What do people think "atheist" means?

[Cephus]

I'm not saying that because it's in "our DNA" (as you say above) that it means it's correct or true or even rational. The fact that it's in "our DNA" suggest that people would have "belief" innately. Just that. Nothing more. Basically, we have a genetic (so to speak) tendency to believe, and only through rational thought and reason can we reach accurate understanding (which I think atheism really should stand for, the rational thought to save us from the innate misconceptions, but that's just what I think).

But it isn't in our DNA to believe in gods per se, that's just a corruption of what is actually in our DNA. Just like it's in our DNA to seek out patterns, it's a survival tactic that allows us to see human faces and danger otherwise disguised, but one of the things that also allows us to do is see shapes in clouds and Jesus on toast. That isn't why we have that coded into our genetics, it's just an unintended byproduct, just like belief in gods.

Well, then that's the problem, isn't it? If they can't comprehensible or coherent defined what theism is, then how can a-theism be anymore comprehensible?

Because this isn't between believing a thing and disbelieving a thing, it's between making a claim and rejecting that claim as nonsensical.

Theists believe in X. Atheists don't believe in X. X can be anything.

Well, in that case, X must be religious, otherwise "theism" and "atheism" have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

[Ouroboros]

But it isn't in our DNA to believe in gods per se, that's just a corruption of what is actually in our DNA. Just like it's in our DNA to seek out patterns, it's a survival tactic that allows us to see human faces and danger otherwise disguised, but one of the things that also allows us to do is see shapes in clouds and Jesus on toast. That isn't why we have that coded into our genetics, it's just an unintended byproduct, just like belief in gods.

Which still means that in there. It's not a question here about if this innate thing is good for us or even right, but just the question if it's in there innately. There are many different vestigial parts in our body. There are even some detrimental genetic things that we one day should genetically modify and remove from humanity, but it doesn't make it less in there at the moment.

Because this isn't between believing a thing and disbelieving a thing, it's between making a claim and rejecting that claim as nonsensical.

Rejecting is an active stance. The atheist, I am told, doesn't base his atheism on the rejecting, but only on just lacking belief. It's the lack of belief in the unspecific and incoherent theistic God.

Well, in that case, X must be religious, otherwise "theism" and "atheism" have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

X wasn't a person, but a placeholder for a proposition.

Bob believes in X.
Andrew doesn't believe in X.
X is an undefined thing.
Which means, Andrew doesn't believe in undefined things. And that is atheism.

 

[Willamena]

X wasn't a person, but a placeholder for a proposition.

Bob believes in X.
Andrew doesn't believe in X.
X is an undefined thing.
Which means, Andrew doesn't believe in undefined things. And that is atheism.

But it's also unfair, because it means that Bob's insane.

 

[Cephus]

Which still means that in there. It's not a question here about if this innate thing is good for us or even right, but just the question if it's in there innately. There are many different vestigial parts in our body. There are even some detrimental genetic things that we one day should genetically modify and remove from humanity, but it doesn't make it less in there at the moment.

It still doesn't make it good at the moment. All you're really saying is that sickle cell anemia, for instance, is a genetic disorder, it might kill a lot of people, but it's there and we shouldn't fight against it. Sure, that's a good idea.

Rejecting is an active stance. The atheist, I am told, doesn't base his atheism on the rejecting, but only on just lacking belief. It's the lack of belief in the unspecific and incoherent theistic God.

No it's not. If you say something that makes no sense, I reject it. That's not an active stance, it's failing to take what you are saying seriously. Atheism is the base state. We are not changing from the base state because there's no reason to do so. Until theists can actually present evidence to support their claims, we will continue to remain in the base state.

X wasn't a person, but a placeholder for a proposition.

Bob believes in X.
Andrew doesn't believe in X.
X is an undefined thing.
Which means, Andrew doesn't believe in undefined things. And that is atheism.

