My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

I see you're trying to drag us all into another tedious round of dueling dictionaries. You insist you're using a "standard dictionary", but of course there are many "standard dictionaries" that one can pick and choose from. And then, one can cherry pick whichever nuance out of many possible meanings that suits your purpose in the argument, which you have done here.

The bottom line here is this: you, as a theist, don't get to tell me what my position as an atheist is. You don't get to define me into a box of your choosing. And insisting on doing so is both arrogant and presumptuous on your part.

If we have to discuss definitions again to appease you, then let me tell you what I think, just so we're clear. Of the ones that have been mentioned, let's start with wikipedia:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

This is unobjectionable to me. Notice the gradations. The "absence of belief in the the existence of deities" is sometimes labelled "weak atheism", which is a fair description of my own position and, I'd wager, of the majority of other atheists on sciforums.

The "rejection of belief that deities exist" is, I guess, a more vehement type of atheism. I'm not quite sure what the wikipedia is actually getting at there. Perhaps it is absence of belief combined with the view that belief that other people have in deities is irrational or misguided. It's hard to tell.

Finally, the "position that there are no deities" is a positive assertion, sometimes also labelled "strong atheism". That is not my position. No doubt it is the position of some atheists. It can be a dogmatic position, and I'm not the kind of person who generally goes in for dogma of any type.

I've made no such assumption James.
I'm using standard dictionary definitions without additional spin.
Are you saying these definitions are wrong?

The dictionary I have closest to hand has this for "atheism":

Atheism:
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

Is it wrong? Well, no, but it expresses two separate positions under the one label, namely "strong atheism" (1) and "weak atheism" (2), for the sake of better labels. I do not hold both of those positions. And, if we really want to quibble, we could repeat a previous discussion of the word "lack" in definition 2.

So, let's move on to one you found somewhere:

a. a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b. a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

This time, definition (a) refers to both strong and weak atheism in the one definition and does not clearly distinguish between the two positions (although arguably it does flag them as disjunctive alternatives). And then (b) looks reasonable enough, but you insist on quibbling about the term "disbelief". So, that's where we need to go next, I suppose.

"Disbelief" means what it means, James. Are you saying that it doesn't mean what it means?

Perhaps your obsession with "scripture" has led you to the view that dictionaries are some kind of infallible source of the True Meaning of Words. They are not. Dictionaries describe how people use words. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words change meaning over time as usages change. Look at the word "gay", to take one random example.

The dictionary I have at hand says this about "disbelief":

disbelief(n.):
1. Doubt about the truth of something.
2. A rejection of belief.
disbelieve (v.):
Reject as false; refuse to accept.
​

Baldeee has pointed out some meanings of "disbelief" in a previous post, with some usages of the word.

Now, neither wikipedia nor my dictionary use the word "disbelief" in their definitions of "atheism". I don't know which dictionary you pulled your definition from, but apparently it has this:

Disbelief:
1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
2. refusal or reluctance to believe:
3. the act of disbelieving :mental rejection of something as untrue
4. Disbelief is not believing that something is true or real.​

And then you have your preferred definition of "atheism", which is all about "disbelief":

atheism:
1. Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
2. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
3. atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
4. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
5. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.​

So, what do I, as an atheist, have to say about all this "disbelief" stuff? Let's go through it.

Do I have "doubt about the truth of" (disbelief in) God's existence? Yes.

Do I have "a rejection of belief" in God's existence? As I said above, I'm not sure what that means. If it means that I'm rejecting the reality of God even though I somehow really know that God exists after all, then I don't have that.

Do I "reject as false" the idea that God exists? Not outright - it's an open question. What I say is that there's no good reason to accept that God exists. God's existence might be a fact, and I'm not one for dogma, like I said.

Do I "refuse to accept" God's existence? No. Since God's existence has not been established, there's no "denial" of established fact. If somebody proves that God exists, or other good evidence comes to my attention in the future, then I'll be quite willing to accept God's existence. I'm quite willing now, if you're got good evidence.

Do I have an "inability or refusal to accept" that God is true or real? No. Not one bit.

Do I "refuse to believe" in God? Not a priori. But why should I believe in something for which there is so little convincing evidence? Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains drop out. I might as well believe in alien visitors from Mars, or in the healing power of homeopathy if I'm going to start believing stuff without good evidence.

Do I have a "mental rejection of God's existence as untrue"? Like I said, it's an open question. I have not rejected the possibility that God exists.

According to your preferred definition of "atheism", atheism is all about "denial" and "disbelief" in something that has been established as true - namely the existence of God. But the existence of God has not been established as true. A person can't be in "denial" about something that isn't an established fact, and I'm not in "denial" about God.

I reject your definition of "atheism" as being about "disbelief" in something that is real. You haven't cleared the evidentiary hurdle of establishing the reality of this thing you call God. And if God isn't real, there's nothing to "disbelieve". It's just one more belief that I don't happen to hold (and for good reason).

To wind up this latest round of dueling dictionaries, let me sum up. Are the dictionary definitions of "atheism" wrong? It's a mixed bag, obviously. Some of them are using outdated notions. Some of them don't seem very well informed about how modern atheists define themselves. Some of them take a reasonable stab at it. And some of them just do what dictionaries do: they record how different people use the term. And that includes not just how atheists use the term, but also how theists like you want to use it, with all the "denial" and "disbelief" that you want to import into the term.

I suggest you'd do better in conversing with atheists if you started listening to how they define themselves rather than reaching for your cherry-picked dictionary definitions. But, I doubt you'll take my advice on this. What you have there is called confirmation bias.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Having covered the dictionary definitions. let me addressing the rest of your reply.

That is an acceptable perspective, but it is an atheist perspective. The problem is, there is the other perspective.

