Shifting more towards atheism

[F1fan]

I don't think those limit me.

The evolution theory is mostly pseudoscience, modernized mother earth cult.

This illustrates the negative influence of evangelical Christianity on education. The anti-science rhetoric by creationists still has a negative influence on society and I think it immoral to indoctrinate children on this bad idea.

 

[F1fan]

Would you say the existence of powerful aliens is something that humans should or may need to factor into their decision making?

Only if they can be confirmed as using steroids in their body building routine.

Or would it require evidence that they do exist before we should ever give it any consideration?

Yeah, how about not worrying about speculation until there's evidence. Maybe they are actually a bunch of nerds, and weaklings.

 

[PureX]

For your definition to be taken seriously, it would need to reflect how the word "atheist" is generally used.

"General use" is very often not proper or logical use. You want to excuse this. I don't.

Theists with agendas are usually bad at coming up with a definition that passes this basic test.

Your bias in no one's "test" but your own.

 

[PureX]

And why would we? Your ridiculous presumption in supposing that you know what we think and believe better than we do ourselves is laughable, but not particularly edifying.

What? You think your posts are invisible? Anyone with eyes can see what you're thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"General use" is very often not proper or logical use. You want to excuse this. I don't.

The correctness of language is defined by usage.

That being said, you and the other people trying to redefine "atheist" to suit their own agendas aren't exactly rocking it in the logic department.

Your bias in no one's "test" but your own.

Here's my first test for any definition of "atheist": any definition that would violate either (or both) of these statements is wrong on its face:

1. Theists aren't atheists. Any definition is wrong if it implies that some theists are also atheists.

2. Atheists exist. Any definition is wrong if it implies that a person would need to do something to be an atheist that's beyond the ability of a human being.

If you think that either of these statements are wrong, please tell me which and why.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah, how about not worrying about speculation until there's evidence. Maybe they are actually a bunch of nerds, and weaklings.

Seems very irrational to wait for absolute proof before considering something a meaningful risk.

We already have evidence that other life forms may exist, we just don’t know if they do or what they might be like.

At some point (arguably now given we send messages into space in the hope of contacting alien life forms) we may be technologically advanced enough to travel or send messages across vast distances, considering there to be no risk attached to this unless we can prove the existence of other life forms doesn’t seem particularly rational to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

"General use" is very often not proper or logical use. You want to excuse this. I don't.

General use today, as previously cited, is more proper and correct than selective old definitions.

Your bias in no one's "test" but your own.

Likewise it is obvious that "Your bias in no one's "test" but your own."

 

[viole]

Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God but simply a lack of belief in God. Over the last few years, I've been shifting further to the idea without real physical evidence, then everything that occurs in our thought-space is just fabricated imaginary delusions. And the only thing that is truly real is what we experience in the presence of others. Nobody denies the existence of apples. When I hold an apple in my hand I say, "apple". It's right there. I can't do that with God. As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language. If people did not use the word God in sentences then God would cease to exist.

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

In terms of ex-Deus Machina, I believe we are all champions of our destiny. If we soil our own beds, nobody but ourselves is responsible, and available, to clean up our mess. We are fully responsible for every single aspect of our lives. Based on human experiments, there seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. God is always not intervening in the short term and always choosing his long term "plan", which as far as I can tell, is all just fantasy delusion only existing in our minds.

I've never been this far atheistic before in my life. Unless I have some earth shaking experience with psychedelic drugs, as far as I can tell, God is pure delusion having no basis in reality.

Atheism is to God, what a-fairism is to fairies. The rest is politically correct word salad, or an attempt to give some extra respect for claims that do not have otherwise no additional rational justification whatsoever, as compared to fairies and co., and they should therefore be treated according to the same intellectual standards.

Therefore some sensitive people prefer "agnosticism". So that theists do not feel to too hurt, and they can still have the additional hope that even rational people still keep a door open for whatever imaginary they believe in,

Fine, then I am also agnostic when it comes to claims that, say, all carrots in may garden have been eaten by invisible fairies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

The correctness of language is defined by usage.

No, it's not. If that were true, language would never have developed beyond grunts a squeals. Greater specificity occurred because we needed to convey more specific information. And that requires a logical universal way of generating and using language. We can't just make words up and claim their valid because we say so.

