In regards to atheism.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Or, more succinctly, most atheists don't define themselves by the term atheist - excepting when a their issue comes up and they are obliged to state their position. Atheists mostly define themselves as simply rational thinkers.

    I don't define myself as an anti-unicornist (unicorns rarely impact my life).
    And you defining yourself as a pro-unicornist has no effect on how I define myself. Unless I've decided to oblige you in a discussion about unicorns.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Can you elaborate?

    The term atheist actually means 'without God (gods)' That is your real position.

    Yes, if we are discussing our belief, or lack of belief in unicorns.

    I'm not defining you. You define yourself as atheist. I am using the literal meaning of the word. The reality is you are without God, and God does not currently exist as far as you know. That's fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking we all comprehend God in the way you do.

    I believe unicorns don't exist on this planet. I don't see the point of qualifying it with 'unlikely' If I am wrong I will automatically change my mind, whether I'm aware of the change or not.

    What do you mean by "factually part of your life"?

    If unicorns existed I'd still be without them. Again, you demonstrably incapable of comprehending God, at this stage of your evolution.

    Why can't you just accept that?

    Jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Yawn. Don't you have anything better than your continued love-affair with the original meaning of the word? You know, maybe actually use the modern meaning, that being the meaning that modern atheists associate themselves with? Otherwise you are just continuing the same strawman that you have been arguing for the past long while.
    Don't. Use the meaning of the term as the people who use the label intend.
    If someone comes out as being gay, do you say "gee, thanks for telling me that you're happy!" Or do you use the meaning of the word as intended by the person who used it? Misunderstanding them once is fair enough - we're not mind-readers - but since you have been repeatedly told of this strawman you are arguing, you have no reasonable excuse for the continuation of your strawman. So any further continuation shall henceforth be considered deliberate dishonesty on your part. Either use the term as intended by those who use the label, or don't use it. Simples, really.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Again, you demonstrably incapable of comprehending God, at this stage of your evolution.

    And I hope it continues during the what ever time I have left

    Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

    Wikipedia

    Ummmm I think I'm at my peak here

    Caveat

    However if you can explain how long does the Rapture last

    i.e. is it to late to change once the Rapture has begun?

    or would it be a case of to late?

    Because IF I have time to I will change I promise

    Why can't you just accept that?

    I have accepted that subject to the terms and conditions I just outlined

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Hi Jan
    Do you think you are at somehow a higher level of evolvement over nonbelievers.
    Alex
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    In the comprehension realm it would appear so

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Explain how the original meaning of the word does not apply to modern atheists.?

    Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
    "Atheist" describes a fundamental characteristic of the person.

    A person who comes out as gay is a homosexual. Correct?
    He/she may not like the term, but it describes, basically, their sexuality. Is that correct? .

    It's not an argument, it is a fact. An atheist is a person without God. Do you deny that?

    You intend it to basically mean 'a lack of belief'. Correct?
    It doesn't mean you accept God exists but you choose not to not believe in God. It means you don't perceive God. It means there is no God. It means you are without God.
    You think a theist is such because he believes that God exists. Existence is always at the forefront of debates and discussions with theists. This is because they cannot perceive God. and if you cannot perceive God the you are for all intent and purpose, without God. But for some reason you cannot accept that. You cannot accept that God exists, but you don't have the perception. You most likely feel offended by it because it could be seen as you are unable, or incapable of such a perception.

    Jan.
     
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Hi Alex
    I don't loot at evolution in that way.

    Jan.
     
