What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

The number of gods they believe in. That's it.

 

[PureX]

I disagree.
theists have reasons for their beliefs.

1. Disliking them
2. disagreeing with them
3. not understanding them

In no way makes the reasons theists believe disappear

Mighty shallow, petty, "reasons", don't you think?

 

[Eddi]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods whereas a theist does

 

[McBell]

Mighty shallow, petty, "reasons", don't you think?

It matters not if their reasons meet with my personal standards for reason.
Their reason still exists.

 

[PureX]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

The real answer is that a theist is someone that professes agreement with the theist proposition that God/gods exist in a way that effects our experience of existence. And an atheist is someone that professes the antithetical to that proposition, i.e., that no God/gods exist in any way that effects our experience of existence.

 

[PureX]

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods whereas a theist does

Theism is not properly defined by a belief, but rather by an assertion. So atheism is not properly defined by a lack of belief, but rather by an antithetical assertion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The real answer is that a theist is someone that professes agreement with the theist proposition that God/gods exist in a way that effects our experience of existence. And an atheist is someone that professes the antithetical to that proposition, i.e., that no God/gods exist in any way that effects our experience of existence.

Well, no. Someone who things that any gods exist is a theist, not an atheist, even if they believe those gods don't affect anything.

 

[PureX]

Well, no. Someone who things that any gods exist is a theist, not an atheist, even if they believe those gods don't affect anything.

What anyone thinks is irrelevant to any conversation, discussion, or debate that we can have because none of us can read anyone else's mind. We can only discuss, conversate, or debate that which the participants actually STATE to be so.

Also, there can be no intelligible conversation, discussion, or debate about a God that does not exist in any way that effects our experience of existing because we could not possibly know that such a God exists, and it wouldn't matter if it did. The whole discussion would be moot.

Sloppy, irrational language does not help the conversation. 'Belief' is irrelevant. So then is "unbelief". What is relevant is what is being asserted, and why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What anyone thinks is irrelevant to any conversation, discussion, or debate that we can have because none of us can read anyone else's mind. We can only discuss, conversate, or debate that which the participants actually STATE to be so.

Also, there can be no intelligible conversation, discussion, or debate about a God that does not exist in any way that effects our experience of existing because we could not possibly know that such a God exists, and it wouldn't matter if it did. The whole discussion would be moot.

Sloppy, irrational language does not help the conversation. 'Belief' is irrelevant. So then is "unbelief". What is relevant is what is being asserted, and why.

I'm not prepared to unpack and correct all of the bizarre assumptions in this post.

In any case, theism is defined in terms of belief, even if you can't understand how this works.

 

[PureX]

I'm not prepared to unpack and correct all of the bizarre assumptions in this post.

In any case, theism is defined in terms of belief, even if you can't understand how this works.

Theism is wrongly and sloppily defined that way by people who either want to obfuscate or are too lazy to bother being more precise.

 

[ChristineM]

Theism is wrongly and sloppily defined that way by people who either want to obfuscate or are too lazy to bother being more precise.

Perhaps you mean dictionaries wnd people who don't agree with your wooly ideas.

 

[Audie]

It was strongly implied that theists lack reason.

I merely point out that theists have reasons for their beliefs.
that some people disagree with those reasons, and or dislike those reasons, and or do not understand those reasons, in no way make those reasons disappear.

It is basically the whole "evidence" paradigm all over again.

It was strongly implied that theists lack reason.

I merely point out that theists have reasons for their beliefs.
that some people disagree with those reasons, and or dislike those reasons, and or do not understand those reasons, in no way make those reasons disappear.

It is basically the whole "evidence" paradigm all over again.

Two different meanings for " reason".
You are talking "reason" as in cause,
or motive.
Nobody doubts in the least that people have
reasons to eat, rob banks, fall in love, Etc.

What you somewhat oddly dismiss as the
" whole 'evidence' paradigm" concerns
" reason" , reasoning, defined variously as thinking,
and forming logical conclusions.

None of that kind of 'reason" applies to falling in love
or being superstitious. Etc. Those are non rational.


Lack of reason implied? No. Not just implied.
It is clearly stated that theism is not
based on logic, reasoning.

Because, you know, It isnt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism is wrongly and sloppily defined that way by people who either want to obfuscate or are too lazy to bother being more precise.

Language is defined by usage, and everyone else uses the word "theism" to describe belief.

If this annoys you, this is a "you" problem.

 

[PureX]

Language is defined by usage, and everyone else uses the word "theism" to describe belief.

If this annoys you, this is a "you" problem.

Word usage has little to do with logic or accuracy. In fact, we use language to obscure, exaggerate, and misrepresent as often as we do to clarify or accurately represent our ideas. So when you find yourself ignoring and denying this aspect of language, you probably ought to ask yourself why you're doing that. Why honesty and accuracy doesn't matter to you.

Just sayin'.