Claiming atheism is "unbelief" is completely irrelevant. And even if it were relevant, it would still be a lie. And no matter how many times you insist that it's legit because that's how you meant it, it's still going to be irrelevant, and dishonest. Atheists believe that the theist is wrong. Every one of them. That's a basic and obvious fact that every atheist asserts CONSTANTLY. So atheism is not "unbelief". It's also a fact that atheism is not defined by what anyone believes or does not believe. It is defined by the position it presents in relation to the theist proposition that God/gods exist.

That being said, you and the other people trying to redefine "atheist" to suit their own agendas aren't exactly rocking it in the logic department.

No one is "redefining" anything. Atheism is what it has always been. And it has always been the antithetical of theism.

Here's my first test for any definition of "atheist": any definition that would violate either (or both) of these statements is wrong on its face:

1. Theists aren't atheists. Any definition is wrong if it implies that some theists are also atheists.

And there is error #1. You are pretending to be defining an ideal while you are actually defining people. People are not ideals and ideals are not people. What people "believe" or don't believe about any proposed ideal does not define the ideal being proposed.

2. Atheists exist. Any definition is wrong if it implies that a person would need to do something to be an atheist that's beyond the ability of a human being.

"Atheists" are irrelevant to atheism as an ideal. Be an atheist or don't be an atheist. It makes no difference to what atheism is.

 

[PureX]

General use today, as previously cited, is more proper and correct than selective old definitions.

There is no "old definition". There is no "other" definition. There is no "my" definition and "your" definition. There is simply the definition. Atheism is the antithetical position to the theist proposition that God/gods exist. Always has been, and it still is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's not. If that were true, language would never have developed beyond grunts a squeals. Greater specificity occurred because we needed to convey more specific information. And that requires a logical universal way of generating and using language. We can't just make words up and claim their valid because we say so.

Your response suggests that you don't have a clue about both what I'm talking about and the development of language.

Claiming atheism is "unbelief" is completely irrelevant. And even if it were relevant, it would still be a lie. And no matter how many times you insist that it's legit because that's how you meant it, it's still going to be irrelevant, and dishonest. Atheists believe that the theist is wrong. Every one of them.

You think that atheists hold opinions about the beliefs of people they've never met and about gods they've never conceived of? Weird.

How would that work, exactly?

That's a basic and obvious fact that every atheist asserts CONSTANTLY. So atheism is not "unbelief".

Every atheist has a functioning pancreas, therefore the definition of atheism requires a functioning pancreas, right?

And when you say "every atheist," you mean "every imagined atheist that resides only in my head," don't you?

It's also a fact that atheism is not defined by what anyone believes or does not believe. It is defined by the position it presents in relation to the theist proposition that God/gods exist.

There is no single "theist proposition." There's uncountably many; one for every different god that any theist believes in (or has believed in).

No one is "redefining" anything. Atheism is what it has always been. And it has always been the antithetical of theism.

Atheism is the complement to theism: any belief system that includes at least one god is theistic; any belief system that includes zero gods is atheistic.

And there is error #1. You are pretending to be defining an ideal while you are actually defining people.

Don't presume to tell me what I'm trying to do.

People are not ideals and ideals are not people. What people "believe" or don't believe about any proposed ideal does not define the ideal being proposed.

"Atheists" are irrelevant to atheism as an ideal. Be an atheist or don't be an atheist. It makes no difference to what atheism is.

IOW, your definition of atheism doesn't have to have any relationship to reality.

Coming from you, that's a refreshingly honest statement.

 

[PureX]

You think that atheists hold opinions about the beliefs of people they've never met and about gods they've never conceived of?

Absolutely. It's called an irrational bias.

And when you say "every atheist," you mean "every imagined atheist that resides only in my head," don't you?

By definition, "an atheist" adheres to the antithetical position to theism. Who or how many they are is compltly irrelevant. You really just cannot seem to grasp this simple fact.

There is no single "theist proposition."

There is only one theist proposition: that God/gods exist. This has nothing at all to do with who believes whatever about it.

There's uncountably many; one for every different god that any theist believes in (or has believed in).

None of this matters in the least to what theism is. Just as your version of atheism has nothing at all to do with what atheism is.

Atheism is the complement to theism: any belief system that includes at least one god is theistic; any belief system that includes zero gods is atheistic.

Don't presume to tell me what I'm trying to do.

It's completely obvious what you're trying to do: "Atheism is the COMPLIMENT to theism". C'mon! You're not fooling anybody.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

IOW, your definition of atheism doesn't have to have any relationship to reality.

Coming from you, that's a refreshingly honest statement.