The theist perspective boils down to a "gut feeling" that God is real. Sure, we can pretty it up with some arguments such as the Argument from Design which, although flawed, is I think probably the strongest argument for God. But honest theists know that even their strongest arguments are unconvincing. In the end, they can only fall back on their personal "perspective" or "experience" of God.

That's what you're reduced to here, after years on sciforums. We've run through all your rationalisations, and they have been found wanting. What you're left with is the claim that atheists can't ever really understand the "true" God, or even truly perceive his existence, because they wilfully lock themselves off from the direct spiritual perception of God that you believe you have. In other words, your argument for God is purely subjective, when it's all boiled down.

Oh, and I know that you say you've given up arguing for God. You will tell me that you know you can't convince me of God's existence, but not because God's existence is tenuous or uncertain or not proven, but rather because it's my fault that I reject the obvious. (I wonder what you think my motivation would be for denying the obvious truth.)

I assume the second "not" in that sentence was an error on your part.

Not as far as I can tell. Why?

Because the sentence doesn't make sense with the second "not" in there. Never mind. Moving on...

If 10 people were born without the ability to taste, debated 10 people who were born with taste, the people without taste could make the same above, observation. But it would be purely one-sided, just as yous is.

No. Suppose I had no sense of taste and I suddenly discovered that a whole heap of people claimed to be able to tell the difference between difference kinds of foods based on this strange ability they claimed to have. What could I do?

Answer: I could arrange a simple test to see whether there was anything to this claimed ability to "taste" things. For example, I could arrange a test whereby blindfolded participants were asked to distinguish between sugar and salt, purely by tasting it.

Skeptical as I might be initially, I would be forced to conclude at the end of such a test that at least some other people do have this remarkable ability called "taste", and therefore that "taste" exists as a real thing in the world.

(As an aside, interestingly, it turns out that some people are far better at tasting than the average person. These people are sometimes called "supertasters", and you might even have been unaware that "supertaste" is a thing until reading this.)

Another example is synesthesia. A lot of people are unaware that it even exists. And here is something that is arguably very subjective, and yet is still scientifically verifiable.

But when it comes to proving that your feeling of God is connected to something outside of yourself, well there we're on very shaky ground. In fact, there's a lot of good science that tends to suggest (albeit not conclusively) that God is a very human construct.

How can a person without taste know what they mean when they talk about the tastes of curry and chips? They could argue that such a phenomenon does not exist, because there is nothing that convinces them of it.

I do not experience synesthesia. But I have some understanding of what it is like to be a synesthesiac. I know several people who are, and they can describe what they experience. Moreover, there is a wide literature that described commonalities in the experience of synesthesia. And there are physical signs in the brain that correlate with it.

Apart from all that, there's really no good reason why a bunch of people would, independently, pretend to be synesthesiacs. Often people aren't even aware that they are, and have never heard of it until they are told about it. They just think it's normal and that everybody experiences the world the same way.

Religion - in particular the belief in specific deities - is a different matter. Religion is taught. Nobody comes to believe in Jesus without being taught about him by another person.

And so far I've ignored the fact that God is supposed to be supernatural. Nobody thinks synethesia is supernatural; nobody thinks taste is supernatural. Both of those things make sense in light of our scientific knowledge and everything else we know about the world. But this whole God thing? There we're in a completely different realm of imagination. But science understands the psychology of religion fairly well. And philosophers understand the epistemological and ontological issues fairly well. And, once again, all arrows point towards religion as a very human construct.

---
P.S. In my own case, all of this stuff about how atheists can't know what the experience of God is like for the believer is actually irrelevant, because I've been there, done that, just like many atheists. I know exactly what's it's like to believe in God. I was once a believer.

But yes, I know you will attempt to wave away my experience as invalid because I "never really believed at all", or I "didn't believe properly", or I "only thought I was a true theist", or whatever. And that is where you start sounding even more desperate. Not to mention the arrogance and presumptuousness of judging somebody else's subjective experience as invalid.

 

[C C]

[...] I guess that I'm more inclined these days to think of the value of religion in terms of practice than in terms of metaphysics. (Maybe that's the Buddhist influence.) Walking a religious path isn't so much about what people believe as it is about what they do. Christianity seems to emphasize belief, but Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism and the others are typically more about praxis: about prayer, about meditation, about cultivating virtue. All of those things have their effects on the people doing them and are engines of self-tramsformation.

Despite the overt parlance revolving around belief, faith, etc... I suspect that the fruit of "practice" (or at least the group interactions) is what the average Christian is actually deriving from it, too. Continuing traditions and establishing bonds with the local community during services, garnering the security blanket of an "extended family" via those relationships with co-believers; and getting a kind of buzz from listening to sermons and invited personal stories and testimonies before the crowd. Presence-generated experiential attributes and feelings which just aren't there when merely reading about such or listening / watching it indirectly via media sources. Regularly being a part of the ideological collective facilitates and reinforces conformity to the region's adult standards, too. Things like developing musical abilities in the choir or the church band would be lesser benefits.

Variations of this old joke in even Protestant circles kind of gets to the crux of the matter: Going To Heaven?. The life philosophy, fellowship and behavioral template / routines of "being Christian" is the potent underlying factor rather than the afterlife expectations and other fantastical elements that serve as excuse for a group identity and their gathering together. Though belief in _X_ is continually affirmed in a ritualistic manner, it's probably more akin to Trekkies at a sci-fi convention talking and arguing passionately about their favorite characters / episodes in the decades-long franchise. Someone seriously proposing "Let's go to the future and visit those individuals personally" would draw bemusement. Like the misinterpretation of O'Toole in the joke, it's a sudden shift from safely entertaining something extraordinary in an abstract sense to the alarm of it being presented concretely and immediately -- with a whiff of reality impairment in the air.

- - -

 

[Yazata]

'Atheism' is basically a disbelief, or a lack of belief in the existence of God, or gods.

