"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[firedragon]

A-theism, privative "a" prefix meaning "without," and "theism" from the greek, "god-belief." "Without god-belief."

Sorry, I dont wish to engage in linguistics but you are absolutely wrong. Maybe this is an Englishman's understanding which is imposed on the greek but that's not what it means, where ever you got that from. I suggest we do not get into linguistics.

 

[Meow Mix]

To define atheism to include magic like teleportation and predicting the future, is that an arbitrary definition or is it common definition of atheism?

It is very common for atheists to limit the definition only to dealing with theism and not other claims. There are atheist witches, atheist Buddhists, atheist New Agers that believe in crystal magic and astral projection, all this stuff. The domain of atheism is only concerned with whether or not there are gods.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry, I dont wish to engage in linguistics but you are absolutely wrong. Maybe this is an Englishman's understanding which is imposed on the greek but that's not what it means, where ever you got that from. I suggest we do not get into linguistics.

That's fine, I wasn't attached to it and it's unnecessary for the point.

 

[Viker]

Semantics quarrels are secksie. lol

 

[Meow Mix]

It must be said again to keep this in mind: the definition of "atheism" is very contentious in many circles. Among theists and among atheists. That is why I said I hate the term.

But the answer to the question "is this a common definition" is still yes, the one I'm giving is very common.

 

[firedragon]

It is very common for atheists to limit the definition only to dealing with theism and not other claims. There are atheist witches, atheist Buddhists, atheist New Agers that believe in crystal magic and astral projection, all this stuff. The domain of atheism is only concerned with whether or not there are gods.

Again, I am not talking about what atheists commonly believe. I am talking about definitions.

 

[firedragon]

It must be said again to keep this in mind: the definition of "atheism" is very contentious in many circles. Among theists and among atheists. That is why I said I hate the term.

But the answer to the question "is this a common definition" is still yes, the one I'm giving is very common.

You are speaking of common definition in terms of society. Not in the manner I have addressed it.

Do you have any statistics to show nevertheless to see how many atheists believe in magical powers but still remain atheists?

 

[Meow Mix]

You are speaking of common definition in terms of society. Not in the manner I have addressed it.

Do you have any statistics to show nevertheless to see how many atheists believe in magical powers but still remain atheists?

Here is one study, I did not go into the article to retrieve the source itself because I don't know how rigorously you're asking; it pastes some of the plots from the source in the article.

What!?!

 

[Meow Mix]

Or I might be able to pull the plot directly here.

 

[firedragon]

Here is one study, I did not go into the article to retrieve the source itself because I don't know how rigorously you're asking; it pastes some of the plots from the source in the article.

What!?!

Thanks. Its good to know atheists still believe in magical powers. Even Pew research shows that they even believe in God. Some of them. Thanks for that article. It even calls atheists as believing in superstition.

You must understand that this will not define atheism. You are defining atheism from what people do, not from an objective point of view. You will never agree with these terms.

So now I understand your approach. Your approach is completely sociological. That is why your style of questioning takes this approach. It's a different angle you are looking at things from.

It was an interesting discussion and I respect your approach. From my side, this ends this discussion though I am sure it will not suffice for you.

Cheers MM. I shall see you again.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks. Its good to know atheists still believe in magical powers. Even Pew research shows that they even believe in God. Some of them. Thanks for that article. It even calls atheists as believing in superstition.

You must understand that this will not define atheism. You are defining atheism from what people do, not from an objective point of view. You will never agree with these terms.

So now I understand your approach. Your approach is completely sociological. That is why your style of questioning takes this approach. It's a different angle you are looking at things from.

It was an interesting discussion and I respect your approach. From my side, this ends this discussion though I am sure it will not suffice for you.

Cheers MM. I shall see you again.

I must object that part of this characterization was wrong, though. I'm not defining atheism from what people do. It is strictly defined in terms of theism. Since magic and ghosts don't strictly relate to theism, it is possible to believe in those things and still be an atheist.

For instance, an anarchist holds positions of disagreement about the role of government. Yet an anarchist can believe in ghosts without contradiction. Why? Because anarchy has nothing to do with ghosts, so there is no contradiction.

Likewise, belief in gods has nothing to do with belief in ghosts. The atheist is only saying that they don't believe in gods when they say "I am an atheist." They're not saying anything about their beliefs in anything else.

So please understand: I am not looking at what people are doing and then defining atheism based on that. It is the reverse. Atheism has been defined, and then people are identifying as atheist.

My approach is not sociological at all. My approach is analytical.

 

[Meow Mix]

I used "anarchist" as an example because of the same privative a- (in this case, an-) prefix. Like atheism, anarchy is defined solely in opposition to some other thing (in anarchy's case, philosophies about the role of government).