I know that, but atheism and theism are specifically about religious propositions. Talking about liking string beans has nothing to do with religion, hence the status of atheist or theist is irrelevant to the situation at hand. Atheism has nothing to do with undefined things, but a specific kind of undefined thing. If you're talking about ghosts or aliens or swamp monsters, none of those has anything whatsoever to do with atheism. Skepticism yes, atheism no.

 

[Cephus]

But it's also unfair, because it means that Bob's insane.

As are lots of theists.

 

[Ouroboros]

It still doesn't make it good at the moment. All you're really saying is that sickle cell anemia, for instance, is a genetic disorder, it might kill a lot of people, but it's there and we shouldn't fight against it. Sure, that's a good idea.

Oh, sorry. Wrong thread. This is rather about the other thread, the default of atheism.

No it's not. If you say something that makes no sense, I reject it. That's not an active stance, it's failing to take what you are saying seriously. Atheism is the base state. We are not changing from the base state because there's no reason to do so. Until theists can actually present evidence to support their claims, we will continue to remain in the base state.

Ok.

I know that, but atheism and theism are specifically about religious propositions.

Hang on. I was just told recently that atheism isn't about a religious proposition at all. It's not even a proposition. It's a lack of making a proposition. It's a lack of even having a stance. It's not a philosophical view, so it's not even rationalized. It's just the default position of not having any propositions. It's the complete lack of belief in God or gods of any kind. Or, am I wrong again?

Talking about liking string beans has nothing to do with religion, hence the status of atheist or theist is irrelevant to the situation at hand. Atheism has nothing to do with undefined things, but a specific kind of undefined thing.

Specific kind? I suggested in another thread the same thing, but was struck down. I just in the last day was told that atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of God(s) that the theists can come up with. Now, you're telling me it's something more specific? That's what I've been saying all along and being wrong about. It's very frustrating, because whatever I say, it's by default wrong. Even when I agree with someone, then I'm also wrong.

If you're talking about ghosts or aliens or swamp monsters, none of those has anything whatsoever to do with atheism. Skepticism yes, atheism no.

So can you kindly specify this specific thing in a comprehensible way, a way that even the theists can agree with?

 

[Cephus]

Hang on. I was just told recently that atheism isn't about a religious proposition at all. It's not even a proposition. It's a lack of making a proposition. It's a lack of even having a stance. It's not a philosophical view, so it's not even rationalized. It's just the default position of not having any propositions. It's the complete lack of belief in God or gods of any kind. Or, am I wrong again?

Of course atheism deals with religion. A=without, theos=gods. It isn't about swiss cheese. Specifically, atheism only addresses claims about the existence of gods or other religiously based ideas. If you start talking about cars, you're no longer talking about anything atheism can address, you're entirely off the atheism reservation.

Specific kind? I suggested in another thread the same thing, but was struck down. I just in the last day was told that atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of God(s) that the theists can come up with. Now, you're telling me it's something more specific? That's what I've been saying all along and being wrong about. It's very frustrating, because whatever I say, it's by default wrong. Even when I agree with someone, then I'm also wrong.

Atheists do not have any belief in gods. That's all it means. But you're now trying to talk about things other than gods and are trying to make atheism address it, which is absurd. It's like talking about stamp collectors and then assuming that they all must have a common view on paleontology. Stamp collecting has nothing whatsoever to say about paleontology, just like atheism has nothing to say about cars.

So can you kindly specify this specific thing in a comprehensible way, a way that even the theists can agree with?

Gods. If you want to expand it to the supernatural, you'll probably catch most atheists, but since things like ghosts are also defined as supernatural, but are not gods, it really isn't totally applicable. Just stick with gods and religious beliefs and you'll be fine.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gods.

God is defined as Gods. And that's the comprehensible and coherent definition? Well, ok. Then that's the definition.

 

[Cephus]

God is defined as Gods. And that's the comprehensible and coherent definition? Well, ok. Then that's the definition.