I'd interpret 'atheism' as the position that 'God exists' is a false proposition. (I realize that's controversial on this board, but it's how I use the word.)

Of course thinking philosophically, one would have to ask what 'God' means. That's why I make a distinction between the named personalized deities of religious myth, and the metaphysical functions of natural theology. My answer to the existence question is rather different, depending on which account of 'God' we go with. (Explained further in post #59.)

And there are also questions regarding 'exists'. The gods obviously do exist as ideas and as objects of belief and religious passion. In that sense, they may be similar ontologically to Sherlock Holmes and fictional entities like that. These kind of beings do have some kind of reality, but it's very different than the kind of reality that the creator and ground of all of the rest of reality would have. Fictional characters are reducible to and ontologically dependent on other parts of reality, whereas if the rest of reality would seemingly be ontologically dependent on God if the God was its creator or source.

"Disbelieve" is an inability, or refuse to accept that something is real, or true.

Or alternatively, it's correctly not attributing reality to things that don't exist.

To lack something, is to be without, or not have enough of that thing.

Not enough false belief?

To believe that God does not exist, because there is nothing that shows, or convinces you it does not exist, amounts to the same thing as God not actually existing.

I think that virtually all theists would disagree with that. They don't believe that God's existence is in any way dependent on our believing or not believing in God. In just about all monotheism, God's existence isn't dependent on us, rather we (and everything else in the created realm) are dependent on God.

Even if I say that I have no reason to believe that Sherlock Holmes exists anywhere outside the world of fiction, it remains conceivable that I'm wrong about Sherlock Holmes and he really did exist in 19th century London. My belief that he was entirely fictional isn't what determines whether he existed or not. If he existed, then he existed.

For you to assert that God does not exist, as far as I'm aware, you need to know what is meant by God.

One would have to have some idea of what one is affirming or denying. The word 'God' is used a variety of ways. Again that was my point in post #59.

But, your claim is, that God does not exist as far as you're aware. So how can you account for mine, or anyone else's awareness?

The issue is whether or not your subjective awareness refers beyond itself to an existing being that doesn't exist only in the human imagination.

 

[sideshowbob]

We can also be aware of existence, so you're really offering nothing.

Jan.

What does "aware of existence" even mean?

 

[Jan Ardena]

But you did cherry-pick from the definitions offered so as to suit your agenda.
Disbelief, from wiktionary:

1. Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
   She cried out in disbelief on hearing that terrorists had crashed an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York City.
2. Astonishment.
   I stared in disbelief at the Grand Canyon.
3. The loss or abandonment of a belief; cessation of belief.

Is it just me, or do those definitions agree with the definitions I put forward?

Even if you type Disbelief into Google, as you have suggested, then you find that, despite your claims to the contrary, you have edited the definition - through omission of alternatives.
Hence the accusation of cherry-picking.
I guess you disbelieve that you were indeed cherry-picking, don't you.

Then you guess wrong. I know I'm not cherry-picking. There's no need to, as it says what it says clearly and precisely, with any editing, or spin on my part.

lack of faith.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms:atheism, unbelief, godlessness, ungodliness, impiety, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"

Thus you have clearly omitted the notion that disbelief is "lack of faith".
Note that with this definition there is no requirement that the faith that is lacked be in something that is true or real.

I didn't omit it. The fact is, it does not apply to you. It applies to me, and theists alike. You do not lack faith in God, you have no faith in God. You cannot even decide if God exists or not.

Lack the state of being without or not having enough of something.

If you argue that you are without faith, then by the same token, you are without God, as Atheist originally meant. If you argue that you do no have enough faith, then it means you have some, and cannot be called atheist.

Nice try though.

The intellectual position allows for the entire spectrum between certainty of existence to certainty of non-existence, including the position of it being unknown.

I have no way of knowing what in your mind,or how you like your life. All I can do, utilise what you reveal. For all I know you may suffer from paranoid, delusional, schizophrenia, and Baldeee may be one of numerous characters. I have based my example on what you have written.

The intellectual position allows for the entire spectrum between certainty of existence to certainty of non-existence, including the position of it being unknown.
If you only deliberately look at the practical position you are deliberately ignoring what the person says and argues and instead go only with how it manifests.
And when the manifestation is a digital proposition you might therefore get a distorted view of their position.

Then this applies to you, and everyone on these forums, apart from the members who know each other in that way.

The practical is by necessity a digital position: you either act as though God exists or you act as though God does not exist.
The intellectual position allows for the entire spectrum between certainty of existence to certainty of non-existence, including the position of it being unknown.
If you only deliberately look at the practical position you are deliberately ignoring what the person says and argues and instead go only with how it manifests.
And when the manifestation is a digital proposition you might therefore get a distorted view of their position.

I said , that to believe that God does not exist, because there is nothing that shows, or convinces you it does not exist, amounts to the same thing as God not actually existing.
This is a balance of intellect and practical.

It is like when you vote in an election when there are only 2 parties - you can either vote for one of them (call them A and B) or you can not vote, or you can deliberately spoil your paper.
But if you vote for A does that mean that you agree with everything that A stands for?
Your practical position is that you agree with them.
Your intellectual position is that probably they offer the best alternative from the choices.
If you only judge someone's intellectual position by their practical then, as exampled, you will misunderstand them.

You've already explained your position definitely agnostic, and I'm quite sure atheist. How is this analogy of yours , relevant to what I said?

No, I just don't cherry-pick but apply the one that is clearly relevant - you know, the one about f

Clearly you are without faith, because you are without God, from my perspective. But how is it you lack faith in God, when you disbelieve God even exists?

This is another issue with your argument: you think that only those that believe in God can know God.
And thus if you don't believe in God you can not know God.
Because to know God is to believe in God.
It is a circular argument, Jan.

