Jan Ardena:
You've skipped over several of my posts in your reply to me. I hope you'll address some of the substantive points I made there in time.
In future, don't tell me I can't define atheist perspective, from my own point of view. Just like you define theist from yours.
My working definition of "theist" is very simple: a theist is somebody who believes in a god or gods. I do not require them to secretly believe that God doesn't exist in order for me to refer to their belief as theism. Compare and contrast your own position on atheists.
Arguments for or against the existence of God, are ultimately irrelevant.
They may sway the person one way or the other, but the propensity to believe, or not believe, comes from the person. Hence the reason for the meanings of the definitions.
We could have an interesting discussion on what feeds into the propensity to believe or not believe. I doubt we ever will have it, but we could.
There are points that you haven't addressed properly, just within this dialogue, let alone others.
Really? Like what? I think I've posted most comprehensively on your topic of how to define atheism.
Yet you will use that line again at some point, as though yours, or Baldeee's word is the final authority.
If you're hoping to settle the matter of the definition of atheism on the basis of somebody's authority, I'm afraid you're going to be out of luck. Clearly dictionary meanings vary - both across different dictionaries and even within the multiple meanings that a single dictionary offers. Setting yourself up as an authority on atheism isn't working out well for you. I do not claim to speak for all atheists, and I'm sure Baldeee doesn't either.
I think we're both clear on how we each define "atheist". Is there anything else to say about that other than "You're wrong and I'm right"?
Salt is finer, and it could well have an effect on the walls of the mouth, especially if the person has abrasions, cuts, or mouth ulcers.
There are ways of telling the difference beside taste.
I sometimes wish I didn't have to walk you through each little step in an argument. I wish you'd connect some dots yourself. It would save us a lot of time. Consider, for example, the possibility of dissolving the salt and sugar in water, then tasting it. Then your current objections disappear. But you could have come up with that yourself.
You wouldn't be forced to, as no test would definitively show that taste exists,, you would have to choose to accept it.
Only in the same way that no scientific fact is every conclusively proven. The point is that where there's a preponderance of evidence, then accepting the thing as a provisionally useful working model of reality is a reasonable thing to do.
The question is; why would I want to prove God.
There's no point trying to prove God to someone who disbelieves.
Plus not proving God makes no difference to anything.
Don't you care whether what you believe is true or not? Forget other people. Wouldn't you like to have a rational basis for your own beliefs? Or is it more about comfort for you?
That's great. But it's not the question I asked.
Remind me what you asked, then.
If you don't want me to not tell you what I think atheism is, then don't proceed to tell me what theism is.
I've proposed a simple definition above. Do you take issue with it?
And a skyscraper is tall, in relation to our height.
But the skyscraper does not have a property called ''tall''.
In other words, you're saying that God is just like us, only more powerful in lots of ways? Able to create and mould and break the laws of nature at a whim, for example, just like we can (?), only moreso?
Nothing you say leads me to believe you were theist.
I know. But the fact remains, nevertheless.
When I ask you about your theism, such as what your relationship with God entailed, you tell me to mind my own business.
But if you ever want to discuss it, I'm all ears.
I have no desire to discuss it with you, for reasons I have expressed to you before. When you give nothing, you get nothing back, Jan. That's how you like to roll, so that's the way it is.
My intention is not to hold up threads.
And yet here we are stuck in an endless, pointless discussion in which you try to define "atheism" to atheists. Why don't you move on?
The truth is that I have points that are raised about atheists, and atheism, which do not get addressed.
Like what? As far as I can see, all you do is repeat your mantra about atheists being "without God", that "for them, God does not exist", and so on. Believe me, you've made that point, for what it's worth. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and it doesn't capture the most common atheist position (which has been explained you many times), but it couldn't be clearer what your position is on this.
I am told that it is not my place to tell atheists what their position means. That I must accept what they say about themselves as factual...
You don't have to accept anything as factual, but you should be able to at least admit the likelihood that all the atheists aren't deliberately telling you lies about what they believe.
All the while they can tell me what their version of theist is.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and you offer very little on what a theist is, from your perspective. It's like it's your own private secret and you're not telling.
But Sciforums is supposed to be an intelligent community. I would have thought there would enthusiasm in discussing the flaws in modern atheisms. God knows there's been enough enthusiasm on the flaws of theistic religion and theism.
Again, that could be an interesting discussion: the flaws in modern atheisms. I, for example, am not uncritical of certain flavours of modern atheism. I enjoy reading the "other side". Allister McGrath had some interesting things to say in his book
The Twilight of Atheism, for example, even though I disagree with him on many points.
IOW it must suit you. That's not objective, as you can set the the bar how you like.
What would be an objective measure of the existence of God? If such a measure existed, we'd all agree on whether or not God exists, wouldn't we? (Apart from the inevitable hold-out deniers on either side of the fence.)
I can't imagine you as a former believer as nothing you have said convinces me of such. Everything points to disbelief, as defined.
You don't possess enough information to allow you to judge the matter. So, instead you choose to prejudge it, so as to suit yourself.
You're right, I'm not interested in what I see as your self-obsession.
Then stop asking me personal questions! Simple solution.
So your past experience characterises the reality of theism, and there is nothing to discuss outside of that?
I don't know what gave you that impression. Believers come in a lot of different flavours, just like non-believers. Belief in God differs from person to person. It can be a very personal thing. I certainly don't imagine that my own experience was representative of everybody's experience. Nevertheless, I imagine it was close enough to "typical" to be a valid data point.
That's an atheist perspective, not a theist one.
People with taste don't consider taste to be real or false, we just know.
Don't say you've already addressed this, because I don't think you have.
I have. It is in one of the posts from this thread you haven't replied to, for example. But we also discussed it at some length in the "Brain in a Vat" thread. I don't think much of your professed ability to "just know" things.
I'm very clear about what I am discussing. Perhaps a little too clear, if attitudes are anything to go by.
Attitudes are due to atheists getting frustrated by your repetitive posting and your insistence that "atheist approval of what is atheism is not necessary". And you still don't get why it is important. If you want a productive debate, you need to respect the other side's right to have a view that differs from your own.
While I do believe that God exists, I've not actually implied that God exists, in any of the definitions.
Yes you have, and I have set out exactly where and how you've done that at length in my previous posts.
It seems everything definition an atheist have of themselves, implies God already exists.
You haven't been listening, except to yourself.
The definition you have of atheists is not the definition atheists have of themselves. Don't you understand yet? What is this block you have?
Even the label itself, both modern, and ancient. It seems you can't get away from it. That's probably why thinking atheists generally aren't satisfied with the label ''atheist'', because it implies God exists, but they either reject, or deny. I understand that they don't want to be labelled as people who deny, or reject God, but it is what it is.
We're stuck with the word itself, for historical reasons. But you're right: in the past, it often did imply rejection or denial, mainly because very few people seriously contemplated the possibility that God doesn't actually exist. Then the scientific revolution happened. Fast forward 300 years and here we are. The label is the same; the thing itself has evolved (somewhat).