The dictionary is a good place to start:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

 

[outhouse]

The dictionary is a good place to start:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Should say something like, "men have created thousands of these and tend to pick one and reject others definitions, including possessing knowledge its a man made concept"

 

[Ouroboros]

The dictionary is a good place to start:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So, you see, there is a comprehensive and coherent definition that can be used.

You said, "I've yet to see a single theist claim that is cohesive or coherent. Maybe you'd like to point some of them out for us. "

And there you have answered it yourself.

This is the God(s) that atheists are rejecting or disbelieving in. Not just any claim by someone who calls themselves a theist, but it's the specific idea and concepts that you're specifying above. Those are the things the atheist are unbelieving, not just a word "God" and whatever it can stand for.

 

[Cephus]

So, you see, there is a comprehensive and coherent definition that can be used.

You said, "I've yet to see a single theist claim that is cohesive or coherent. Maybe you'd like to point some of them out for us. "

And there you have answered it yourself.

This is the God(s) that atheists are rejecting or disbelieving in. Not just any claim by someone who calls themselves a theist, but it's the specific idea and concepts that you're specifying above. Those are the things the atheist are unbelieving, not just a word "God" and whatever it can stand for.

But those aren't descriptions of any specific gods, none of which are cohesive or coherent. Please point out any definition which makes any logical sense, is based on objective and observable characteristics, etc. You won't be able to do it.

 

[Ouroboros]

But those aren't descriptions of any specific gods, none of which are cohesive or coherent. Please point out any definition which makes any logical sense, is based on objective and observable characteristics, etc. You won't be able to do it.

So then we're just back to square one, that God can be defined as anything.

Cohesiveness and coherence doesn't have to be objective or observable though, just a pointer.

 

[Augustus]

These are things that were useful earlier on in our evolution, but today are largely useless, perhaps even hazardous. They have yet to be purged from our DNA and may not be for a long time, if ever. However, just because we are wired to seek answers and make them up when we don't actually have them, that doesn't mean that's a rational way to operate and we've also evolved this really nice brain that allows us to override our biological impulses. That a lot of people refuse to do so is pathetic.

It's just another form of making meaning. Just like you are doing. That's what we do, make meaning from stuff and call it important.

You make subjective meaning with your 'irrational' belief that human rationality is an admirable quality, and striving to overcome your 'biological impulses' is a sign of character. You even deem those who make subjective meaning in a way that is different from your subjective meaning pathetic.

That's quite like a religious attitude actually, character comes from fighting 'temptation', there exists a path to 'truth', following the path to truth leads us to 'salvation' (freedom from irrationality) and those that prefer sensation over 'salvation' are contemptible.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

evidence is a very subjective term, we're all speculating on the reason we're here.

"Evidence is a very subjective thing, son! We're all speculatin' as t'why we're 'ere!"

"Wot? On the Religious Forums?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Evidence is a very subjective thing, son! We're all speculatin' as t'why we're 'ere!"

"Wot? On the Religious Forums?"

hmm, Is that a quote? what's the movie?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

hmm, Is that a quote? what's the movie?

I think it was called "Monty Python & The Trolly Grail."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it was called "Monty Python & The Trolly Grail."

Well they need to stop plagiarizing me!

 

[Willamena]

No, it suggests that these original thoughts were something that came up because man has evolved to seek out answers, whether we have any actual answers or not.

So... futility is inherent.

However, just because we are wired to seek answers and make them up when we don't actually have them, that doesn't mean that's a rational way to operate and we've also evolved this really nice brain that allows us to override our biological impulses. That a lot of people refuse to do so is pathetic.

We are wired to make believe? I ask because I was never very good at it in kindergarten. I guess I fail as a pathetic human.

I'm curious, though--you seem to be suggesting that what we are wired to do is not a human thing to do--so what are we, really, that we are wired so?

 

[chinu]

What about the plethora of people that wholeheartedly see deities as man-made inventions?

Inventions about What ?