A major issue with you is that you have to invent scenarios so that you can respond to them.
Sorry but I can't respond to this, as you must have mistaken me with someone else.

3) God does not exist and the theist is simply mistaken in the way they interpret their experiences and belief,...

An atheist perspective no doubt.
An ataste-ist could use the same point with regards to taste.
But taste-ists will always know better. No matter their standard of education.

Just as a claimed awareness of sun-eating dragons would be a mistaken interpretation of the person's experiences... - and I'll leave you to join the dots.

It's not as cut and dried as you would like to believe.
If a person was aware a dragon eating the sun, and was able to tell the tale. Then that person would acknowledge that the awareness wasn't based in everyday reality. If that continued to believe it to be real, ignoring the fact that the sun is still present... you join the dots.

Also what makes you think awareness of God, is the same awareness of objects?

You insult the agnostic atheist position by asserting through implication that they know God exists but willfully choose to reject the reality of it.

I don't need to assert it, Baldeee. It is implied in the label (atheist). Plus it is implied when try explain anything about God. The only area where it appears assertion free, is when you talk specifically about God's existence. But you won't leave it at that, will you?

You do this through your claim of that "lack of belief" implies that the belief is in something real.
You do it through your application of "disbelief" to mean that it is the rejection of something true or real, rather than apply the more apt definition (that you willfully ignored) that it is simply the lack of faith.

The words mean what they mean, I can't help that.

I assume you have zero faith in God. Right? What I mean is that you cannot have faith in something that you are not convinced exists. Right? The analogy given in the definition assumed the existence of God, by believing she will burn in bell for her lack of faith. But you never assume God exists, and you don't seem anxious by your atheism. So what is it you lack faith exactly?

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Yes.

That's cool.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What does "aware of existence" even mean?

Being aware of things that exist, as opposed to being aware of things that don't exist.
Claiming that we can be aware of things that don't exist, is just the opposite of being aware of things that do exist. Why do you assume that being aware of sun-eating dragons, is the same as awareness of God?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why do you assume that being aware of sun-eating dragons, is the same as awareness of God?

Because there's no difference between gods and sun-eating dragons. There is no evidence for either. So if you're "aware" of a god, it's no different than being "aware" of anything else that isn't supported by evidence. It's an "awareness" that isn't rooted in reality.

 

[river]

Isn't though that each form of a living thing has a purpose and some living beings have intelligence beyond , simply existence .

I use to be an atheist. But changed my mind . Why though ?

Because of the intelligence of life .

This understanding has not come about because of any religion , of any sort . But because life is aware and thinks .

 

[James R]

Is it just me, or do those definitions agree with the definitions I put forward?

I addressed that matter above.

Then you guess wrong. I know I'm not cherry-picking.

I addressed that matter above.

I said , that to believe that God does not exist, because there is nothing that shows, or convinces you it does not exist, amounts to the same thing as God not actually existing.

This makes no sense with the second "not" (bolded) in the sentence. I have highlighted it.

An atheist perspective no doubt.
An ataste-ist could use the same point with regards to taste.
But taste-ists will always know better. No matter their standard of education.

I have addressed that matter above.

The words mean what they mean, I can't help that.

I have addressed that matter above.

---
It is shifty to simply pretend that certain points have not been put to you, and to repeat previous points without addressing the objections that have been put to you. You are apparently not participating in this discussion in good faith. Why not?

 

[James R]

Isn't though that each form of a living thing has a purpose and some living beings have intelligence beyond , simply existence .

How do you know that each living thing has a purpose? Doesn't that assumption that God has a plan come after your belief in God, not before it?

I use to be an atheist. But changed my mind . Why though ?

Because of the intelligence of life .

This understanding has not come about because of any religion , of any sort . But because life is aware and thinks .

Why is God needed for certain living things to think? Science explains thinking and awareness as a natural function of brains and nervous systems. It's an evolved capacity.

 

[river]

How do you know that each living thing has a purpose? Doesn't that assumption that God has a plan come after your belief in God, not before it?

Because each living being matters to the next , ecosystem .

Why is God needed for certain living things to think? Science explains thinking and awareness as a natural function of brains and nervous systems. It's an evolved capacity.

Its not a matter of god , although the numerous times that " god " is referred to is beyond calculation .

To me , god is about ancient history . God is about the ancient past .

Inotherwords , god , is the experience of an advanced being . Of which the people of that time , had no possiblity of understanding from a technological understanding.

god now is an advanced being of which I can understand from advanced investigation into technology . And philosophy .

 

[Baldeee]

Is it just me, or do those definitions agree with the definitions I put forward?

Note the 3rd that you originally conveniently omitted - which has no reference to disbelief.

Then you guess wrong. I know I'm not cherry-picking. There's no need to, as it says what it says clearly and precisely, with any editing, or spin on my part.

Yet you did omit the one definition that specifically refers to faith, that specifically does not mention disbelief.
You are demonstrably lying, Jan.
And if you think you know you are not cherry-picking, when the evidence is clear that you did, is being delusional on your part.

I didn't omit it. The fact is, it does not apply to you. It applies to me, and theists alike. You do not lack faith in God, you have no faith in God. You cannot even decide if God exists or not.

Lack the state of being without or not having enough of something.

Yes - I lack faith in God.
I am without faith in God.
That is not saying or accepting that God exists, it is simply saying that you have something (faith in God) that I do not.
If one does not have something that someone else has then it is quite correct to say that the person lacks that thing.
You have faith in God.
I don't have it - I lack it.
It's quite simple, really, Jan.

If you argue that you are without faith, then by the same token, you are without God, as Atheist originally meant. If you argue that you do no have enough faith, then it means you have some, and cannot be called atheist.

Oh, "lack" can quite happily apply to complete absence as well as to a perceived insufficiency.
But again, through your argument, you are demonstrably cherry-picking.

I have no way of knowing what in your mind...

