↪Frank Apisa

Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them. — DingoJones

Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable.

That is bunk...gratuitous bunk.

The word "atheist" should be used to identify people who want to use it...and I am suggesting that in my experience, the vast majority of people who WANT to use it are people who "believe" there are no gods" or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I do not know of a single person who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...who WANTS to use that descriptor.

I've said that a half dozen times now. What do you want me to do...post it in CAPITAL LETTERS?

Here is part of my agnostic take on the question of the possible existence of gods:

I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS!

We both know that there are people in this world who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

Are you actually insisting that someone with that sentiment MUST be included in the grouping identified as "atheists?" Do you actually think that makes sense?


Words, Dingo, are meant to communicate ideas and thoughts. Why on Earth would you think it makes sense to use the word "atheist" to communicate that thought...when the word "agnostic" works fine and with some precision to denote not knowing...and not making any guesses in either direction...especially contrived guesses.

I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.
— Frank Apisa

Ok, but then I get to bet that every person you ask will assume they are of above average intelligence (everyone assumes they are of above average intelligence). So what?

Part of my argument is that for some reason, agnostics side with theists, even though their view is a lot closer to that of an atheist (I still can't see a difference other than the labels they give themselves). When most Christians in America hear "agnostic" they hear "searching for god" (earlier in my philosophical journey...this is actually the reason I stopped calling myself agnostic...later I learned definitions). So of course they will side with agnostics against the atheist....they think the agnostics are one of their people...oh, and they think atheists are Satan's spawn. — ZhouBoTong

One...there is NO WAY that I side with theists over atheists. No reasonable agnostic should...and I doubt very many do. I think that is a false impression you are getting.

Two...if you cannot see the difference between agnostics and atheists (or between agnostics and theists), I am not sure why. I see a stark difference between agnostics and theists...and I see every bit as stark a difference between agnostics and people who want to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.

Three...any Christian in America who supposes I am "searching for god" because I am an agnostic...is doing what people who want to use atheist as a descriptor are doing. They are gratuitously trying to get agnostics to "be on their side." It would improve their intellectual DNA also.

There are people who "believe" that there are no gods or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (They WANT to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.) I am not one of them.

Let me repeat that, because you guys seem to be missing it: I most assuredly am not one of them. And I do not want the word "atheist" to be applied to me simply because atheists are so anxious to have the agnostics be part of them that they have subverted the usage of the word in an attempt to force us to be part.

"Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am"

Gerry Rafferty

Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable. — Frank Apisa

No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion.
Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one. Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.
YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.
Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.
The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.

No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion. — DingoJones

I have made my case for why what I prefer that "atheist" be reserved for people who either "believe" (guess) that there are no gods...or who "believe" (guess) that it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one.

There is absolutely NO REASON WHATEVER for the word atheist to be so encompassing that it must include people (agnostics, babies, toddlers) who do not have those "beliefs."

Now STOP saying that I am not stating my position and not defending it...because I am and have...just as I have done for the last 4+ decades.

If you do not like my position or insist your position is stronger or more rational...fine.

I think my position is much stronger and more rational.

Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one.

You cannot possibly have done that, because my position is NOT the weaker one. What you have provided it YOUR OPINION that yours is the stronger position. And you have provided your (absolutely incorrect opinion) that I have not furnished or defended my position. Wording is important in these kinds of discussions.)

Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.

YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.[/quote]

I have addressed it. Several times now. All you do is to dismiss my comments as not being as strong as yours...and you are not even careful enough to acknowledge that your supposed assessments are nothing but YOUR OPINION.

Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.

I have addressed your points. And I never walk away from an argument. I will be here until the sun goes nova on this issue.

I doubt we will resolve it...but if you think you are going to present your opinions and I am going to adopt them as stronger and more reasonable than mine...you are way, way off base.

The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.

There is no reason why we cannot have it...and have it reasonably, Dingo.

I am not an atheist...and no reasonable person would listen to my position (which I have stated several times) and suppose that I am...EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO USE THE DESCRIPTOR "ATHEIST" AND WHO WANT TO INSIST THAT I AM ALSO AN ATHEIST BY DINT OF A USAGE CHOICE.

You should be able to say, "I understand that position, Frank...and I agree."

I doubt you will do that.

So...let's continue the discussion.

You have just done exactly what I said you are doing, making assertions with no arguments....and you did that while saying thats not what you are doing.
I do not need to hear your position again. I understand what your position is. At your request, I chose one of the two arguments I made against you. It was to determine which definition (lack of belief, or yours) is the most sensible. I offered reasoning as to why mine was stronger, and yours the weaker. I used an analogy to illustrate further the error you make in your definition. You have not addressed any of it. You just keep repeating (and adding new) assertions, and restating your original reasoning (which doesnt have much to it to start with, but Im trying to be charitable). I have addressed these, and if there is some reason why my arguments are wrong, you need to demonstrate it. Unlike you, who claims its impossible to show your position the weaker of the two because it isn’t (which is an assertion and a circular line of reasoning), I am open to being wrong. I just want to be shown how.
So, once again: address my argument, address my refutation of your argument...and now since you’ve made yet another assertion I would like you to tell me in what way I have failed to address your argument since I do not see how.

