Are you atheist?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Dis n Dat said:

So which dictionary defines atheism as "not believing in some Gods"? 

WOW, so many post's and we're back to this, why do you care?

[Dis n Dat]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

WOW, so many post's and we're back to this, why do you care?

Because you made a claim about a "dictionary". Unless now you claim your previous claim is just made up. If that's the case, just state it. It's okay. 

cheers. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Dis n Dat said:

Because you made a claim about a "dictionary". Unless now you claim your previous claim is just made up. If that's the case, just state it. It's okay. 

cheers. 

That's just an excuse to not answer my question, so I'll ask again.

"What is the reason you care so much about something no-one has accused you of"?

[Dis n Dat]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That's just an excuse to not answer my question, so I'll ask again.

"What is the reason you care so much about something no-one has accused you of"?

What accusation?  

Is this your trick to avoid your bogus claim about a dictionary? Why not accept that you are just commenting on every post because you are "bored" as you claimed? So none of it contain any valid intellect. Just empty sentences. A lot of it!

Have a great day. 

[iNow]

Hobbyist = Person with a hobby. 

In context of stamp collecting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of quilting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of playing bridge or shuffleboard or even day trading, I’m not a hobbyist. 

However, I enjoy woodworking. In that context I AM a hobbyist. One can be both a hobbyist in some contexts and not in others. 

But at this point, I really am using crayons to draw pictures in attempt to assist you in comprehension.

It doesn’t matter how rigidly you are trying to force everyone to adhere to one single definition from one single dictionary. The meaning of words is often derived from the context and qualifiers used when using them. 

In this case, I’ve explained the context. The point is valid. In terms of / in context of most gods ever invented by humanity, your lack of belief in those gods makes you atheistic about those gods, even though you’re not an atheist about ALL gods. 

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

What accusation?

Exactly, I smell a troll...

Edited November 3, 2022 by dimreepr

[Dis n Dat]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly, I smell a troll...

Okay. So you think others are just like you and are just fishing for an exchange of insults to fill their time!

Great. 

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Okay. So you think others are just like you and are just fishing for an exchange of insults to fill their time!

Great. 

Nothing bores me more than excuse over reason... 😉

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

 

It doesn’t matter how rigidly you are trying to force everyone to adhere to one single definition from one single dictionary. The meaning of words is often derived from the context and qualifiers used when using them. 

In this case, I’ve explained the context. The point is valid. In terms of / in context of most gods ever invented by humanity, your lack of belief in those gods makes you atheistic about those gods, even though you’re not an atheist about ALL gods. 

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.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

WOW, so many post's and we're back to this, why do you care?

Because he's looking for precise definitions here, a perfectly legitimate quest in a philosophic chat.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

An atheist is, by definition, atheist with regards to any form of divine entity. 

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities

There's also an important distinction between "global" atheism and "local" atheism.

Since I'm being challenged specifically on the philosophical precision here, maybe a more robust source will highlight my points validity more clearly to you: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[Intoscience]

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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.

+1 I'm getting confused on what we are trying to establish?

I consider myself an atheist = I don't believe in any god/s deity, divinity... If I believed in any or even just one of the said then I would consider myself a theist, but would then go on to define what it is I believe in.  

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I consider myself an atheist = I don't believe in any god/s deity, divinity... If I believed in any or even just one of the said then I would consider myself a theist

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities.

Being globally atheistic ≠ being locally atheistic.

[Dis n Dat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Hobbyist = Person with a hobby. 

In context of stamp collecting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of quilting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of playing bridge or shuffleboard or even day trading, I’m not a hobbyist. 

However, I enjoy woodworking. In that context I AM a hobbyist. One can be both a hobbyist in some contexts and not in others. 

But at this point, I really am using crayons to draw pictures in attempt to assist you in comprehension.

It doesn’t matter how rigidly you are trying to force everyone to adhere to one single definition from one single dictionary. The meaning of words is often derived from the context and qualifiers used when using them. 

In this case, I’ve explained the context. The point is valid. In terms of / in context of most gods ever invented by humanity, your lack of belief in those gods makes you atheistic about those gods, even though you’re not an atheist about ALL gods. 

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. 

[iNow]

Very first sentence in my link above:

The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. 

You're basically using the No True Scotsman fallacy as an argument against my entirely valid point. 

5 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

It's just plain nonsense.

So you've said, and we disagree for reasons already articulated. 

6 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Atheism does not necessarily mean "I don't believe God". It means "I don't believe in theism". 

There are different definitions. Again, as already supported and articulated. 

[Dis n Dat]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Very first sentence in my link above:

The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. 

You're basically using the No True Scotsman fallacy as an argument against my entirely valid point. 

So you've said, and we disagree for reasons already articulated. 

There are different definitions. Again, as already supported and articulated. 