Yes you do, Jan - you can listen to what is written.
That is way that people share what is in their mind on these forums.

...,or how you like your life. All I can do, utilise what you reveal. For all I know you may suffer from paranoid, delusional, schizophrenia, and Baldeee may be one of numerous characters. I have based my example on what you have written.

No, you haven't.
You don't listen to what people say.
You hear a few words and then, instead of listening to what those words mean to the person, you latch onto the key words and apply your own definition to them.
You think that if someone self-labels as atheist then they are referring to themself as what you understand an atheist to be, irrespective of what they actually tell you.
That is insulting and dishonest on your part.

Then this applies to you, and everyone on these forums, apart from the members who know each other in that way.

No, you have it backward.
You are applying the digital position to the person without listening to what they say.
Listen to what they say, just for once, and you might actually get to understand their intellectual position.

I said , that to believe that God does not exist, because there is nothing that shows, or convinces you it does not exist, amounts to the same thing as God not actually existing.
This is a balance of intellect and practical.

It is not the same thing.
In practice one lives as though God does not exist, because in practice it is a digital proposition.
In the intellect one does not conclude that God does not exist, nor does one conclude that God does exist.
That is the weak atheist intellectual position.
Can you spot the difference yet?
No - you can't - as all you do is apply their practical position to them without listening to what they actually tell you.

You've already explained your position definitely agnostic, and I'm quite sure atheist. How is this analogy of yours , relevant to what I said?

Because all you do is apply the digital practical position as being their intellectual position.
You seem unwilling, or simply unable, to get to grips with their intellectual position, defaulting to their practical position as being what they think.

Clearly you are without faith, because you are without God, from my perspective. But how is it you lack faith in God, when you disbelieve God even exists?

If I am without something I lack it.
You have faith in God.
I do not.
I therefore lack what you have.
It's really quite simple.

A major issue with you is that you have to invent scenarios so that you can respond to them.
Sorry but I can't respond to this, as you must have mistaken me with someone else.

No, I haven't.
It's a pity you can't see your own argument in there.
Do you not tell atheists that they have no understanding of God?

An atheist perspective no doubt.
An ataste-ist could use the same point with regards to taste.
But taste-ists will always know better. No matter their standard of education.

And science can demonstrate that taste exists.
Please demonstrate that God exists.
If you want to take the position that God actually exists, and that atheists do not believe because they lack the comprehension of God - show that God exists.
Can you do that, please?

It's not as cut and dried as you would like to believe.
If a person was aware a dragon eating the sun, and was able to tell the tale. Then that person would acknowledge that the awareness wasn't based in everyday reality. If that continued to believe it to be real, ignoring the fact that the sun is still present... you join the dots.

Ah - so you would allow science to be the arbiter of reality?
So why not in the matter of God?

Also what makes you think awareness of God, is the same awareness of objects?

Is there where you put God outside the purview of rational interrogation?
Is there where you elevate the theist to being somehow aware of something that the poor atheist isn't?
And you wonder how you're not insulting atheists every time you open your mouth.

I don't need to assert it, Baldeee. It is implied in the label (atheist). Plus it is implied when try explain anything about God. The only area where it appears assertion free, is when you talk specifically about God's existence. But you won't leave it at that, will you?

There you go again with applying your own understanding of the label "atheist" without actually listening to what the person says.

The words mean what they mean, I can't help that.

And again.

I assume you have zero faith in God. Right? What I mean is that you cannot have faith in something that you are not convinced exists. Right?

Indeed.
I can not have faith in God, as you surmise, thus I do not have faith in God.
I am without faith in God.
I lack faith in God.

The analogy given in the definition assumed the existence of God, by believing she will burn in bell for her lack of faith. But you never assume God exists, and you don't seem anxious by your atheism. So what is it you lack faith exactly?

Oh, good grief.
First, there was no analogy, there was simply an example.
Second, where is the indication that the example was to be taken literally rather than metaphorically, or ironically.
If I ever tell someone to "burn in Hell" I do not mean it literally, nor does it mean I believe there to be an actual Hell.
It is an expression, an idiom.

Your limpet-like inability to take such into consideration is not only ridiculous but just adds to how you're not here for serious discussion at all.

Good day.

 

[Jeeves]

*groan*
this again

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes - I lack faith in God.
I am without faith in God.
That is not saying or accepting that God exists, it is simply saying that you have something (faith in God) that I do not.

So to sum up, anything at all, that you have, and I don't, means I am lacking the things you have, that I don't.
Thanks for clearing that up.

It's quite simple, really, Jan.

A bit too simple really.

Oh, "lack" can quite happily apply to complete absence as well as to a perceived insufficiency.
But again, through your argument, you are demonstrably cherry-picking.

Yes you do, Jan - you can listen to what is written.
That is way that people share what is in their mind on these forums.

Sure, but people can, and do make things up, put themselves in the best light, work out elaborate explanations that are totally unrelated to the reality of their personality, characters, and lives. Sometimes their constructed arguments and explanations, do not match the ongoing persona of the character.

Because all you do is apply the digital practical position as being their intellectual position.

Can you give an example?

You seem unwilling, or simply unable, to get to grips with their intellectual position, defaulting to their practical position as being what they think.

I am very willing to get to grips with intellectual positions. I also like to expand on that by looking at things from a different point of view, to see how the intellect stands up to scrutiny. Generally I find that people are uncomfortable with it, and start evading, even insulting me, because they refuse to face up to it.

If I am without something I lack it.

The implication could be that God exists, I have faith in God, and you don't.
I suppose you're going to say God does not have to exist in order to lack faith in God. That you lack what I have. Nonsense like that.

No, you haven't.
You don't listen to what people say.