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968


    Jan.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Didn't answer the questions but your fogiven because of the video

    I had pleasure in seeing a live recording being made of The Goon Show from a exhibition in London

    Put $20 in the poor box on the way out please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    It's not that it doesn't apply to atheists, it's that the original meaning applied to more than those who simply lacked the belief in gods. I.e. The original term was broader than the term now is, and included all those who actually believed in the existence of gods but chose to reject them on a practical level.
    So while the original meaning is still attributable to those currently labelled atheists, the original meaning can be applied to those not currently labelled atheists. You ignore this distinction. The meanings are different, yet you blatantly choose to continue using only the original meaning.
    I think you'll find it does: labels for a group are only good as labels if they accurately describe those who use that label and can not be applied to those who are not part of that group. Your usage of the term "atheist" can be applied to those who actually aren't atheist (modern usage).
    No, it doesn't. It is simply a label to describe one's stance on a very specific issue: their lack of belief in the existence of God. Given that you would be hard pressed to notice the difference between many who are atheists and many who are not, it is not exactly a fundamental characteristic. It is only as significant characteristic of a person if it is a matter that dominates their personality. And for most atheists, it really doesn't.
    That is the modern meaning, yes. The original meaning simply meant "bright, merry, happy, lively" etc. The point being that you use the label as intended by the ones using it.
    The modern usage is more than that, though, as it is specific to those who lack belief in the existence God, and no longer covers those who believe in the existence of God (or gods) but choose to live life as though God (or gods) does not exist.
    So if you want to call those latter people atheist, even though they believe in the existence of God, then feel free, but they are not atheist in the modern sense of the word.
    So for you to continue to use a word with a broader meaning than just those you intend it to be a label for, as you are doing, is blatantly flawed.
    Lack of belief in the existence of god, gods, God etc.
    "not to not believe in God"?
    Indeed. But those who do believe in the existence of God and choose to ignore him would also be "without God", and thus from your point of view, your usage of the term, they would be atheist. Yet they would not fall under the label of atheist under the current usage.
    By the modern broad definition, that describes a theist: belief in the existence of God.
    But whether you agree with that or not, we are not talking about theism but atheism.
    Is it? Or do you mean with atheists?
    With atheists it is likely to be (at least in context of a discussion about God) because that is what defines an atheist: lack of belief in the existence of God.
    I do accept that. But you are committing a logical fallacy: all those who lack belief in the existence of God (modern usage) are without God (original usage) but not all those without God (original usage) lack belief in the existence of God (modern usage).
    Can you see how equating the group of atheists (who use the modern term) under the original meaning of the term is simply fallacious?
    So you claim. Who is to say that our perception is not perfect, and yours happens to have a bit of distortion?
    Sheesh, Jan, you're grasping at straws to find some way of feeling superior, aren't you!

    Offended about what? Not seeing things that possibly aren't there?
    I'd surely get offended about being colour-blind then, wouldn't I? People can see patterns in the Ishihara tests that I can't see... how dare they!
    And people who see alien UFOs in every picture of an unexplained object... damn them all to hell, I say, for the offence that they cause me!
    You see, Jan, if I honestly felt I was missing out on something and you theists were rubbing it in my face that I was lesser for it, then yes, I may have a reason to feel offended. But since the closest we get is you and a few others simply trying to insist there is something, yet not being able to show what it is or any advantage to it (least of all through personality traits), then being offended is pretty much the last thing I feel.
    Frustrated at your logically fallacious reasoning, perhaps, and not specifically you.
    Irritated by the pushing of beliefs into the public domain where it is not warranted, again perhaps, but not specific to religious belief.
    Indeed, if I feel anything at all for the theistic tendency it would be pity.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    My perception was distorted, like Hubble, and like Hubble I was fixed

    Now I can truly see the majesty of the heavens

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Plus unlike the Hubble I get a free pair of glasses every 2 years

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It doesn't make that distinction. For a start existence isn't the issue.

    A theist does not believe in God simply because they think He exists. Plus, believing purely in the existence of anything, is a nonsense.

    Nonsense. It applies to those who are without God. Because a person professes a belief in God, does not necessarily they actually believe in God.

    The actual meaning of the term (atheist) does not discriminate. It accurately describes the basic position, regardless of whether or not you are aware of it.

    Yes.

    How does one believe purely in the existence aspect of something? How does belief purely in the existence of God, make one a theist? How can one come to the conclusion that God exists, and simultaneously be an atheist. I agree that they can be atheistic, but not atheist. This is atheist understanding.

