the word atheist literally means.

3 has just as much in common with the theist as it does with your strong atheist. Could not the theists say "anyone who doesn't believe that gods don't exist is a weak theist"

A theist is the equivalent of a strong atheist. You're either a theist or not a theist. There's no dividing a theist into a strong and weak like there is with people who are not theists.

 

[Willamena]

Belief is a binary. One believes, or one does not.

Technically, it is truth that is a binary: something either is the case or it isn't. If it's the case, then you believe in it. But that allows for there being no case, nothing in which to believe.

 

[Thumper]

You're repeating yourself. By responding to this again, I would be repeating myself.

Let's just agree that neither of us has much choice but to allow others the freedom to use language as they see fit, and we can make an effort to understand them or not.

As an example, here's a statement (courtesy of George Carlin) of an anti-pornography dude. Kind of an anti-smut man. And words, what you select tell a lot about you...

"Our thrust is to prick holes in the stiff front erected by the smut dealers. We must keep mounting an offensive to penetrate any crack in his defenses, so we can to lay to rest his dominant position. We want him hung and we want fast action. Let's get on him. Let's ram through a stiff bail law so it will be hard for him to get it up. We've got to come together so we can whip this thing into submission. It'll be hard on us, but we can’t lick it by being soft!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can go around in circles on this one ArtieE. You and I view it differently. I understand what you are saying, I think you are incorrect. This does not logically follow. If you evaluate the proposition "god does not exist" as not true you are accepting it is false.

The proposition isn't "god does not exist;" it's "THIS god does not exist."

... and it's a separate proposition for every single god. Your belief about Poseidon does not necessarily have any bearing on your belief about a triune creator-god or vice versa.

 

[Thumper]

OK, show me then where this chart is wrong?

Never said it was wrong.

But you started out talking about weak and strong atheism and then presented a graphic with neither of those concepts in it and then told me there was a "standard chart".

So I was trying to point out that there can be no "standard", only personal opinion.

You seem to have this aching need to make atheism something more than it is, but atheism is not a belief, it is the opposite of belief.

An atheist doesn't say "There is no god", an atheist says "I'm am not the one who claims there is".

 

[ArtieE]

Never said it was wrong.

But you started out talking about weak and strong atheism and then presented a graphic with neither of those concepts in it and then told me there was a "standard chart".

From one of your posts in a different thread: "Does a theist just believe that gods exist, or do they claim to know and just call it "belief?" You must at least know the absolute basic stuff before going on to more advanced stuff like weak and strong atheism and the like. Therefore the chart.

You seem to have this aching need to make atheism something more than it is, but atheism is not a belief,

Weak atheism is not a belief, strong atheism is.

it is the opposite of belief.

Weak atheism is the absence of belief, strong atheism is the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

An atheist doesn't say "There is no god",

A strong atheist does.

 

[Curious George]

The proposition isn't "god does not exist;" it's "THIS god does not exist."

... and it's a separate proposition for every single god. Your belief about Poseidon does not necessarily have any bearing on your belief about a triune creator-god or vice versa.

Sure it can be a separate proposition for every god, but that is not about what I am talking.

 

[Curious George]

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be not true. They haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be true.

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be false.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be false.

Weak atheists haven't taken a stand on whether any of the propositions are true, not true or false!

Well looks like we went round and round on it.

 

[Curious George]

I must have missed something... here is a list of the things I need to believe to be a strong atheist. My "belief system".

Sure just for you.
1. Something exists is true
2. The term god can be defined is true
3. No god exists is is true
4. A god exists is false
5. Arguments that a god exist are incorrect.

There are five; we can unpack more if you like, I just don't see the point.

 

[Falvlun]

You're repeating yourself. By responding to this again, I would be repeating myself.

Let's just agree that neither of us has much choice but to allow others the freedom to use language as they see fit, and we can make an effort to understand them or not.

We have the choice to disagree with how other people use language as well. You are free to use whatever words you like; but that does not make you free from criticism.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure just for you.
1. Something exists is true
2. The term god can be defined is true
3. No god exists is is true
4. A god exists is false
5. Arguments that a god exist are incorrect.

There are five; we can unpack more if you like, I just don't see the point.

Me neither. I can't even see the point with these so we'll leave it there.