My arguments are:

1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is. If were less broad, people who do not want to be classified as atheists would not be subjected to the "You are by definition" crap.

2) Just about EVERY person I have known who CHOOSES to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor does so NOT because of a lack of "belief" in a god...but rather because that person either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods.

The word should be saved for them...and the rest of us can choose another word if we feel the need for a descriptor.

3) If you want to be like Trump and claim victories you do not deserve...fine with me. I can laugh at you for doing it as easily as I can laugh at him.

4) Glad you are open to being wrong...because you are. If you think you have stronger arguments for why the word should not be as broad as it is...THAN "it doesn't need to be that broad" and "by being that broad, it requires people who do not want to be identified as atheists to be included"...

...present them.

You have none. I know it. I suspect you know it also.

Ok, so you arent following the discussion. What you just posted was what you posted initially. We arent talking about that right now, but lets walk you through it step by step. Before you go off about being condescended to, thats not what Im doing. From my perspective, you are not getting what Im saying. Going through it step by step will help one of us to understand where they have gone wrong, could be me or it could be you and by going over it we will determine which it is. We do not determine who is correct by who asserts the loudest and hardest, so just stop doing that.
Ok, so you have posited a definition of atheist above. Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?

Okay, but we are not going to make this an interrogation of me. You are not Socrates; I am not open to the Socratic method or a prosedutorial method. I answer it thoroughly...then I get to ask a question.

Your question was: Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?

MY ANSWER: What I offered is not actually a "definition." It is, instead, a set of comments about the word that I thought might elicit some return comments from you.

Didn't produce results, but be that as it may...it does not specifically include people who lack a belief in god.

But that is mostly because I much prefer not to offer anything that relies on the "believe in"** nonsense. I speak more specifically that that horrible usage.** And I would never limit it to a "god"...but rather to gods. The "god" usage, whether capitalized or not...refers to a specific subject.

I did mention people who do not "believe" (in) god...in my text. I suggest their lack of "belief" is almost certainly not the actual reason people who choose to use the descriptor "atheist" make that choice. I suspect the real reason is that the individuals "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

ASIDE: I do not share that opinion, which is one of the reasons I will not allow the descriptor "atheist" to be applied to me. My insistence on this has NOTHING to do with any feeling about the word you may think I harbor.


**I do on occasion use the "believe in" thingy, but only to save time when speaking with someone with whom I have been deep in conversation on the subject. The "I believe in" construct seems to me to be a convention...and not one I think does justice to serious conversation.

Now...my question for you:

In my set of comments above, I wrote: "1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is."

Do you disagree with that; do you see a "need" for it to be that broad?

Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable?

↪Frank Apisa

Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable? — DingoJones

No.

Please answer my question.

So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point?

So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point? — DingoJones

Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right.

But as for questions and answers...we are done with you proposing questions to me without first answering my questions.

Please answer my question. If you then want to incorporate your answer into another argument...fine.

But first I want the question answered...and fully, as I answered yours.

Then I will accept another question from you.

(By the way, you have now asked two other questions of me which I have answered. If any other questions come my way before you answer mine, I will require that I get to match those two also. If you do answer my question fully before answering my question, I will let those slide. So...answer the question before asking your next one.)

Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.

Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted.

I don't believe in Tabula Rasa and consider it an archaic theory; with fields such as evolutionary psychology affirming that people just like animals are born with inherent or genetic predispositions, in fact this would seem to be common sense.

In fact, even during the 19th century when Tabula Rasa was most popular, what I consider to be more "serious" fields of speculation, such as the theory of the Common Law as per Oliver Wendall Holmes and other legal theorists, it was more or less known that "passions", or "instincts", play a role in human behavior, not solely rational faculties, so even during it's era of popularity, Tabula Rasa was, in my opinion, always a nonsensical theory.

For example, in the theory of criminal, crimes of "passion", or done in the "heat of the moment", when a person is acting more from impulse or instinct rather than from reason, are less severe than "pre-meditated" crimes, those which are intentionally and methodically planned out while in a fully rational state.

Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.

Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted. — DingoJones

Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.

↪Frank Apisa
I don't believe in Tabula Rasa and consider it an archaic theory; with fields such as evolutionary psychology affirming that people just like animals are born with inherent or genetic predispositions, in fact this would seem to be common sense.

In fact, even during the 19th century when Tabula Rasa was most popular, what I consider to be more "serious" fields of speculation, such as the theory of the Common Law as per Oliver Wendall Holmes and other legal theorists, it was more or less known that "passions", or "instincts", play a role in human behavior, not solely rational faculties, so even during it's era of popularity, Tabula Rasa was, in my opinion, always a nonsensical theory.

For example, in the theory of criminal, crimes of "passion", or done in the "heat of the moment", when a person is acting more from impulse or instinct rather than from reason, are less severe than "pre-meditated" crimes, those which are intentionally and methodically planned out while in a fully rational — IvoryBlackBishop

Thank you for all that, IBB. And despite my use of "tabula rasa" earlier...I agree with much of what you said. My point earlier was that babies are not atheists simply because they lack a "belief" in a god.

