You can't say they are normal unless you choose to define what normal is. It depends on the culture. — Lone Wolf
A theist is one who believes in theism, so an atheist must be one who believes in atheism. No way around it. — Lone Wolf
It is a weak stance to attack a person, it merely proves the inability to counter the proposition. — Lone Wolf
You are getting no where with your weak and conflicting definition of atheism. — Lone Wolf
Sigh...you really don't get it do you. Atheism is either a denial or a disbelief in any god. Otherwise one cannot call oneself an atheist. It would be like a Christian denying or disbelieving that Jesus existed. That person would not be a Christian. It does not matter how strong or weak one believes or disbelieves something, either you accept there is a god or you don't. There is no middle ground on that, but one chooses how far to take it. There are strong religious people, say fundamentalist Muslims, and there are weak religious people, such as one who simply think a god exists. But they are still theists. The same goes for atheists. I really don't have time to explain basic ideas, so I'm done here. You clearly are in your own world and not even reading what I am posting. — Lone Wolf
Pedantry. I meant the typical or average person. I don't think it necessary to go into specifics. — Sapientia
No, they're circular definitions. An atheist, as I thought we'd established, given the definition that you yourself provided, is someone who has a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. — Sapientia
Then why did you attack me? What I said was in retaliation to your offensive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about. So please don't play the victim. — Sapientia
That you and I exist is proof that a superior being does exist. (I am that superior being). — Sapientia
Well, I could try to explain it to you, but an inferior being such as yourself couldn't possibly understand. — Sapientia
No, I have not abandoned it. Please show me where I changed my stance, because I don't see it. You are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god, which is in direct conflict with atheism. You went on to discuss the different levels of atheism, that weak atheists don't reject the idea of a god; and I countered that saying that would deny atheism in general. I agree that there are different levels of atheism, but the fundamental belief of it is that there it is likely there is no god.So you've abandoned the definition that you provided? It said nothing of denial. You're being inconsistent. The irony here is that I have been paying closer attention to what you've been posting than would be convenient for you. When you defined atheism, I paid particular attention, and when you subsequently deviated from that definition and moved the goalposts, I also paid attention. — Sapientia
ou are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god, which is in direct conflict with atheism. — Lone Wolf
Average in western Europe? Average in the Far East? — Lone Wolf
Mhm. You denied that definition, and I am not sure why. — Lone Wolf
How have I insulted you? — Lone Wolf
If it is in reference to the first post I made on this thread, I was not referring to you at all. I was referring to the general attributes of children. — Lone Wolf
But clearly, you have attempted to insult me. — Lone Wolf
No, I have not abandoned it. Please show me where I changed my stance, because I don't see it. — Lone Wolf
You are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god... — Lone Wolf
I agree that there are different levels of atheism, but the fundamental belief of it is that there it is likely there is no god. — Lone Wolf
If theism is the belief that there's a god, then atheism is the rejection of that belief. — Sapientia
Clearly you just don't get my humour. Honestly, I'm a little flummoxed to think that anyone could think I was actually being serious when I made those comments that you've quoted, apparently as examples of me being insulting.