When you have to go to the dictionary to defend your "definition" you're already way off the mark, logically speaking. "I use sloppy language because lots of people use sloppy language" is not much of a justification. Is it.

 

[F1fan]

It is design.

Dawkins says ”appearance” of design because, since he can’t ignore it, he can try to excuse it.

It's called order, because "design" implies a deliberate act. Order means that matter self-organizes into forms via the natural laws.

A drop of water falls onto a pond and the circular ripples look like a design, but it's just how water behaves according to the laws of physics. Nothing can be shown that suggests that prop or set of ripples was designed.

There’s no evidence the bacterial flagellum, or any other complex machine, could evolve, let alone did.

This has been answered by science. You are reading debunked creationist disinformation by bringing up this reference. You should do more web searches before you cite embrassing things like this. Even Michael Behe admitted in court that Intelligent Design is not science.

Or any evidence of natural processes forming the Earth, and establishing itself into a stable orbit

That’s your faith; although you won’t admit it.

Reasoning and learning valid knowledge is not a "faith". Your religious beliefs ARE faith-based, and that means ideas believed true despite a lack of evidence, and often contrary to knowledge and fact. That's creationism.

You are being ironic, as that is all creationists can do. You have had your chances to correct your errors, and stop using bogus sources, but that is liability of what some religions teach. It's interesting that some individuals refuse to conform to knowledge and instead conform to false religious ideas. It's funny that some religious folks accuse the well-educated and having "faith" because it only indicates that your actual faith is known to be highly flawed and unreliable. So you only sabotage your own approach to thinking and belief.

 

[F1fan]

The real answer is that a theist is someone that professes agreement with the theist proposition that God/gods exist in a way that effects our experience of existence.

Sure, they adopted a social idea of a God or gods without reasoning. It's called social learning theory. Language and other cultural norms are adopted non-rationally as well. The symbolisms and ideas are learned, and their use is part or this learning if it is important. Many theists claim to believe in some idea of a god, but can't explain how they came to believe it. Mom and dad did, they went to church, all this happened since early youth, and it just became part of their brain's operating assumptions.

No one learns about God or religion like we do history or science, which are factual and have real applications. Religious ideas are taught knowing they aren't factual, but this is ignored, and children adopt the ideas in a deceptive way.

And an atheist is someone that professes the antithetical to that proposition, i.e., that no God/gods exist in any way that effects our experience of existence.

No gods are known to exist, and that is a truth that atheists acknowledge and respect. Somehow atheists have been honest in assessing the many diverse sets of ideas about gods and religion, and they had the ability to reject the common cultural belief that they are true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Word usage has little to do with logic or accuracy. In fact, we use language to obscure, exaggerate, and misrepresent as often as we do to clarify or accurately represent our ideas. So when you find yourself ignoring and denying this aspect of language, you probably ought to ask yourself why you're doing that. Why honesty and accuracy doesn't matter to you.

Just sayin'.

When you have to go to the dictionary to defend your "definition" you're already way off the mark, logically speaking. "I use sloppy language because lots of people use sloppy language" is not much of a justification. Is it.

I'm not prepared to unpack and correct all of the bizarre assumptions in this post.

I'm also not surprised to see you once again try to derail a thread to make it about you and your views.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's the same reason that people speak so many different languages, and wear different cloths, and eat different foods. There is only one Earth, and yet we all experience it and interact with it a bit differently.

The real question is why did you expect otherwise?

Perhaps you know some who pray to languages and clothes and foods. I have never met or read about such individuals but wouldn't be surprised if there are some. It doesn't matter. Your comparison as far as I am concerned is not a good one. But it's ok. Whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

Word usage has little to do with logic or accuracy. In fact, we use language to obscure, exaggerate, and misrepresent as often as we do to clarify or accurately represent our ideas. So when you find yourself ignoring and denying this aspect of language, you probably ought to ask yourself why you're doing that. Why honesty and accuracy doesn't matter to you.

Just sayin'.

When you have to go to the dictionary to defend your "definition" you're already way off the mark, logically speaking. "I use sloppy language because lots of people use sloppy language" is not much of a justification. Is it.

Word usage is incomplete in many areas. People may assume something based on a verbal description but it does not have to mean when the intention of the speaker was. Have a good one, by the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was strongly implied that theists lack reason.

I merely point out that theists have reasons for their beliefs.
that some people disagree with those reasons, and or dislike those reasons, and or do not understand those reasons, in no way make those reasons disappear.

It is basically the whole "evidence" paradigm all over again.

Every time I see a post like this I think of the apostle Paul and his explanations as to why he became a Christian. Some of his listeners didn't believe him, even though they were probably smart and knowledgeable. As I examine things more thoroughly I understand more. Thanks for bringing it up about reasons and beliefs. Since I believe in the God of Abraham down through the nation of Israel and beyond (like Christ), I also believe there are demons out there. Have a good one, McBell.