 

[Falvlun]

3 is not a theist. That's what the word atheist literally means.A theist is the equivalent of a strong atheist. You're either a theist or not a theist. There's no dividing a theist into a strong and weak like there is with people who are not theists.

To answer "why are weak atheists defined as atheists?" with "because weak atheists are defined as atheists" is tautological.

I wasn't asking for your definition; I was asking "why are you defining it that way."

Imagine you are an alien. You have never seen any definitions for theism or atheism. You are presented with our list:

1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I do not believe that gods exist AND I do not believe that gods don't exist.

Why would you lump 3 with 2 instead of with 1? What is the reasoning? 3 has just as much in common with 1 as it does 2-- namely, nothing. Heck, why would you lump any of them together at all? They are all mutually exclusive responses.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have found value in OT stories because it makes sense for God to establish His holy order on earth. If you don't believe the OT Lord is God, it doesn't work.

OT stories make sense for explaining how his chosen people disobeyed His commandments, and the consequences thereof. I think it is important because it reveals what God requires for a relationship with Him.

I require a reason to believe. Your god premise is an unshared one. No argument or claim that assumes it has any meaning for me. You needn't tell me anything that begins with "God is ..." or "God said ..." I will be forced by reason to disregard it until you show me credible evidence for this god.

What is your evidence for gods, and what is your evidence that the one you call "God" is the correct one?

 

[Curious George]

Me neither. I can't even see the point with these so we'll leave it there.

The point with these is that something follows or is required to make any logical statements. Some of these are assumed, some are deduced but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that atheism is only one belief or lack thereof. I understand this isn't the way that you prefer to view atheism. And I have no qualms in using your definitions when discussing the subject with you. I have in the past made known the reasons I disagree that your definitions are the best and how my definitions are better. We shouldn't get pulled on a tangent for your exceptions to may definitions. We will not sort it out anytime soon.

 

[Curious George]

To answer "why are weak atheists defined as atheists?" with "because weak atheists are defined as atheists" is tautological.

I wasn't asking for your definition; I was asking "why are you defining it that way."

Imagine you are an alien. You have never seen any definitions for theism or atheism. You are presented with our list:

1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I do not believe that gods exist AND I do not believe that gods don't exist.

Why would you lump 3 with 2 instead of with 1? What is the reasoning? 3 has just as much in common with 1 as it does 2-- namely, nothing. Heck, why would you lump any of them together at all? They are all mutually exclusive responses.

While I agree that it is arbitrary. The defining characteristic in others worldview hinges on theist or not a theist. And for this support of their reasoning they they point to the word atheist as equal to "not theist"

Imagine we had three mutually exclusive categories: X, Y, and Z. We could categorize these in a number of ways. If we categorized based on the X-ness of the items we could label them respectively: X, not-X(y) and not X (z). This is what the people are doing. As you point out, it would be equally possible to label based on the Y-ness or even the Z-ness. People prefer basing the definition on theism however because it has the most readily identifiable positive characteristic.

Not suggesting that I agree with it, but if you wanted an explanation...there it is.

 

[ArtieE]

To answer "why are weak atheists defined as atheists?"

Because they are not theists and the word atheist literally means not theist...

Imagine you are an alien. You have never seen any definitions for theism or atheism. You are presented with our list:

1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I do not believe that gods exist AND I do not believe that gods don't exist.

Why would you lump 3 with 2 instead of with 1? What is the reasoning?

1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I don't believe that gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I don't believe that gods exist and I don't believe that gods don't exist.

2 and 3 are together because they both don't believe gods exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A theist is the equivalent of a strong atheist. You're either a theist or not a theist.

Maybe to you, but not to others.

There's no dividing a theist into a strong and weak like there is with people who are not theists.

Actually, there is, and it's already been done. I do it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

1. I believe gods exist.
2. I don't believe gods exist.

1. I believe gods exist.
2. I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. (Fence sitter).
3. I believe gods don't exist.

Does your 'fence sitter' possess a belief in deities? Belief remains a binary. If you aren't sure, you still lack belief.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Technically, it is truth that is a binary: something either is the case or it isn't. If it's the case, then you believe in it. But that allows for there being no case, nothing in which to believe.

You do realize you just stated that is impossible to believe in a falsehood right?