That's no "no true scotsman fallacy". I can't believe some one actually said something so absurd really. 

Anyway, could you give me the actual scholar or academic who defined atheism this way? 

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. 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

That's no "no true scotsman fallacy".

So your response is to use the No True Scotsman fallacy to suggest you're not using the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Good times. That's some recursive shit right there. 

[Dis n Dat]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

So your response is to use the No True Scotsman fallacy to suggest you're not using the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Good times. That's some recursive shit right there. 

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. 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Now could you please provide the academic or philosopher who gave the definition of "atheist" you are providing?

My doing this would be an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because an academic or philosopher does or does not use a particular definition does not ipso facto mean my own usage is inaccurate.

You lack belief in MOST of the gods ever invented by humanity. You are atheistic ABOUT THOSE GODS, even though you're not an atheist about all of them. 

But this has all been said. I can't force you to be correct and stop asking me to use a dictionary to support my self-evident point. 

1 minute ago, Dis n Dat said:

f you want me to give you definitions of atheism, thats no problem.

Please don't. I know exactly what definition you're using and I'm reminding you there are others.

[TheVat]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

There's also an important distinction between "global" atheism and "local" atheism.

 

Very helpful SEP entry, thanks.  That's section 3, if anyone wants to delve in there.  And if we allow this distinction into this chat, then the dispute goes away.   

And it does seem a fair point that most who call themselves atheist are local atheists, i.e. they deem a specific framing of deity as wrong rather than make a sweeping rejection of any and all overarching consciousness.  On this matter, we could say that Buddhists espouse a local atheism - they reject an omnipotent personal being (the traditional western definition) but not the notion of a consciousness that has a transcendent aspect that permeates all of nature.  To a Lutheran, they are atheists.  But that is because the Buddhist definition of divinity seems incoherent to a Lutheran, not because Buddhists are scientific materialists.

 

[Dis n Dat]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

My doing this would be an appeal to authority fallacy

Hmm. So what are you appealing to? 

Referring to a scholar is not appealing to authority. You are not appealing to anything whatsoever, but just making things up and insulting people. You are not referring to language, usage, or scholarship, but just banter and apologetics and then relying on an insult or two to feel good about yourself. 

I lack belief in most concepts of God, does not mean I am atheistic about those concepts. Because the word atheism does not mean that. If you want to stick to such strange made up dogma it's up to you. 

Have a great day. 

[iNow]

Just now, Dis n Dat said:

I lack belief in most concepts of God, does not mean I am atheistic about those concepts

Please elaborate on why you think this. 

1 minute ago, Dis n Dat said:

Because the word atheism does not mean that.

FFS, dude. Srsly?

[Dis n Dat]

Just now, iNow said:

FFS, dude. Srsly?

Absolutely seriously. Atheist does not mean "I reject this God". I have said this same thing multiple times in this thread. It never meant that, and it still does not. This is just a meme. 

Atheist is a person who "does" atheism. Like a driver is a person who "does" driving. 

Atheism means "A theism" as I explained. Theism is to believe in Theos or Divinity. That's the bottomline meaning of the word. 

If you are looking for definitions, no one as far as I know defines this Atheism as "I reject this God". I doubt that any educated atheist would do that. Only dogmatic preachers in debates do this kind of nonsensical argument tactics. 

Atheism might have many types of atheism. But Atheism cannot go against the bottomline meaning of atheism. A driver cannot be a non-driver at the same time. It's an oxymoron. It's a logical contradiction. A stamp collector cannot be not a collector at the same time. 

A theist cannot be called an atheist at any point for any reason because it's an oxymoron. Only a debater will use that as an argument to win some points and that's the only reason this nonsensical statement has become famous. Purely for debates. There are lots of memes like that people use for debates. 

"You reject theism with other Gods". Plainly nonsensical statement. Should not compute rationally. It should be "you reject other Gods". 

[iNow]

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. The No true Scotsman fallacy isn’t a valid rebuttal to my entirely valid points, nor is saying “nuh uh!!! Not according to this one dictionary!”

And again with the suggestion I’m parroting memes? You’re like a gnat with this shit

[TheVat]

9 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

 

"You reject theism with other Gods". Plainly nonsensical statement. 

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.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

I don't know who this "we" and "us" group is. Sounds like some tribalistic group to me. 

Or it could just be referring to the other people participating in the discussion.

3 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

Nevertheless, an atheist is a person who "does" atheism. Thats the default.

Whatever.

Since you're hung up on the phrasing, all it means is that people don't believe in most deities, and if you don't believe in them, i.e. you don't think they really exist, your position must be that they are made up. 

Better? 

3 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

So your argument defending this common meme on the internet is not valid. 

I don't know what "common meme" you're referring to; I was just explaining the rationale behind a comment.

3 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

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. 

What apologetic? You seem hell-bent on making this about something that not evident in the original statement, or subsequent commentary.