I did leave you a helpful hint when I referred to British humour, which, according to Wikipedia, has "a strong theme of sarcasm... often with deadpan delivery". — Sapientia
How many times is that now? You do realise that that's not what you said before. It changes every time! It's hard to keep up. This is the first time that you've mentioned likelihood. Originally, what you said was fundamental did not mention anything of likelihood. — Sapientia
I refuse to spoon feed you. You can see for yourself. I'll just note that you have been inconsistent and have been moving the goalposts. — Sapientia
To both of you, I'll share my own thoughts on the matter. I myself identify as an atheist with regard to the many theistic conceptions of God (and gods), all of those that are found in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism to an extent, and so on. That is, I do not believe in Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, yada yada yada. Yet, at the same time, I do not posit that I, or anyone, can have knowledge of "God" as a concept in and of itself. So, am I an agnostic or an atheist? Maybe both. If someone dares define this or that as being God, then I'll sit down and decide whether or not I believe in it. And if someone does not define God, then there's nothing for me to either believe in or not believe in. This has me ending up being labeled an ignostic I think, which is fine by me. — Heister Eggcart
Atheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s). — Heister Eggcart
Well, granted that you're a guy who used to think the Gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ, then I think in all likelihood you don't know what you're talking about :P ;)offensive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about — Sapientia
The statement that atheists merely have disbelief proves my statement that atheists do not have any of their own structure, it is only disbelief of someone else's structure. — Lone Wolf
lol - seems like you deny that atheists merely reject someone else's structure at first, and then you affirm that it is indeed the case by saying it's about destruction rather than construction. Clearly to think that atheists are "normal" guys and girls is just a red herring, as I don't suppose LW meant that atheists don't have any kind of structure at all, but rather that in-so-far as they are atheists (and nothing else), they represent only a rejection, without any constructive affirmation.No, it does not. You're confusing atheism and atheists. Atheists are mostly normal guys and gals who have the normal structure and beliefs that normal people normally have. Atheism, on the other hand, by that definition, is indeed a negative position about theism. It's about destruction rather than construction. — Sapientia
How would we distinguish this person from an agnostic? Would he have different beliefs than an agnostic?As I explained before, an atheist could go only as far as claiming that there isn't good enough reason to believe that there's a god without actually denying that there's a god. — Sapientia
What do you mean possibility? That weird kind of logical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow? :DAtheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s). — Heister Eggcart
This is what I have been saying all along, nothing more nothing less. You went on about the levels of atheism, and implied that weak atheists don't reject a god. You are the one moving the goalposts and changing the definitions. — Lone Wolf
I played along with your jokes, and equally made a few of my own while I was at it. Obviously you missed that part... I didn't realize it was unacceptable to have my own humor. — Lone Wolf
Prove it. — Lone Wolf
Again, prove it. If you can't offer quotes of where I was off, then I am afraid I can't believe it. I am open for correction, if you would give some evidence of where I was inconsistent and moving the goalposts. — Lone Wolf
Hmm, very interesting. You do identify as an atheist, and think that if a god exists, that one can't know it, correct? I think your definition of yourself as an atheist is accurate, but you seem to be open minded on the matter. — Lone Wolf
But if theism is belief in God, then I don't see how one can be atheistic, yet believe in a possible god. — Lone Wolf
What do you mean possibility? That weird kind of logical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow? — Agustino
:s Allah is meant to denote the same God. Palestinian Christians for example, use God and Allah interchangeably. It doesn't matter if you say God, or Babbsnada, or whatever - it's like using different languages to denote the same underlying person.Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa. — Heister Eggcart
Who talked about logical propositions Mr. Smartasinus? :-}The sun failing to rise tomorrow is not a logical proposition, dipshittus. — Heister Eggcart
The "Muslim God" and the "Christian God" are just words (referents). They are obviously referents to the same entity, for there is One God only, there's not 50 Gods for that matter. Two different people may call me by a different name (my name as it corresponds to their language), and even describe me differently, it doesn't follow at all that I'm two different persons. So quit playing around.The Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God. — Heister Eggcart
The "Muslim God" and the "Christian God" are just words (referents). They are obviously referents to the same entity, for there is One God only, there's not 50 Gods for that matter. Two different people may call me by a different name (my name as it corresponds to their language), and even describe me differently, it doesn't follow at all that I'm two different persons. So quit playing around. — Agustino
Just because the referents of the words point to the same underlying person does not mean that they both describe Him equally well. I made no mention in my post of the accuracy of the two religions, and I take Islam to be a corruption of the revelation of Christianity, a corruption which nevertheless still retains some good.Now if someone wants to curse terrorists, or yell at a particular extremist Muslim or whatever, that is different. — 0 thru 9
lol - seems like you deny that atheists merely reject someone else's structure at first, and then you affirm that it is indeed the case by saying it's about destruction rather than construction. — Agustino
Clearly to think that atheists are "normal" guys and girls is just a red herring, as I don't suppose LW meant that atheists don't have any kind of structure at all, but rather that in-so-far as they are atheists (and nothing else), they represent only a rejection, without any constructive affirmation. — Agustino
How would we distinguish this person from an agnostic? Would he have different beliefs than an agnostic? — Agustino
And you complain about moving goalposts? You should clarify what your terms mean, that's rule number one since Aristotle! :P You're protesting at her comments, but her comments actually make perfect sense, it's only you, with your confusions between atheism and agnosticism that is creating problems at the moment.As I said earlier, there can be an overlap between atheism and agnosticism. I don't wish to trouble myself too much with the finer semantic details. But some, for example, make the point, drawing upon the etymology of the terms, about a distinction between knowledge and belief. — Sapientia
I actually thought that LW's remark which I quoted was quite well worded. Sure she didn't clarify that the structure in question refers only to atheism, but that's pretty much clear from the context. I think your reading there was quite uncharitable and problem-seeking in nature.You're just basically echoing my own point back to me. Yes, it should have been worded better so that it doesn't look like a confusion of what it is to be an atheist. — Sapientia
With my definition of atheism, that you claimed to accept, then you are the one who is changing what is meant by atheism. Atheism is the rejection of belief of a god generally, as I have said all along. The real issue is that you don't really accept this definition, but don't have a better one. If you don't declare to know with more or less certainty, then you fall into agnosticism. It doesn't matter what you called yourself. If I called myself a purple Martian, it wouldn't change the fact that I am not a purple Martian, but human.To give but one example out of several from which to choose, in your very first reply, you said, "One can't know with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist; hence, atheism is proclaiming with certainty something that is unknowable".
