What do people think "atheist" means?

[Yorutenchi]

I always assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at least I find that makes for a more interesting debate and helps stay off the slippery slope of ad hominem attacks. I think ID is the least improbable explanation for the universe as far as we can observe it. It's not necessarily the most comforting idea, there are a lot of implications come with it.

what evidence do you feel supports a natural cause for the universe? - must run for now but appreciate your thoughtful responses

I was not trying to attack you if you feel that I did I am sorry.

There is no probability though. There is only probability if we have data that is known. IF it is unknown totally then it is impossible to have probability. Secondly I feel that the fact we have a long track record of events in nature being natural and having natural causes despite being given to gods is evidence that out assumption that "god does it" or "god did it" is a false one.

 

[leibowde84]

From usage, of course.

Usage will do. Can you provide some examples of the word being used this way in any published writings or anything like that?

 

[leibowde84]

again it's a wash, the questions are not specific to God, they apply to any explanation

i.e.
"What about the origins of your naturalist mechanism? Are they natural or supernatural? Does it exist because of chance or design?" Why does your natural mechanism exist at all as opposed to not existing? These are fascinating questions. Please answer them.


There are many possibilities, you mentioned intelligence from 'another universe', that's one but I don't claim to know. But the larger point being, 'natural laws' creating 'natural laws' ad infinitum is a paradox unique to naturalism, creative intelligence is not bound by laws- it has the greater creative freedom, the greater power of explanation for the ultimate creation.

A rock tumbler full of a trillion pieces of lego working for a trillion years is no match for a curious child with a small box of them in an afternoon

Why do you find it necessary to answer these questions? The most reasonable position is that we haven't figured it out yet. But that doesn't disprove evolution in any way. It is merely a God of the gaps argument. It's a logical fallacy.

 

[leibowde84]

again it's a wash, the questions are not specific to God, they apply to any explanation

i.e.
"What about the origins of your naturalist mechanism? Are they natural or supernatural? Does it exist because of chance or design?" Why does your natural mechanism exist at all as opposed to not existing? These are fascinating questions. Please answer them.


There are many possibilities, you mentioned intelligence from 'another universe', that's one but I don't claim to know. But the larger point being, 'natural laws' creating 'natural laws' ad infinitum is a paradox unique to naturalism, creative intelligence is not bound by laws- it has the greater creative freedom, the greater power of explanation for the ultimate creation.

A rock tumbler full of a trillion pieces of lego working for a trillion years is no match for a curious child with a small box of them in an afternoon

Creationism might claim to have answers, but, since they aren't backed up with evidence, they are merely speculative guesses.

 

[outhouse]

Creationism might claim to have answers, but, since they aren't backed up with evidence, they are merely speculative guesses.

They are not just guesses, they are dishonest guesses by fundamentalist that go against facts not in dispute out of those who profess mythology is real.

Pseudoscience is a form of dishonesty.

 

[Willamena]

Usage will do. Can you provide some examples of the word being used this way in any published writings or anything like that?

You want a published example of the use of the word deficiency? Why you don't find one?

 

[Willamena]

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/deficiency

 

[leibowde84]

You want a published example of the use of the word deficiency? Why you don't find one?

Get real. I tried. There isn't one example of it being used in the way you are claiming that I could find. And your response here leads me to believe you don't think you could find one either. My claim is that you are changing the meaning of the term to better suit your argument. That is why I requested an example.

 

[leibowde84]

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/deficiency

All of these examples prove my point. It means "not enough".

 

[Willamena]

All of these examples prove my point. It means "not enough".

You take it as you wish.

 

[leibowde84]

You take it as you wish.

So you can't support it then?

 

[Willamena]

So you can't support it then?

If I must spell it out, I'll take the first two examples which show the difference between the two uses.

Notwithstanding the primitive condition of agriculture, the deficiency of communications and the damage caused by frequent inundations, Albania furnishes almost the entire corn supply of the Dalmatian coast and islands.