    It is an atheist definition. A theist believes God. Period. Existence a property of God. Which is why it is possible to believe in Him.

    Yes. Thank you.
    I'm sure I corrected this error.

    Yes. That is because you are without God.

    You are claiming that it is possible to accept that God exists, but not believe in God. But it's not that simple, for reason explained earlier. Here's another explanation. People who know God exists, but deny His Supremacy, thereby acting as though God is insignificant are described as demonic, not atheist, or theist. There is a significant difference between a person who floats the law due to ignorance, to one who does so, and is aware it.

    And here is the crooks of the matter. You don't want to accept that you a lacking more than just a belief in the existence of God. That you are incapable of perceiving God.

    Your perception may be perfect, but it's the perception of being without God.

    Even if I was (which I'm not), the point would still be relevant.

    I don't believe you.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    It is to the atheist. It is the sole reason that the atheist is an atheist - because they lack belief that God exists.
    We're not talking about what it takes to be a theist - and a theist, by the general broad definition, is someone who believes in the existence of a deity.
    We've discussed this before, Jan, and you were told then that "to believe in the existence of X" is to be interpreted as "to believe that X exists". It is not a nonsense interpreted in this way, this being the way it is intended to be interpreted.
    We're not talking about people who profess a belief in God. We're talking about those who lack belief that God (or a deity) exist. These people are what the label "atheist" refers to. Your attempt to broaden the definition includes all those who believe that God exists (i.e. are not atheist by the modern usage) yet reject God, or generally act as though God does not exist. These people are not atheists (modern usage). Why are you continuing to struggle with this?
    No, Jan, the actual meaning of the term (atheist) is "lacks belief that God exists" - or words to that effect. What you are describing is the original meaning. This original meaning has been superseded. Deal with it.
    How does one choose "not to not believe in God" and be an atheist? The double-negative means that you saying I choose "to believe in God" - hence the confusion you are creating. Please clarify yourself.
    The modern usage of theist, as explained, is broadly the belief that God exists. This is what is meant by "belief in the existence of...".
    And these people can not be atheist (modern usage) but they could still be atheist (original usage) if they rejected God and acted like God did not exist. This was what atheist originally meant, "without God". Someone who lived their life without God, even if they believed that God exists, would have been considered atheist.
    It's not an atheist definition it is the language's definition. Look it up in any dictionary you care to that details the English language.
    You didn't.
    No, they are merely part and parcel of the same position - one does not come before the other, or cause the other.
    What reason?? You haven't given any, or at least none that I can discern as an explanation.
    Yes, people can accept that God exists and not believe in God. They can simply choose to reject God, God's teachings, all scripture and everything about God, and live their life as though God does not exist. It is as simple as that, and is in fact the position that many theists accuse all atheists of being in - a wilful rejection of what they otherwise know to be the correct state of affairs.
    You might describe them as demonic but since you seem to use labels differently to their intended meaning I am not too surprised. But whatever you choose to call them, previously they would have been considered atheist (original meaning).
    It's "crux of the matter".
    I am prepared to accept anything as long as it can be shown to be the case. Otherwise I open myself to accepting any number of undemonstrated claims. Why should the issue of God be treated any differently.
    I am also prepared to, and do, accept anything as possible until it has shown not to be the case. I judge between all the possibilities I am aware of using what I consider to be rational thought.
    So you are wrong - there is no "want" or "not want" in this regard. I don't choose beliefs on the basis of wanting to or not wanting to. Maybe you do? Maybe that's why you believe? You want to believe in God therefore you give yourself justification to do so? Is that it?
    If that perception is perfect then clearly there is no God to be without.
    It's quite simple, Jan: demonstrate to me that there is something to perceive, that your perception is correct and is not simply an aberration, and that it is us atheists who are deficient in this regard. Otherwise you are simply insulting atheists and merely trying to promote yourself as superior, regardless of what you think your intention might be.
    Your choice. It's really not going to affect me whether you do or not. Or change what I feel.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    For the same reason you can't accept that your belief in God's existence is faith-based?