This was your first misunderstanding. From that, it's clear that you were suggesting that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist, or at least that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known that a superior being does not exist. Hence, if I'm an atheist, then I'm committed to that claim. But I am, and I'm not, respectively. So, how can that be? Well, because, as I explained, that is not true of atheism, but of only a very specific type of atheism, and I'm not an atheist of that type, generally speaking.
And yes, it's true that a distinction between weak atheists and strong atheists can be made by drawing attention to the fact that a weak atheist might not reject god, but instead reject the basis for belief in god. That's true, that's not that hard to grasp, and that's not inconsistent with what I've been saying. So, what's your problem? You should at least concede that you confused atheism with a type of strong atheism. — Sapientia
Again, this is quite an absurd request. Are you unable to compare that dictionary definition with what you said both before and subsequently and note the difference? If so, then why? I even made it easy for you. I think that you just want to be spoon fed, or don't want to concede, but spoon feeder is not my occupation. My occupation is comedian, although I do a bit of supreme being on the side. — Sapientia
Prove it yourself. I can give you instructions, if you like:
Step 1: look at the dictionary definition for atheism that you provided.
Step 2: look at what else you've said about atheism.
Step 3: pay particular attention to where you've mentioned knowledge, certainty, hard evidence, denial, likelihood, and the belief in atheism.
Step 4: show me where that's contained in the dictionary definition.
Step 5: concede already and stop wasting my precious time. — Sapientia
And you complain about moving goalposts? You should clarify what your terms mean, that's rule number one since Aristotle! :P You're protesting at her comments, but her comments actually make perfect sense, it's only you, with your confusions between atheism and agnosticism that is creating problems at the moment. — Agustino
I actually thought that LW's remark which I quoted was quite well worded. Sure she didn't clarify that the structure in question refers only to atheism, but that's pretty much clear from the context. I think your reading there was quite uncharitable and problem-seeking in nature. — Agustino
With my definition of atheism, that you claimed to accept, then you are the one who is changing what is meant by atheism. Atheism is the rejection of belief of a god generally, as I have said all along. The real issue is that you don't really accept this definition, but don't have a better one. If you don't declare to know with more or less certainty, then you fall into agnosticism. It doesn't matter what you called yourself. If I called myself a purple Martian, it wouldn't change the fact that I am not a purple Martian, but human. — Lone Wolf
Oh yes, of course. I see this often, many religious people are ignorant of the qualities of the God they claim to believe.Note that one can also believe in God but claim to have no knowledge of him. My position is the opposite, and more coherent, I'd argue. — Heister Eggcart
Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa.
I'm someone who would appear to be both atheistic and agnostic, but you'd similarly find that every religious person is both a theist and an atheist. And if you object, citing that everyone who believes in God does believe in God, just different Gods, then what difference does it make what God one believes in if they're all essentially the same? Clearly they're not, which is why I've said that everyone is, at least in some sense, an atheist. — Heister Eggcart
Clearly you're going to carry on insisting that that's what you've said all along, even though you evidently have not. That means that you're being unreasonable and stubborn, and I choose not to argue with someone who's going to be like that. — Sapientia
:-} Yes, because he doesn't let you spew falsityThe more Agustino writes, the more a thread becomes intolerable to participate in. — Heister Eggcart
I am not sure I understand this. Theism in general proclaims the existence of any god or gods, not necessarily one particular god, or a certain set of gods. Wouldn't the declaration of a particular god be beyond what theism is generally? — Lone Wolf
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.