I do listen to what atheists like yourself say. You just don't like where I go with my enquiries. It makes you uncomfortable, because you have to reject basic facts like 'God does not exist' as far as you're aware, therefore no matter what you may think, for you God does not exist. Making you effectively a strong atheist by default. When I argue that is your starting position you deny it. But it is a fact.

And science can demonstrate that taste exists.

We don't need science to demonstrate that. We already know it.

Please demonstrate that God exists.

I can't. Does it mean God doesn't exist?

If you want to take the position that God actually exists, and that atheists do not believe because they lack the comprehension of God - show that God exists.
Can you do that, please?

This is sheer desperation, because if I can't, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
God's existence does not diminish because we cannot demonstrate it. You see the difference between theist, and atheist perspectives.

Ah - so you would allow science to be the arbiter of reality?
So why not in the matter of God?

Why would science need to be the arbiter of that particular reality?

Science deals with physical matter and energy, not spiritual energy.
Science can help us in understanding God's creation, not God.

Is there where you put God outside the purview of rational interrogation?
Is there where you elevate the theist to being somehow aware of something that the poor atheist isn't?
And you wonder how you're not insulting atheists every time you open your mouth.

It was a simple question Baldeee.

I don't insult atheists, and I don't think of atheists as ''poor atheist''. The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that one doesn't believe in God.

There you go again with applying your own understanding of the label "atheist" without actually listening to what the person says.

I believe that there is merit in the original greek meaning, and I accept the modern meaning (hence my definitions). I could say that you're also applying your own meaning to the label atheist. Just because it is the currently accepted meaning, doesn't mean it is correct (even JamesR would agree with that )

Indeed.
I can not have faith in God, as you surmise, thus I do not have faith in God.
I am without faith in God.
I lack faith in God.

Sure you lack faith in God, and the reason is that as far as you are aware, God does not exist.
That is quite different from actually lacking faith IN God.
If someone lacked confidence, the idea would be that the person isn't as confident as they need to be, as opposed to not having the property of confidence.
If someone was without confidence, it doesn't mean that there is no evidence of confidence, or the question of whether or not confidence exists.
I believe the same applies to a lack of faith in God. The implication that God exists, are all over that statement.

First, there was no analogy, there was simply an example.

My bad.

Second, where is the indication that the example was to be taken literally rather than metaphorically, or ironically.

An example is one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole. It's not about taking it literally, it's about using that as a way of comprehending the proper meaning (instead of making one up).

If I ever tell someone to "burn in Hell" I do not mean it literally, nor does it mean I believe there to be an actual Hell.
It is an expression, an idiom.

That's quite different to the example given, thus the meaning you give to ''lack of faith'' is incorrect, due to the example given.

Your limpet-like inability to take such into consideration is not only ridiculous but just adds to how you're not here for serious discussion at all.

Yeah! Keep up this false characterisation, in a bid to not have to face up to my scrutiny. No one will notice.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Round and round and round he goes.
Why we bother, God only knows.

As for your "scrutiny" - when it is a scrutiny by semantics rather than listening to what the person actually says, it's not that no one notices, Jan, it's that noone actually cares anymore: you have lost the audience as soon as you pull such a tactic.

But maybe that was your intention all along: nosedive yet another thread that you can't comprehend.

C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Its not a matter of god , although the numerous times that " god " is referred to is beyond calculation .

To me , god is about ancient history . God is about the ancient past .

Inotherwords , god , is the experience of an advanced being . Of which the people of that time , had no possiblity of understanding from a technological understanding.

god now is an advanced being of which I can understand from advanced investigation into technology . And philosophy .

^^^
Those are not gods.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

The bottom line here is this: you, as a theist, don't get to tell me what my position as an atheist is. You don't get to define me into a box of your choosing. And insisting on doing so is both arrogant and presumptuous on your part.

But you get to tell me what my position as a theist is?

This is unobjectionable to me. Notice the gradations. The "absence of belief in the the existence of deities" is sometimes labelled "weak atheism", which is a fair description of my own position and, I'd wager, of the majority of other atheists on sciforums.

This is rather obvious. Your belief in God, is not there. You are without belief. You do not believe. There is no belief. Belief is not present within your mind. We could go on and on.

The "rejection of belief that deities exist" is, I guess, a more vehement type of atheism. I'm not quite sure what the wikipedia is actually getting at there. Perhaps it is absence of belief combined with the view that belief that other people have in deities is irrational or misguided. It's hard to tell.

Oh! You're really not sure.
It means that the reason your belief in God is absent, is due to you.
It's not vehement at all. It's what you do when you discuss God

Finally, the "position that there are no deities" is a positive assertion, sometimes also labelled "strong atheism". That is not my position. No doubt it is the position of some atheists. It can be a dogmatic position, and I'm not the kind of person who generally goes in for dogma of any type.

And yet there are no deities, as far as you are concerned. Can you show me where that is NOT a fact?
You seem to think that asserting something is what counts. That as long as you don't assert, deities do not exist, you don't actually believe they don't exist.

Perhaps your obsession with "scripture" has led you to the view that dictionaries are some kind of infallible source of the True Meaning of Words. They are not.

Yeah I'm obsessed with scripture, obviously because I keep quoting them.
I use dictionaries purely as a reference, just so we can be on the same page.
I guess now that it doesn't do you any favours, it will be seen as not a good source to go to.
Don't be upset when I use the word ''obsessed''.

disbelief(n.):
1. Doubt about the truth of something.
2. A rejection of belief.
disbelieve (v.):
Reject as false; refuse to accept.

Baldeee has pointed out some meanings of "disbelief" in a previous post, with some usages of the word.

