Leaderboard

Since I grew up Catholic I've been around a lot of believers throughout my life. I've yet to encounter a theist who didn't tweak the 'official' version of god to accommodate their own personal beliefs. "Well, god would make an exception if I was suffering." "I don't believe god would oppose contraception if wearing a condom prevents AIDS." "There is no way god would make someone doing a mercy killing go to the same hell as Hitler." And without fail the change a person finds in god from the 'official' version just happens to be in line with the thoughts of the person suggesting the change. Either an amazing coincidence, or people are making god in their own self image. I've never seen a person change religion from a god whose rules aligned with their own world view to a religion/god whose rules did not match their world view. But I've seen plenty of people move in the opposite direction.

That’s not a very good definition, IMHO - especially since the exponent can be any number, even a negative one, a fraction, an irrational one, or a complex number. Let’s stick to simple, natural numbers like 1,2,3,... for now. Exponentiation is then a short-hand notation for a multiplicative series starting at 1, followed by as many multiplications with the base number as indicated in the exponent: 1 x ... x ... x ... and so on Thus: 2^0 means you start at 1, followed by no further multiplications. Thus 2^0=1. 2^1 means you start at 1, followed by exactly one multiplication by 2. Thus 2^1=1x2=2. 2^2 means you start at 1, followed by two consecutive multiplications by 2. Thus 2^2=1x2x2=4. 2^3 means you start at 1, followed by three consecutive multiplications by 2. Thus 2^2=1x2x2x2=8. And so on. Does this make sense now?

Well. My point seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the first claim in the OP. Nevertheless, my second point is that atheism is not disbelieving in "some Gods". Atheism means "no to theism". Period. So lets say I believe in one God (as an example) and I disbelieve in all the other Gods ever thought of in the entire history of the world, that does not make me an atheist "to other Gods". That's just some apologetic repeated some atheists on the internet or even some famous atheists who make that statement for arguments sake. Thats my point. Hope you understand TheVat. Cheers.

If it so common then why are we having pages of debate about it? No commonly used word means the same thing to all men. (And by 'men' I am not referring to just people with XY chromosomes. It also includes women. Although some say 'women' means what is on your birth certificate and others see it more broadly. But of course not everyone receives a 'birth certificate'. In this sense 'birth certificate' simply means how you were viewed by others at birth. But I fully expect everyone here to only use terms the way that I define them. Because that is how I "commonly" use them.)

First, please read the link on global v local atheism. Second, please understand no one is saying you reject theism with other gods but rather you reject the definition of theism used by other religions. This is a significant distinction. For example, I am not a metaphysical atheist (universe is just matter and energy, plus physical laws) but am open to a Buddhist notion of a consciousness that transcends individual brains. So, with respect to a western definition of theism (omnipotent omniscient personal being), I'm atheistic. I.e. local atheism. But with respect to a Buddhist definition of divinity (transcendent consciousness permeating all spacetime and perhaps beyond, with some possible karmic mechanism) I'm agnostic and open to epiphanies, aha! moments, or whatever might present itself. So I don't embrace global atheism. Local v global, this is key to defining any position on the nature of the divine.

Not that I think anyone is achieving clarity in this swamp of a chat, but I would have to lean towards @Dis n Dat on the definitional argument here. An atheist is, by definition, atheist with regards to any form of divine entity. I agree with you that in common parlance people can loosely say "when it comes to ancient pantheons I'm atheistic," but that's a casual and imprecise usage. Where philosophic rigor is needed to get off "square one," we would have to define anyone who believes in at least one divine personage as a theist. When such a believer says "Xmucane and Mbutu and Ben-Adrill are silly fantasies, but Jehovah lives!" they are simply saying those beings are not the real supreme being, not that they reject theism in its essential postulate. I didn't therefore feel "forced" to accept DisnDats definition. Because he's looking for precise definitions here, a perfectly legitimate quest in a philosophic chat.

I'm anything but anti religious, ask anyone or read some of my topics, in philosophy or religious thread's I've posted in (including this one if memory serves), but I am a full blown, dyed in the wool athiest. Usually when a theist resorts to such an attack, it means they've run out of logical/reasonable argument's, what's your excuse?

This is a straw man. You’re the only one in this conversation that has brought up atheism. The rest of us have mentioned “atheist”

Atheist - someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist: I'm not sure how I would interpret this, does it mean that to be an atheist you have to not believe in "any" god? Or would it be applicable to those that believe in only one god - theist to one, atheist to all others? Sorry but I'm edging towards Dis n Dat on this point.

That makes perfect sense. Thank you so much!