But I don't think we're there, yet. I think that he is trying to use whatever bizarre, sophist argument he can dream up to prove that "atheism" can't exist -- as a means of establishing theism as the only possible truth. Part of making that case seems to be to try and argue that atheists are not even capable of knowing what they think or believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But I don't think we're there, yet. I think that he is trying to use whatever bizarre, sophist argument he can dream up to prove that "atheism" can't exist -- as a means of establishing theism as the only possible truth. Part of making that case seems to be to try and argue that atheists are not even capable of knowing what they think or believe.

I'm doing my best to give him the benefit of the doubt, but my realistic side thinks it would be more in keeping with his track record to come back with some version of "when my opinion doesn't agree with reality, reality is the one who's wrong."

 

[Koldo]

Would you say the existence of powerful aliens is something that humans should or may need to factor into their decision making?

Or would it require evidence that they do exist before we should ever give it any consideration?

Depends on what you mean by 'consideration'. I am favor of considering all possibilities, but only to the extent they seem likely.

Do you factor avoiding hell into your decision making?

I did, back when I was a theist, and when I first pondered about Pascal's Wager.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheists believe that the theist is wrong. Every one of them. That's a basic and obvious fact that every atheist asserts CONSTANTLY.

That's incorrect.

Atheism is the antithetical position to the theist proposition that God/gods exist.

That's still incorrect.

"Atheism is the COMPLIMENT to theism"

That's correct. Everybody either believes a god or gods exist or not.

No one is "redefining" anything.

Atheists have redefined atheism from the antiquated original Webster's definition because it defined atheists as you have: people who say that there are no gods rather than people who don't believe in gods. According to you and Webster, atheist, agnostic, and theist form a MECE triplet, wherein everybody is one of these three and nobody is none of them or more than one. The geometry for that is linear, and there is no overlap:

These ideas are better diagrammed as a 2x2 Punnett square crossing two different MECE sets each with two elements, theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. In both cases, everybody is one or the other but nobody is both or neither, which produces four logical possibilities, not three:

It really doesn't matter that you reject this formulation. Atheist will continue using it with or without your assent or cooperation. It doesn't matter to me that you keep making the same error without attempting any counterargument or even acknowledge seeing this rebuttal. I'll just keep pointing out your error, the irrelevance of your opinions about atheist and atheism because of it, and your bad faith disputation tactics.

And from what I can tell, you don't mind. Why you don't mind being perceived like this is a mystery to me, but since you don't, it looks like this will go on for quite a lot more time where you keep repeating your error and I keep correcting you. If you're good with that, so am I.

 

[setarcos]

Lol...aren't we all silly humans.
In the words of Frost...."round and round we go and suppose while the secret sits in the middle and knows."
Theists insisting Atheists believe there is no God and Atheists insist they have no beliefs concerning such things.
One could intimately investigate the etymology on the word Atheist until heck wont have it while the important arguments get glossed over so no one gets anywhere except to the land of wasted time.
Theists are those that believe in the existence of a God (particular) or gods (general). Atheists insist they have no beliefs concerning such things but often engage Theists in debate. What are they debating? Usually they are debating that no "proof" of Gods existence has been shown. Occasionally they will stray into reasoning why no God is likely to exist.
It seems to me people forget that these arguments -due to the very nature of the subject matter in relation to our human limitations- cannot be about "proving". They can only be about "probabilities" or likelihoods.
But even modern physics has inadvertently strayed into the metaphysical with its theories. The strange theories of the Quantum have unexpectedly evened the scientific playing field with Theists in what inevitably cannot be proven.
It also seems to me that Atheists are using a system of beliefs to circularly prove that they have no beliefs.
I would ask then. What beliefs do Atheists approach the subject with when debating Theism?

 

[setarcos]

I did, back when I was a theist, and when I first pondered about Pascal's Wager.

I wonder...how do you describe the flaw in Pascal's Wager?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no "old definition". There is no "other" definition. There is no "my" definition and "your" definition. There is simply the definition. Atheism is the antithetical position to the theist proposition that God/gods exist. Always has been, and it still is.

My definition as cited is the most recent comprehensive definition that describes the range of beliefs that may be consider atheist. Yours was oldy and moldy and unnecessarily stereotyped atheists.

Your aggressive denigration of atheists does not help your case.

 

[F1fan]

I wonder...how do you describe the flaw in Pascal's Wager?

By formulating a worst case scenario from a non-factual circumstance.