The "deficiency of communications" in this sentence refers to a lack of communications that, had they been sufficient, would have benefited the condition of agriculture. "Having a deficiency" in this case means knowing you are without those vital communications or that those vital communications were insufficient. To take it as simply "not enough communications" would imply some set quantity that wasn't achieved, and miss the point of what's being implied.

On the other hand, this example...

Even if the agent made no profit he was bound to return double what he had received, if he made poor profit he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible for loss by robbery or extortion on his travels.

...is about quantity.

Other examples on the thread show other uses of the word "deficiency."

You can disagree with me all you like, but I'm out for a while.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The only problem is that the definition of theist is a person who believes gods exist not claims they do.

Wait. Doesn't the claim precede the belief? Doesn't someone have to claim the god exists before anyone can believe in it?

And can one believe in a god without also believing in the claim that the god in question exists?

"We're here to share the Good News about a god that we believe in, but mind you ... we're not claiming such a god actually exists. May we come in?"

 

[Unification]

I prefer to not limit the definition of words to only those definitions I like.

Atheism is an umbrella term that includes those who have a disbelief in gods, those who deny the existence of gods, those who lack a belief in gods, etc.
Thus the reason it is best to ask the person using the word atheist how they define the word.

As well as the definition of the word "god" or "gods."

 

[ArtieE]

But the larger point being, 'natural laws' creating 'natural laws' ad infinitum is a paradox unique to naturalism, creative intelligence is not bound by laws- it has the greater creative freedom, the greater power of explanation for the ultimate creation.

So how do you explain the existence of this god in the first place? That is the interesting question. If you assume that the existence of the universe is explained by the existence of a god the next thing you must do is explain the existence of this god. Otherwise what's the point?

 

[ArtieE]

Wait. Doesn't the claim precede the belief? Doesn't someone have to claim the god exists before anyone can believe in it?

And can one believe in a god without also believing in the claim that the god in question exists?

"We're here to share the Good News about a god that we believe in, but mind you ... we're not claiming such a god actually exists. May we come in?"

I think such reasoning complicates and confuses the issue even more so I won't comment.

 

[Norrin-6-]

And if the word "atheist" doesn't tell you anything, where would you go to find out what the word "atheist" means so that you could understand what this person was trying to tell you?

Because I am trying to find out what this person is trying to tell me, I find it out from them. When I have time, because I'm interested in what this person has described to me, I would probably go online or if my interest level is high I might pick up a book about atheism. Of course, I would look for the more famous atheist authors on the subject and see what they had to say. This would be a good indicator, because fame = more readers = the greater consensus. Richard Dawkins for instance has formulated a spectrum of theistic probability that gives very brief yet meticulously crafted explanation for beliefs about God. Numbers 5-6 are of particular interest here. At the time of writing, Dawkins says the De facto atheist, while not 100% certain, lives on the assumption that God is not there; the person who is skeptical is said to be leaning towards atheism. Does leaning towards atheism imply that such a person is an atheist, or that they are not quite an atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

Does leaning towards atheism imply that such a person is an atheist, or that they are not quite an atheist?

Theism, weak atheism and strong atheism are just points on a line. Think of it as a pendulum where straight down is weak atheism and some force has to influence the pendulum to move it towards either theism or strong atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

Theism, weak atheism and strong atheism are just points on a line. Think of it as a pendulum where straight down is weak atheism and some force has to influence the pendulum to move it towards either theism or strong atheism.

Why keep trying to come up with all the different labels, and not just ask whoever you are talking to what they mean?

 

[Norrin-6-]

Theism = belief in the existence of gods
a- ="not, without"
Atheism = without belief in the existence of gods

not "belief that gods don't exist"

Not sure if someone has explained this, but it's actually a - theos - ism. But we don't determine a word's definition by its etymological roots. A word can mean anything.