Atheists can believe in ghosts for the same reason anarchists can: because the respective words say nothing about whether a person believes in ghosts or not. You cannot hear "I am an atheist" and know whether that person believes in ghosts any more than you can hear "I am an anarchist" and know whether they believe in ghosts.

And no, this is not defining the term sociologically: remember, atheism has already been defined and these people are identifying with it, because they can. Because they know they can be a witch without any contradiction with being an atheist, or whatever else they might be.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just when I think we're making progress you just come out of left field with the weirdest, wrongest interpretations of what's been going on. It baffles me ^.^

I obviously can't stand being misunderstood, which is why I try to be so very succinct with definitions. You've found my weakness Don't tell anyone!

 

[firedragon]

No problem. No problem. We can agree to disagree. No disrespect meant.

 

[Meow Mix]

No problem. No problem. We can agree to disagree. No disrespect meant.

I didn't take any disrespect. It is a pet peeve of mine for my position not to be understood, which is why I sit for long periods of time trying to carefully lay it out.

I get catty when I get frustrated by this pet peeve in particular, I have this driving need to feel like my opponent has at least correctly interpreted and understood my arguments. But it's always in good fun. Much love friendo.

Edit: I don't mind if an opponent understands, but disagrees. But if it is clear that the opponent has not gotten my position correct, that's what drives me nuts.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't take any disrespect. It is a pet peeve of mine for my position not to be understood, which is why I sit for long periods of time trying to carefully lay it out.

I get catty when I get frustrated by this pet peeve in particular, I have this driving need to feel like my opponent has at least correctly interpreted and understood my arguments. But it's always in good fun. Much love friendo.

Edit: I don't mind if an opponent understands, but disagrees. But if it is clear that the opponent has not gotten my position correct, that's what drives me nuts.

Yeah. I understand. Its not fair for me to make a character of you and walk away.

Let me give you the reason. In defining naturalism, you spoke of what people are doing. Someone in some remote area may consider a plane magic because he is so primitive. Thus its subjective. This is not sound reasoning. This is exactly how sociology of topics work. You did the same thing with defining atheism and every time I got to the definition you kept saying some atheists do this, some do that, etc. Thats the reason.

I am not saying that you define yourself to take a top down approach, but you do. This is the argument you brought.

I completely disagree with that approach in definitions. If you are indeed taking a bottom-up approach, I would like to ask you a question.

Can you quote an authority who defines atheism to include beliefs in miracles? I said "definition", not what people do?

 

[Meow Mix]

Yeah. I understand. Its not fair for me to make a character of you and walk away.

Let me give you the reason. In defining naturalism, you spoke of what people are doing. Someone in some remote area may consider a plane magic because he is so primitive. Thus its subjective. This is not sound reasoning. This is exactly how sociology of topics work. You did the same thing with defining atheism and every time I got to the definition you kept saying some atheists do this, some do that, etc. Thats the reason.

I am not saying that you define yourself to take a top down approach, but you do. This is the argument you brought.

I completely disagree with that approach in definitions. If you are indeed taking a bottom-up approach, I would like to ask you a question.

Can you quote an authority who defines atheism to include beliefs in miracles? I said "definition", not what people do?

I’ll have to get back to you, going to bed currently.

Until then, keep in mind that “not excluding miracles” is not the same thing as “includes miracles,” because that is an important distinction. Being an anarchist doesn’t exclude a person from believing in miracles; and it certainly doesn’t include it. It simply says nothing about miracles. And this is the case with atheism too (as long as “miracles” have nothing to do with gods).

In any case, I will think about a way to communicate that doesn’t make you feel the approach is sociological. I promise that it’s not and that there are reasons for bringing up what I do (analytical reasons).

Hope your day is good, talk soon.

 

[Meow Mix]

It will also help me to know this: I bring up “some people say…” because it is a fact that the word “atheist” is contentious. There is not a lot of agreement in philosophy or out of philosophy what it means.

So I am forced to say “some say this, some say that.” This is not me being sociological. It’s me noting that even the scholars are not in consensus.

So if you want just one definition, and forget that there is not a consensus, I can give you an example of philosophers using the one example that I choose. So long as you understand other philosophers may use it differently.

Just look at the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for “atheism” in the meantime and you will see that this is true. That entry also says “some people say this, some people say that.”

So it will help me if you let me know by the time I come back to post exactly what you want from me: do you want one definition of atheism from a scholar? Or do you want the range of definitions that scholars debate?

@firedragon (sorry typing on phone is hard)

 

[firedragon]

It will also help me to know this: I bring up “some people say…” because it is a fact that the word “atheist” is contentious.

Thats a sociological approach.

 

[firedragon]

Just look at the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for “atheism” in the meantime and you will see that this is true. That entry also says “some people say this, some people say that.”

I presume you mean Stanford. Yes sis. I have read that extensively.