What being an atheist means in practical terms

It seems more like the pronoun police sort of thing. As in you're not allowed to describe me this way you must use these words I approve of.

And I'm just not having that.

 

pretty shocking for you I bet!

The last time a neo atheist tried to claim koko was talking in circles they made a post that earned them the board laughing stock award.

Think you can do better?

 

And preposterous.

I'm still not an atheist of any kind.

 

Words have meanings, and if you do not use them contextually the recipient has to twist meanings while you speak to try and translate on the fly what the hell you are talking about.

 

Not at all, preposterous, more like fact. Unless you want to argue that neoatheists have not so much as one moral?
Just because they are in denial about the connection does not mean it does not exist.

 

Yes. It is very stupid indeed. And I'm not a fan of it either. But if they actually have something to say.... they should say it. Instead all we get here is this bickering over what particular mouth noises must mean.

 

That's my argument.

 

if that was the case you would be able to prove it.

I generally don't make arguments regarding nonsense.

 

To control one's speech is to control their thoughts.

If you don't want to have this argument you don't have to participate

 

That's a claim I don't believe. I am writing in a language right now that isn't the one I grew up with. I am doing it to exchange information and have dialog with people who insist on this language; these meanings for these mouth noises and shapes on a screen. That doesn't mean my thoughts are controlled by this website.

 

There's no such thing as an irrational fallacy.

No, I didn't see overgeneralization. Just a bit of hasty generalization, which is of course a logical fallacy. You also do that a lot, by the way.

It doesn't matter how you treated it in your dealings with another poster. Each poster can freely choose either interpretation, and it's fine as long as the same interpretation is consistently used.

Citation?

My point is that "disbelief" doesn't describe atheism.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2009/05/belief-disbelief-agreement-disagreement/

https://research.kent.ac.uk/understandingunbelief/resources/concepts-glossary/#non-belief

Oh, one can choose what definition of "proposition" to use in a particular case. Other definition can definitely be used. "Content of belief" is easier to understand, perhaps, but I prefer a broader definition, like "sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity", though I wonder if any definition would be suitable to describe atheism as a proposition.

 

RE: What being an atheist means in practical terms
SUBTOPICS: Is there a single definition? Are the multiple possible definitions?
※→. Pisa, et al,

OPENING: I steered well clear of this issue, having has my hands burned once or twice before this.

(COMMENT)`

I acknowledge that Stephen Bullivant (author of the Dictionary) put together a good (hell - they are excellent) set of definitions, in some respects I think he placates the fact that some of these definitions (like "logical fallacy") were dreamed-up, and the definitions followed the dream because some people liked the sound of it. In an opposing view, I say the is no such thing as a "logical fallacy." It is either a fallacy or it is not. If the tag is challenged, then the challenge is either successful, or it is not successful. The challenge becomes a matter of deductive logic: Is it sound and valid? I do not have Stephen Bullivant Dictionary on Atheism; but, I do have his handbook on the subject. And! One of the points he drives home, in the beginning, is that the issue of the definitions is "philosophical." I guess this is my only real objection here.

Atheism — is the absence of belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. You either believe, or you do not believe. That is all there really is to the matter of word definitions. WHY — you either believe or disbelieve in the "existence" is the matter that is the focus of the debate. The true meaning of the discussion is in the Discovery of the Supreme Being (is it or is it not).

(COMMENT)

An umbrella definition of ad Hominem is an informal fallacy (error in reasoning or the tactical approach to the argument). The specific type of informal fallacy we are dealing with here is the Argumentum ad hominem or "how you treated it in your dealings with another poster?" You do NOT deal with the poster. You deal with the content of the argument or evidence presented.

(AΩ)

Like I said in the opening: These are notoriously unhealthy questions and debates to enter. And more often than not, I get a major appendage crushed when I do. BUT in the broader sense, "Piza" is in the bullseye ring. Well worth listening to in terms of context and concepts.
.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

I could care less what your point is until you provide a citation!

I actually had it ready to post and deleted it when I saw you dodge providing a citation.

Name and cite examples for us propositions and how they apply to each case, with your citations.

Fine, several weak/strong atheist. Its like a fart. They come in all different strengths too. Some farts peel the paint of the wall, some are loud and break windows, other are stealthy and you dont even know they are there till your nose hair falls out. Guess what.....they are all considered a 'fart'.

No one is stopping anyone from claiming atheist level 1, level 2 etc, just stop trying to stomp on agnostic turf and we will all get along fine.

I did as a courtesy, rather than throw flew completely out the door without being open minded enough to at least hear swenssons position.

False, people typically use their fallacies consistently. Consistency is a ridiculous premise.

Ive seen no citations with that regard that were not soundly refuted.

 

Lots of unhealthy responses, the questions arent unhealthy.

Are you kidding? Pisa making claims she cant cite! This prompted me to delete the citation I had that was requested by Pisa. Lets start with some citations.

Thats an absurd position, under those conditions a rock is an atheist since it is absent belief in a supreme being, likewise a baby with no knowledge what so ever about a supreme being and incapable of expressing any belief outside of crying because its hungry.

Attaching the word atheist to a thoughtless condition is absurd.