He hasn't really. He mentioned that ''disbelief in God'' amounted to ''is simply the absence of belief that God exists.''.
I can only gather from his quote, that he has nothing to do with the absence of belief. It's just the way the cookie crumbled.
Do you agree with that?
Or do you agree that you openly reject belief in God, by claiming there is no evidence for God, or what evidence, is presented is always flawed?
The reality is James, you not accepting any claimed evidence for God, could be you rejecting God. It

Do I "refuse to accept" God's existence? No. Since God's existence has not been established, there's no "denial" of established fact. If somebody proves that God exists, or other good evidence comes to my attention in the future, then I'll be quite willing to accept God's existence. I'm quite willing now, if you're got good evidence.

An atheist perspective.
IOW ''I will decide when, how, and where, I believe in God, should I believe in God. Can you see how the definitions apply to that.

Do I have an "inability or refusal to accept" that God is true or real? No. Not one bit.

How do you know?

Do I "refuse to believe" in God? Not a priori. But why should I believe in something for which there is so little convincing evidence? Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains drop out. I might as well believe in alien visitors from Mars, or in the healing power of homeopathy if I'm going to start believing stuff without good evidence.

From your perspective, yeah!

I reject your definition of "atheism" as being about "disbelief" in something that is real. You haven't cleared the evidentiary hurdle of establishing the reality of this thing you call God. And if God isn't real, there's nothing to "disbelieve". It's just one more belief that I don't happen to hold (and for good reason).

I didn't mention it being real at all. The definition is what it is. I say let's embrace it and find out how it relates to you. You seem you reject anything that does not suit your ideal position, and you seem to be obsessed with yourself.
Rejection of belief in God, may well be just another one of those rejections, you simply explain away.

Are the dictionary definitions of "atheism" wrong? It's a mixed bag, obviously.

Anything that diminishes 'atheism' from your ideal must be omitted. Everything else can pass.

Some of them are using outdated notions.

How does atheism become outdated?
Do people change their essential selves?

Some of them don't seem very well informed about how modern atheists define themselves.

Why do we have to stick to how atheists define themselves?, Especially as atheists don't stick to how theists define themselves.
If definitions of atheists were thought to be correct 40 years ago, but has since changed. That means the atheist's definition of themselves were not correct, and has since been put right. Based on that, atheists definitions of themselves will always change. So why do we have to stick to current definition of themselves?

And that includes not just how atheists use the term, but also how theists like you want to use it, with all the "denial" and "disbelief" that you want to import into the term.

I get it. Anything that does not please the atheist psyche, is to be rejected as false propaganda.
It must not be tolerated.

I suggest you'd do better in conversing with atheists if you started listening to how they define themselves rather than reaching for your cherry-picked dictionary definitions. But, I doubt you'll take my advice on this. What you have there is called confirmation bias.

There can be no dialogue with atheists, unless I accept what they say about themselves, despite the glaring holes. Okay, got it.

jan.

 

[James R]

I notice that Jan Ardena is apparently ignoring my posts, at least when he finds it convenient. I imagine he's finding them confronting and difficult to deal with. Never mind. I'm still enjoying responding, and I hope that other readers find my responses useful.

So to sum up, anything at all, that you have, and I don't, means I am lacking the things you have, that I don't.
Thanks for clearing that up.

We did duelling dictionaries for "atheism" and for "disbelief". Now Jan wants another round for "lack", as in "lack belief in God".

To "lack" something (verb), according the nearest dictionary, is simply to "be without" it. On the other hand, a "lack" of something (noun) is "the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable".

With Jan and "lack", we face the same sort of cherry picking we saw with "disbelief" (discussed above). Jan wants to define atheists as "lacking" God, by which he means that atheists need God, but God is unavailable to them (because they shut themselves off from God, or whatever). Once again, Jan is trying to sneak in under the radar the assumption that God exists. Jan's reasoning goes like this: (1) God exists. (2) Atheists reject God. (3) Therefore, when atheists say they "lack belief in God" they must be expressing an unsatisfied need - a kind of longing for the God they secretly know that exists but refuse to acknowledge.

But that's just one cherry-picked sense of "lack", convenient for Jan's purposes. As Baldeee has explained, "lack" can be a lot simpler than that, and my dictionary agrees. If one "lacks" belief in God, one is simply "without" that belief. End of story.

Next, no doubt, we'll have to rehash Jan's argument about atheists being "without God", and we'll all run for our dictionaries again to discuss the meaning of "without". But we know what Jan will assume. The reasoning will be the same as with "lack" and with disbelief. Point (1) for Jan is always "God exists." In the case of "without", the reasoning goes like this then: (1) God exists. (2) Atheists reject God. (3) Therefore, "a-theist" must mean that atheists are "without the God that exists". And we're back to Jan's claim that nobody can be an a-theist unless God actually, really truly exists.

But again, "without" can be a lot simpler than that if we throw away Jan's assumption (1). Atheists are "without" belief in God simply because they don't hold the belief. Moreover, if God does not exist, then atheists are "without" God in the exactly the same way they are without flying cars and without super powers and without homeopathic cures for cancer.

I am very willing to get to grips with intellectual positions. I also like to expand on that by looking at things from a different point of view, to see how the intellect stands up to scrutiny.

But when the going gets tough, Jan hides himself away and repeats old arguments and ignores what people tell him and have told him in the past. That is actually intellectually dishonest.

Take, as Exhibit A, Jan's insistence on trying to put atheists into a box of his own making, with his personalised definition of atheism. No matter how many atheists tell him they don't fit into his neat box, it makes no impact on him. Atheists aren't capable of defining themselves, Jan says. Only he (as a theist) can do that correctly.

The implication could be that God exists, I have faith in God, and you don't.

The implication that God exists cannot be drawn from the fact that there are people who don't believe in God. Seems obvious, right? But not to Jan.

I mean, we might as well conclude that mermaids exists because there are people out there who think mermaids are a fantasy. (And having said that, I fully expect another round of Jan's duelling dictionaries regarding the meaning of "exist" next.)

I suppose you're going to say God does not have to exist in order to lack faith in God. That you lack what I have. Nonsense like that.