I agree, I've heard contradictory arguments on this one:

1. "All babies are atheist until indoctrinated into religion"

2. Religion is a childish belief which one grows out of?

Doesn't seem that both can be true at the same time.

They easily can.

When one is born, one has no beliefs, therefore one has no belief in God, and so is an atheist.

In early life, one's beliefs are easily influenced by others, so traditional beliefs like in God are easily instilled in one. If such beliefs were not instilled, one would remain an atheist.

As one grows older, one's critical thinking abilities improve, and one begins to investigate the truth on one's own. So someone who had belief in God instilled in them at a young age would grow out of it as they matured and learned that those traditional beliefs were false.

ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but not everyone who lacks a "belief" that any gods exist...

...is an atheist.

Babies are not atheists.

I lack a belief that any gods exist...and I am NOT an atheist.

But that could apply to any belief, which is taught or indoctrinated into at a low-educational level (e.x. elementary school), including beliefs in things, ideas, or concepts we take for granted, such as physics and the natural sciences.

Most people are simply taught them at an average 6th grade reading level, having never studied them at higher levels, or invented said theories themselves.

All babies are atheist until indoctrinated into religion"

2. Religion is a childish belief which one grows out of? — IvoryBlackBishop

Babies don't believe in tooth fairies or Santa either.

Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion. — Frank Apisa

I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right." — Frank Apisa

Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension. — Frank Apisa

A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted. — Frank Apisa

The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used. — Frank Apisa

No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.

Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something.

I'm not having this conversation again, it's dumb and you're just factually wrong.

There is "weak", "soft", or "implicit" atheism which is lack of belief in God.

There is "strong", "hard", or "explicit" atheism which is belief in the lack of God.

The former is just anyone who is not a theist. The latter are a subset of the former. Typical (but not all) agnostics fall within the former but not the latter. You're one of them I take it. I don't care what you identify as, that's what words mean.

I expect this has already been explained to you upthread, which is why I haven't been reading this thread until now. This argument is old and stupid and pointless because people like you aren't interested in productive conversation.

That's true, what's your point?

My point is this would lead to absurdisms; obviously children are indoctrinated to a certain degree, and this isn't considered "wrong or bad" (e.x. most people only have a 6th grade reading level or understanding of things like physics, arithmetic, English, and so on and so forth, much as they are "indoctrinated" into the law of the society they are a part of - a person showing a belief in Newton's physics merely because they were "taught it" isn't on the same level as someone like Newton who discovered or invented the theories himself).

So one can't argue entirely against "indoctrination" here, it would have to do with what is being indoctrinated, or the method or way in which it is being done, or else it would potentially lead to absurdism, epistemological nihilism, or other things of that nature.

In practice, what I see, arguments specifically about "religion" aside, many would rather one simply be "indoctrinated" into the "right-think" rather than think for themselves and come to the "wrong" conclusion, and this is what the bulk of education, at least at the lowest levels, independent of the subject matter is.

Regardless, I wouldn't take this all for granted, I am glad to some extent that I was "indoctrinated" into speaking English as a child, rather than speaking no language at all.

I wasn't arguing against "indoctrination". I didn't even use that word.

I was explaining how it can both be the case that babies are born atheists, and atheism is something people outgrow. If a false believe is instilled at an impressionable young age, someone will hopefully grow out of it as they mature and investigate their beliefs critically. Nobody is born with any beliefs though, so in that case the babies are born lacking the belief, get it instilled at a young age, and then grow out of it.

If the beliefs instilled at a young age are not false, then they are not so likely to be grown out of, and that's fine.

I'd have to disagree, as this would basically be asserting that there are no universals.

(However, even then it's asserting the idea that "growing out of beliefs" taught as a child is some type of universal).

Much as there's a difference between being taught "the word", as opposed to being the concept which the world refers to; I'd argue that regardless of what the "belief" supposedly is, that if one's level of understanding it is limited to indoctrination or rote memorization, this isn't the same depth of belief and comprehension as one who, for example invented or discovered the theory on their own, even if it's one widely considered to be true.

For example, if you asked a 6th grader to explain any of the finer details of Newton's physics, he would likely not be able to answer, since his learning doesn't extent beyond rote instruction or memorization.

Nothing I said has any implications about there being or not being universals. You seem to be talking about something entirely unrelated.

My belief is that God in theology refers to a universal supreme being, in this sense most world religions have a concept of such a being.

So I wouldn't equate being taught about God, or a specific God, with the deeper thought about the existence of a supreme being to begin with, and I believe that people would still speculate about such a thing even if they hadn't been "taught it".

Much as whoever the first person to come up with the idea of a supreme being was, obviously wasn't "taught it", but came up with it himself and passed it down to others.

Sure, many people speculate about all kinds of things without being taught them. That doesn't make those beliefs that they were born with. People can acquire beliefs without being taught them.

Nothing I'm saying is specifically about belief in God, that's just a particular case of the general pattern. Like Artemis said:

Babies don't believe in tooth fairies or Santa either. — Artemis