    And since everyone is unique in how they comprehend God, my comprehension of God is as valid as yours.
    You and I are each but one in seven billion ways the concept of God can be comprehended, all equally valid.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I agree.
    The atheist is without God. Lacking belief in God implies that the atheist can realise God, while being an atheist where they can decide for themselves whether or not God exists.
    You can't lack belief in something that doesn't exist, and to an atheist, God does not exist.

    That's because dictionary definitions are based on common usages of the general populace. So while the definition is a part of what constitutes theism, it fails miserably in explaining what theism is.

    Theism and atheism are inextricably linked. So we can refer to theism to give a broader picture of atheism.

    There can be no "other" in any practical sense as we have to make decisions, and act upon them, from moment to moment.

    Atheist, refers to someone who is without God, not to someone who claims to be without God.

    The meaning of the word is self-explanatory. The atheist is without God. It is exactly correct. The modern meaning, is a symptom of the original meaning. If you use the term atheist in accordance with what it means, everything the atheists remark about God or theism stems from the perspective of being without God.

    My bad. I was acknowledging my error which you pointed out.
    I have given reasons. State your objections by all means, but quit with the games.

    This is time wasting.

    It seems you can't grasp that atheist is a real position. It already implies that God exists. It states that there are people who are without God.

    That you cannot accept that God is, or lack belief in Theos (exist), is merely a symptom of atheist. The reality being you are without Theos.

    You need to be shown something so that you can accept. This is because you are atheist, without God. A theist does not need to be shown anything to comprehend God. Just as a compassionate person does not need to be shown what compassion is, to know what it is.

    You're right. Your not believing in God is not a choice, and you cannot choose to believe in God, no matter how much you may say you do believe. We either come to the realisation of God, where belief is an automatic response, or we are without God, and belief is impossible, until we come to the realisation.
    What you choose to do is to deny the reason why you lack belief in God, which is because you are without God. In doing so you convince yourself that there has to be evidence of God in order for you to accept. This in and of itself proves that the original meaning of the word applies directly to you, or any atheist.

    God is as obvious to me, as no God is for you.

    Your perception is perfect for you.
    For you there is no God. You may say that there may be no God at all, but you cannot go beyond that. Everything you utter or write can only be from that perspective.

    You're not deficient. As a human being you have the capacity to realise God. Anthony Flew, as you know, championed the atheist cause for many years, citing the same or similar arguments as yourself. Challenging the theist to provide evidence, or proof of God's existence. Only to come to the realisation of God, late in his life.

    I'm not insulting atheists. They are without God. They may lack belief in the God, or gods theists believe in. But they cannot lack a belief in something that does not exist, and for them God does not exist.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    No it's not "faith-based. Why would anyone require faith to believe in God? Again you show your ignorance about God.

    And the sociopath's comprehension of compassion is every bit as valid as a person who naturally displays compassion. Do you get it yet?


    That is your comprehension of God, so I accept it as a perception.

    Jan.
     
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    I really don't think I've read as much rubbish masquerading as cogent thought in my entire life.
    You don't think someone can lack belief in that which does not exist?
    So you don't lack belief that unicorns exist?
    If you believe that unicorns do not exist then, by definition, you lack belief that they exist.

    And you think atheism is a position that implies God exists???
    Seriously????

    Maybe what you are trying to say has been lost in translation, because what you are actually saying is simply factually wrong.
    I'd have expected more from you, Jan, than this utter confusion of a mess that you have responded to Sarkus with.
    I'm intrigued as to what his response will be for the other parts, but in the meantime I thought I'd at least highlight the drivel you're spouting.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Perfect. You just made my point. You can't "accept it" - that your belief is faith-based. Any more than you claim I don't accept that I am "demonstrably incapable of comprehending God." (except that I am capable. I just don't share your comprehension.)
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Is that so?

    You wanna rethink that?
     

Share This Page