The equivalent claim for mermaids would be: mermaids don't have to exist in order to lack faith in mermaids. Plainly nonsensical. Right?

I do listen to what atheists like yourself say. You just don't like where I go with my enquiries.

What is there to enquire about when you already have all the answers you need from your dictionary?, I wonder. Heaven forbid you might learn something new from an actual atheist. Why not create a straw-man atheist instead? Much easier to deal with.

It makes you uncomfortable, because you have to reject basic facts like 'God does not exist' as far as you're aware, therefore no matter what you may think, for you God does not exist. Making you effectively a strong atheist by default. When I argue that is your starting position you deny it. But it is a fact.

This is an interesting insight into Jan's mindset.

It's more evidence of exactly the kind of binary thinking that Baldeee tried to walk Jan through earlier. For Jan, we see, all atheists are strong atheists, regardless of what they say about their own beliefs. For Jan, every atheist is in denial about the God that they actually know exists, deep down. Indeed, for Jan, you can only be an atheist if God exists. Then you "lack" God, and "disbelieve" in God, and "reject" God. Because for Jan, that's what atheists do - they deny the "obvious" reality of God in all his magnificence.

I think that, actually, atheists make Jan uncomfortable. Maybe they understand something Jan doesn't.

We don't need science to demonstrate that. We already know it.

This is another interesting reflection of Jan's worldview.

You see, Jan believes that human beings can "just know" some things. According to Jan, empirical evidence is not required in order to establish certain facts about the world. Instead, (some) people can draw on a kind of innate magical capacity to simply know or intuit certain truths.

For Jan, the subjective feeling that a thing is true - that it feels right - can in some cases be evidence enough to establish the reality of the thing. Never mind if there are other people who claim not to experience the same feeling. The subjective trumps the objective when this magical intuition is in play.

Jan believes he can taste things. He has an inner experience of "taste". Therefore, taste is real. End of story. No need for further investigation. The same applies to God. Jan has an inner experience of God. Therefore, God is real. No need to investigate further. No doubt if Jan felt like he had ESP, the same argument would apply for him.

I can't [demonstrate that God exists]. Does it mean God doesn't exist?

It certainly makes it harder to swallow the idea. Especially given that nobody else has managed to demonstrate that God exists, either.

God's existence does not diminish because we cannot demonstrate it. You see the difference between theist, and atheist perspectives.

The difference is that one is irrational and the other rational? I don't mean this as an insult, by the way. I'm just stating the fact of it. Is it rational to believe in something whose existence cannot be demonstrated? (Cue another round of discussion about "love". As I have argued before, the existence of love is clearly evidenced, provided "love" is defined with sufficient specificity.)

Science deals with physical matter and energy, not spiritual energy.
Science can help us in understanding God's creation, not God.

Where is this "spiritual energy"? How can we measure it? We can't? Then again we need to ask, I think, is it rational to belief in something that can't be demonstrated?

I could say that you're also applying your own meaning to the label atheist. Just because it is the currently accepted meaning, doesn't mean it is correct (even JamesR would agree with that )

Once again, I repeat that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, words mean what we want them to mean, no more or less.

The accepted meaning and usage of the word "atheist" has shifted over centuries. But what we're discussing here is atheism as it is today, not what it meant to the ancient Greeks or what it meant in the Middle Ages.

As a gesture of humility and basic courtesy, when referring to a self-identified group of people, one should respect how they choose to label and refer to themselves. One should not try to impose one's own preferred label on them, or try to put them into a box you've constructed without consulting them.

Sure you lack faith in God, and the reason is that as far as you are aware, God does not exist.

The reason, for the so-called "weak atheists", is that there is no rational reason why a person should place trust in something that cannot be demonstrated to be real.

If someone lacked confidence, the idea would be that the person isn't as confident as they need to be, as opposed to not having the property of confidence.

And we're back to dueling dictionaries and the meaning of "lack" again. See above.

If somebody lacks belief in God, it obviously doesn't mean they don't have the capacity to believe things. It means there is one particular belief they don't hold, namely belief in God.

 

[Kittamaru]

I notice that Jan Ardena is apparently ignoring my posts, at least when he finds it convenient.

With Jan and "lack", we face the same sort of cherry picking we saw with "disbelief" (discussed above). Jan wants to define atheists as "lacking" God, by which he means that atheists need God, but God is unavailable to them (because they shut themselves off from God, or whatever). Once again, Jan is trying to sneak in under the radar the assumption that God exists. Jan's reasoning goes like this: (1) God exists. (2) Atheists reject God. (3) Therefore, when atheists say they "lack belief in God" they must be expressing an unsatisfied need - a kind of longing for the God they secretly know that exists but refuse to acknowledge.

But that's just one cherry-picked sense of "lack", convenient for Jan's purposes. As Baldeee has explained, "lack" can be a lot simpler than that, and my dictionary agrees. If one "lacks" belief in God, one is simply "without" that belief. End of story.

But when the going gets tough, Jan hides himself away and repeats old arguments and ignores what people tell him and have told him in the past. That is actually intellectually dishonest.

Take, as Exhibit A, Jan's insistence on trying to put atheists into a box of his own making, with his personalised definition of atheism. No matter how many atheists tell him they don't fit into his neat box, it makes no impact on him. Atheists aren't capable of defining themselves, Jan says. Only he (as a theist) can do that correctly.

I mean, we might as well conclude that mermaids exists because there are people out there who think mermaids are a fantasy. (And having said that, I fully expect another round of Jan's duelling dictionaries regarding the meaning of "exist" next.)

Could this not be viewed, as you said, as being intentionally intellectually dishonest, and perchance even trolling... or perhaps, preaching/proselytizing (since Jan seems to have no intent of honest debate)?

I know that, for myself at least, this type of behavior from him is why I have utterly ceased attempting to engage with him.