Theist, agnostic are decisions,they establish a position resulting from a thought process........absence, without, lack of, (!theist as used by flew as a presumed 'default' condition...same thing...), none of those 'umbrella' terms require a thought process, and can equally be applied to a rock.

Well she blew it, so did you btw, no appendages required though.

 

There's no such thing as levels. It's Atheism, not Free Masonry. There's no such thing as 33rd Degree Atheist.

It's Black & White/Cut & Dry etc. Either gods exist, or they don't (and they don't) and there's no middle ground or grey area for an Atheist.

 

There's only one definition. Atheists do not believe in god(s). Period. End of Story.

There are no levels of disbelief. The smallest shred of doubt relegates one from Atheist to Agnostic.

There's nothing impractical about being an Atheist and Atheism does not revolve around mutual exclusiveness. I'm an Atheist and an Ultra-Conservative. Most of the Conservative wannabes on this forum are so far to the left of me they might as well change their names to Eugene Debs or Elizabeth Warren.

That much is true. Atheists disbelieve for different reasons and there is neither any logic nor any rules that say Atheists have to disbelieve for the same reason(s).

 

depends who you quote here.
They typically commit a fusion fallacy, and combine agnostic, one who rejects atheism and they try to shoehorn them into the atheist definition which is a contradiction of course. Some view agnostic as a middle condition its not, its as exclusive as athesit and theist.

Not really. agnostics do not disbelieve in God, they take a neutral position. ie they accept neither side of the proposition as true.

If by that you mean a conscious decisive choice I agree.

The best way to describe it is atheists accept the negation of theist as true, or maintain the belief theist is a false condition. Normally I wouldnt be so specific but there are a few people here that are leading a word splitting game.

 

I love your attitude.

But, I don't see planting seeds as "faith". There is some risk involved. It may not be good seed or there could be a deficit in the environment. And deciding that God was involved in the seed growing or not growing can not be determined by man.

Observation of the outcome says nothing at all about god.

In terms of the science used by scientists to examine how our universe works, there is no faith allowed. The foundational assumption is that one may meaningfully observe. Scientists observe. Answers they find come from those observations.

In Christianity the fundamental assumption is that there is a god. And, by the nature of god, there are no limits of ANY kind concerning what one may attribute to that god.

These two fundamental assumptions don't mix. Science fully depends on proving proposed solutions to be false. If the "scientist" also believes that god is involved and can do anything, then the tests are meaningless and science is totally dead.

How do you know for sure that God doesn't move objects in the pattern science calls "gravity"? If you believe in god, you KNOW he could do that.

 

There's no evidence of that.

My parents created me on the banks of the Cumberland River.

Humans create things, not gods.

Conscience and consciousness are created by chemical reactions between specialized brain cells.

And yet the morality of x-tians and their gods are inferior to my morality.

The heart pumps blood through the circulatory system. It is not capable of subjective thoughts like "love."

Your god wasn't at Hiroshima so he wasn't running from a nuclear blast.

I crashed and burned in a CH-47 in the Harz Mountains. Your god wouldn't know how to fly anything.

My sins are washed away each year on the Day of Atonement by a mortal human, namely the High Priest when he performs the sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, so there was no need for your god to die.

 

Making someone say something compelling them to say something they don't believe in will eventually make them believe in it.

 

You didn't need "newfound beliefs" to get out of your depression. A psychiatrist and good therapist could have helped you with that.

You have an over-stated sense of self-importance which is obvious from your belief that you think people on the other side of the universe or a billion years from now should know who you are and erect a statute in your honor as though you were some kind of god-thing or conquering hero.

 

Your post is not even a half-decent reply, it's utter nonsense. Try again. Or don't, I don't care.

 

Logical fallacy sounds right to me, because it's a flaw in reasoning. Just like "car driving" sounds right, even though the car isn't driving itself (well, not yet...).

It doesn't really matter if we say "logical fallacy" or "flaw in reasoning", as long as everybody using these terms understand their meaning.

One serious flaw in philosophy is that different philosophers can choose different sets of existing definitions to get their points across, and all points will be valid as long as the reasoning is correct and the same definitions are consistently used. One simple example is "agnosticism", whose meaning depends on how one chooses to approach the issue, either from an epistemological or a psychological point of view.

"Absence of belief" and "disbelief" are different creatures.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2009/05/belief-disbelief-agreement-disagreement/

No ad hominem in my post. The argument was that a certain definition was used in a discussion with another poster, therefore the same definition must always be used in any discussion regarding the same issue. Not a reasonable request, given that philosophy is such a rich a diverse field. It's essentially bullying on an intellectual level.

Imagine you want to talk about a sweet and juicy orange, but your dialogue partner insists that he talked to a third person only about the color orange, therefore you have to talk only about the color orange too. How would you react?

 

I'd pick up the fruit and ask him what he calls it. If he's consistent, I don't mind calling it whatever he calls it for the sake of talking to him. The problem arises when he keeps equivocating the two or makes no consistent point and contradicts himself repeatedly.

 

That's one way of having a dialogue. However, sometimes I just have to stand up for what I want, otherwise the other side will just keep pushing its own narrative until nothing's left of the original point. Small but persistent raindrops make a flood, small but persistent changes make one forget the bigger picture while aimlessly arguing over nothing burgers. Our common acquaintance is quite the chef when it comes to nothing burgers, me thinks.