Ergo, you are atheistic about some gods, but not others. Here. Let’s change font. Maybe that will help it penetrate and absorb: You are atheistic about some gods, but not others. There’s that trouble with reading comprehension again. Nobody called you an atheist. The comment was that people are atheistic IN CONTEXT of 99+% of the gods that have been invented and discarded across the eons by us puny humans with our tiny ape minds. Don’t worry, though. We know the word atheist makes you feel all yucky and icky inside. Nobody is saying you’re a hard atheist. Hell, nobody is even saying you’re a soft atheist, or even an agnostic theist. We’re just saying you’re atheistic about Odin and Brahma and all the others too numerous to count.

No. Because that's not what it means. Maybe you have some scholar who said the definition of atheism is "not believing some Gods" and if so I would like to read his work. I don't believe in some Gods, but I believe in other Gods. Calling me an atheist because I don't believe in other Gods is an oxymoron. It's a meme. It's calling a theist an atheist. ).

Unfortunately that analysis doesn’t appear to account for thawing the chicken, or any thermal losses while you are slapping it. Also “For chickens this so called specific heat is 3.35 kJ per kg of chicken per degree Celsius.” according to https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/overheated-chick-calculations/

The only really expensive part from my list is electronic vacuum pump. It is here for 300-500 USD. But it can be temporarily replaced by water vacuum pump (aka "water aspirator"). Ultra cheap. Like $5. I could 3d print it for 0.1 USD.

The burden of evidence lies with the extraordinary claim. We don't have to waste time trying to disprove a hypothesis that is not falsifiable in the Popperian sense - it can be ignored, pending actual evidence. If I take a swallow of milk from a gallon jug, and the first sip is sour, I can assume the whole jug is spoiled. I don't really need to dive into the epistemology of all possible scenarios, say, a hidden compartment in the lower half which contains fresh milk, or a small rubber sphere floating in the middle which will break and give fresh milk when the rest is poured out. While I can't disprove such an extraordinary state of affairs, I don't really need to, and can comfortably pour out the rest of the milk and not bother myself further with it. I make it a firm policy not to believe in deities that I can neither spell NOR pronounce. As for "Xmucane," that sounds like a pharmaceutical product that clears nasal passages. That might deserve worship.

Atheism is not like having a hobby. I used to collect stamps, but I don't anymore after I lost my collection. Someone stole it. I am no more a collector of anything. Atheism is for some people an identity statement. Just like theism. One cannot be called both because it's an oxymoron. If one person believes in one concept of God, and does not believe in all other concepts of God, calling him "you are atheistic about other concepts of God" just plain stupid. Sorry for using that word, but it is. It was popularised by atheist debaters to corner theists to their disbelief and equate them to themselves for the sake of the debate, but many people do that kind of nonsensical things for the sake of a debate. That does not mean it's an intellectual matter to keep repeating. "You don't believe in God because you don't believe in other concepts of God but only your concept of God". It's just plain nonsense. Atheism does not necessarily mean "I don't believe God". It means "I don't believe in theism". Anyway, I don't think this banter has any value. What needs to be said has already been said many a time. Cheers.

Exactly. Not theist. It's an ontology. Nonsensical. Even if I don't believe Odin is mythology, I am still a theist. Projection.

That's not the meaning of the word or the definition. It's just a common meme. Projection.

That phrase is wrongly used. It's used for argument by atheist apologists. It's used just for the sake of argument. It's nonsensical and is an oxymoron. It's a laughable argument. Generally, some of the most educated atheists don't use that kind of missionary type of arguments. They instead speak at a very much high level. I just hope you don't take it offensively but it seems like many do. Atheism does not mean "I am against some Gods". It means "A Divinity". Either Anti divinity as it is originally meant to be or as recently interpreted as "A Divinity" like "A Sexual". So your usage of this does not fit in anywhere but the anti religious apologetic group of atheists on the internet who make the same case like you. Why not engage in more pertinent arguments than this kind of baseless missionary type of dogma repeated by other atheists on the internet? Cheers.

I don't know who this "we" and "us" group is. Sounds like some tribalistic group to me. Nevertheless, an atheist is a person who "does" atheism. Thats the default. So your argument defending this common meme on the internet is not valid. I think you have a much bigger capacity so you should reach higher than delve in this type of apologetic. It's nonsensical and is useless. Cheers. I am not saying all atheists are "anti religious" as in attacking religions or are eternally engaging in "anti religious campaigns". In fact I believe most of the atheists are just living their lives without having any of this discourse at all. they are just living their lives. I was talking about the meaning of the word atheist. Not what people do all over the world.

If you want me to give you definitions of atheism, thats no problem. I can refer you to an atheist academic and scholar. Read John Gray who is an atheist philosopher. Book called seven types of atheism (hope I got the name exactly right). Now could you please provide the academic or philosopher who gave the definition of "atheist" you are providing? Thanks.

It's not "My Definition". It's the common definition of atheism. Unless you can find a different scholar or someone who explains "atheism" as "disbelieving in other Gods not mine". Not loaded sentences, but the word "atheism". Thank you,