Are you atheist?

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Dis n Dat said:

Nope. Some concepts were definitely invented. But that's not evidence that all were invented. That's a composition fallacy. 

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.  

 

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

 

But I care less about that and more about why YOU choose to not believe in Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Anubis, Osiris, Ra, Loki, Freya, Jupiter, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Xmucane, Xpiacocre, and all the countless others.

Where is your evidence supporting that lack of belief? That's the claim you keep making of others, after all. 

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.

 

[Dis n Dat]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The burden of evidence lies with the extraordinary claim. 

There is nothing like that. It's a made up argument with loading. And is irrelevant to this. 

 

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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.  

All of that is absolutely irrelevant to the particular discussion. 

 

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

There is nothing like that. It's a made up argument with loading. And is irrelevant to this. 

 

All of that is absolutely irrelevant to the particular discussion. 

 

TBH, there seem to be over fifty posts in the last few hours, and my time is limited.  Is there any chance you could briefly state your basic point, then, regarding belief and gods?  I will have to leave now and will check in later, so don't take a nonresponse as ignoring.  

[Dis n Dat]

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

TBH, there seem to be over fifty posts in the last few hours, and my time is limited.  Is there any chance you could briefly state your basic point, then, regarding belief and gods?  I will have to leave now and will check in later, so don't take a nonresponse as ignoring.  

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. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Dis n Dat said:

Kali. Is cited in Jathaka story of Veren Vera. Jathaka stories are all made up. 

 

What is your evidence that they are all made up?

[Dis n Dat]

Just now, zapatos said:

What is your evidence that they are all made up?

Because that's the concept of Atthakatha. It does not need evidence. 

Lets say tomorrow you write a book and say "I am making these up to explain something written earlier", it does not need any further evidence that it's made up. 

Do you know what Atthakatha means in the Buddhist scripture?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Lets say tomorrow you write a book and say "I am making these up to explain something written earlier", it does not need any further evidence that it's made up. 

 

I'm not familiar with this, thus my question: 

So that is what happened? The writer said essentially "don't believe what I am about to say as it is not true and only made up"?

[Dis n Dat]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not familiar with this, thus my question: 

So that is what happened? The writer said essentially "don't believe what I am about to say as it is not true and only made up"?

Well, Atthakatha means the story behind the story. They claimed directly that they wrote stories to explain what was written earlier. The Tipitaka was written in Pali some time ago. Atthakatha were written much later to give a story context to what was written in the Tipitaka. 

Also, you should know that any story written can be analysed historically. Imagine you write a book today about something that happened a millennia ago, and someone unknown came up 500 years later and wrote some stories that gives a background to your story. It's absolutely unreliable. 

This kind of thing is prevalent all over the place in many theologies. 

Each one of these topics are very large topics that needs their own thread to be discussed extensively. It cannot be so easily simplified. That's the reason, making general sweeping statements are invaluable. It's just a baseless missionary activity. 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Dis n Dat said:

Each one of these topics are very large topics that needs their own thread to be discussed extensively.

For what purpose... To argue that the rest of the jug of milk is NOT soured even though the first several sips are?

[swansont]

 

3 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

 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. 

Do you believe in these other gods?

If not, how is the expression inaccurate?

 

[Moontanman]

I can provide evidence that Odin is real! He promised to get rid of all the ice giants... Seen any ice giants around? No? Then Odin at least fulfilled his promise. 

[Dis n Dat]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

For what purpose... To argue that the rest of the jug of milk is NOT soured even though the first several sips are?

No. 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Do you believe in these other gods?

If not, how is the expression inaccurate?

 

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. 

).

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

I don't believe in some Gods, but I believe in other Gods.

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. 

12 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Calling me an atheist because I don't believe in other Gods…

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. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by iNow

[Dis n Dat]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ergo, you are atheistic about some gods

That's not the meaning of the word or the definition. 

It's just a common meme. 

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s that trouble with reading comprehension again. 

 

Projection. 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

That's not the meaning of the word or the definition. 

So says you. 

A*Theist = NOT*Theist. 

In context of Odin, you’re not theist. In context of Zeus, you’re not theist. Relative to Poseidon, Apollo, Vishnu, etc… you’re not theist. 

You are a theist in context of your own personally preferred flavor or version of god, but you’re not theist in context of any of the others… which is precisely what I said all those many months ago (Jebus… I just looked… it was over 2 years ago) before you necro’d the thread trying to take me to task for a comment you clearly can’t properly comprehend nor validly rebut with anything more substantial than, “nuh uh!”

34 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

It's just a common meme. 

I wouldn’t know about any of that. Memes are everywhere. I barely care about them, but you’re implying I’m here merely repeating something from a meme and that these thoughts aren’t my own. That’s a load of horseshit, much like the content of most of your posts. 

35 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Projection

Delusion. Your turn. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by iNow

[Dis n Dat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

A*Theist = NOT*Theist. 

Exactly. Not theist. It's an ontology. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In context of Odin, you’re not theist.

Nonsensical. Even if I don't believe Odin is mythology, I am still a theist. 

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Delusion. Your turn. 

Projection. 

[Intoscience]

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.  

[Dis n Dat]

53 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.  

It's a greek word. Theos does not only mean God. Ho Theos means The God. But Just saying Theos means Divinity. A is pronounced like "Are". Atheist means "anti or against theism". Ho is just a handle like "THe". 

Thus, atheism by etymology means no divinity. It's not just saying no to one type of God concept. It's saying no to all divinity. That's just by the meaning of the word. 

By definition of the western world that adopted this greek word, it is also practically the same. Atheism means anti theism. But some atheists do actually define it as A Theism as in "A sexual". It is still not A+"Some theism". 

That is the reason this apologetic some atheists keep repeating all over the internet is blatantly absurd. It's not a blame game, but just a touch of reality. Please don't take offence of what I say.

Cheers. 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

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. 

None of this happened, though. Nobody redefined atheism. Nobody called you (or anyone) “an atheist”

The phrase was “atheist about over 99% of the gods humans have invented” 

You’re focusing on one word and ignoring the rest of the statement.

[Dis n Dat]

Just now, swansont said:

None of this happened, though. Nobody redefined atheism. Nobody called you (or anyone) “an atheist”

The phrase was “atheist about over 99% of the gods humans have invented” 

You’re focusing on one word and ignoring the rest of the statement.

 

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. 

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Atheism does not mean "I am against some Gods".

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” 

 

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

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?

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?

[Dis n Dat]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

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” 

 

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. 

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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?

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.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

I was talking about the meaning of the word atheist.

Whatever you think it used to mean isn't relevant, what it means now is found in a dictionary; for us to have a reasonable discussion we have to agree on the meaning and since this discussion IS now, then a relevant meaning has to take precedence.

[Dis n Dat]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Whatever you think it used to mean isn't relevant, what it means now is found in a dictionary; for us to have a reasonable discussion we have to agree on the meaning and since this discussion IS now, then a relevant meaning has to take precedence.

That's a valid argument. So which dictionary defines atheism as "not believing in some Gods"? 

 

Thanks.