happy or athiest

[scourge99]

I have posted a link with an example of a form of atheism that rejects any belief in anything supernatural

what is the name of this "form of atheism"?

 

[sangha]

what is the name of this "form of atheism"?

atheists.org calls it "atheism"

 

[scourge99]

atheists.org calls it "atheism"

As explained, this creates a whole slew of problems if atheism is defined so narrowly.

1) its intuitive to define theism/atheism as a dichotomy. by defining atheism as disbelief in gods and the supernatural then it breaks the dichotomy with theism which is simply the belief in god(s). theism does not address anything else supernatural so it makes no sense that atheism does.

2) if atheism is defined as disbelief in god and anything supernatural including an afterlife and anyone who believes in a god is defined as a theist then what about people of varying beliefs of the two?

e.g., people who believe in the supernatural or afterlife but not any god. or people who believe in a god but not in anything else supernatural. or people who aren't absolutely certain one way or the other but believe in a god or disbelieve in gods and/or the supernatural. or people who are absolutely certain one way or the other. the definition of atheism provided by atheists.org runs into these problems and it becomes a mess.


for these reasons the most consistent and intuitive definition for atheism is a disbelief in gods. theism being a belief in gods. nothing more. nothing less.

 

[sangha]

As explained, this creates a whole slew of problems if atheism is defined so narrowly.

1) its intuitive to define theism/atheism as a dichotomy. by defining atheism as disbelief in gods and the supernatural then it breaks the dichotomy with theism which is simply the belief in god(s). theism does not address anything else supernatural so it makes no sense that atheism does.

2) if atheism is defined as disbelief in god and anything supernatural including an afterlife and anyone who believes in a god is defined as a theist then what about people of varying beliefs of the two?

e.g., people who believe in the supernatural or afterlife but not any god. or people who believe in a god but not in anything else supernatural. or people who aren't absolutely certain one way or the other but believe in a god or disbelieve in gods and/or the supernatural. or people who are absolutely certain one way or the other. the definition of atheism provided by atheists.org runs into these problems and it becomes a mess.


for these reasons the most consistent and intuitive definition for atheism is a disbelief in gods. theism being a belief in gods. nothing more. nothing less.

It isn't defined so narrowly. As I, and others, have pointed out, atheism is defined in different ways by different people, with no one definition having a monopoly

But none of that answers my question: On what basis could an atheist not beleive in God, but believe in supernaturalism?

 

[Verthaine]

It isn't defined so narrowly. As I, and others, have pointed out, atheism is defined in different ways by different people, with no one definition having a monopoly

But none of that answers my question: On what basis could an atheist not beleive in God, but believe in supernaturalism?

Excuse me,but can you clarify what you mean by "supernaturalism"
Thank you.

 

[sangha]

Excuse me,but can you clarify what you mean by "supernaturalism"
Thank you.

A belief in the supernatural, which means "not subject to the laws of nature" (ie the physical laws of the universe)

 

[Cephus]

A belief in the supernatural, which means "not subject to the laws of nature" (ie the physical laws of the universe)

Define "laws of nature". For some people, quantum mechanics would fall into that category because it isn't within the well-understood "laws of nature".

 

[scourge99]

It isn't defined so narrowly.

i just explained how it is narrowly defined by atheists.org. you havent presented a counter argument and instead just make the bald faced assertion that it isn't. Will you debate or will you just present your unsubstantiated opinion?

As I, and others, have pointed out, atheism is defined in different ways by different people,

i and others have explained why those definitions are.inconsistent, incoherent, or otherwise lacking.

But none of that answers my question: On what basis could an atheist not beleive in God, but believe in supernaturalism?

because an afterlife and other supernaturalism is not contingent on the existence of god(s).

 

[Cephus]

because an afterlife and other supernaturalism is not contingent on the existence of god(s).

And it's sad that we have to keep repeating it over and over and over and over.

 

[sangha]

i just explained how it is narrowly defined by atheists.org. you havent presented a counter argument and instead just make the bald faced assertion that it isn't. Will you debate or will you just present your unsubstantiated opinion?

I didn't see any such explanation. Gotta link?

i and others have explained why those definitions are.inconsistent, incoherent, or otherwise lacking.

None of that refutes the fact that these definitions are in use.

because an afterlife and other supernaturalism is not contingent on the existence of god(s).

That is not a basis for not believing in the existence of god(s).

 

[sangha]

And it's sad that we have to keep repeating it over and over and over and over.

It's sad that you don't realize that it does not answer the question I asked.

 

[scourge99]

I didn't see any such explanation. Gotta link?

you quoted my response where i did but apparently didn't read it. perhaps that is why you have close to 2500 posts in less than 20 days as a new member of this forum. quantity is no subtitute for quality in debate. but i think readers have determined that already about you based on the watercooler chat.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/102523-happy-athiest-19.html#post1059669217

None of that refutes the fact that these definitions are in use.

the fact that some people use a particular definition doesn't address the flaws in that definition.

That is not a basis for not believing in the existence of god(s).

just one of many examples: a person is not convinced that any of the gods proposed by man exist because of a lack of evidence but nonetheless believes that their consciousness survives in some manner after their body dies.

i even gave a quote earlier in this thread of someone on this forum who has a similiar belief. if you actualy read the thread then you would have noticied.

 

[Verthaine]

A belief in the supernatural, which means "not subject to the laws of nature" (ie the physical laws of the universe)

May I point out that we as a species do not know all the physical laws of the universe at this moment.

An afterlife may obey the physical laws of the universe in a way we have yet to discover.

A zippo lighter would seem "supernatural" to a caveman.

 

[Verthaine]

Define "laws of nature". For some people, quantum mechanics would fall into that category because it isn't within the well-understood "laws of nature".

To be technical,quantum mechanics do not fall into the category of "Newtonian physics".
Both are still within the "laws of nature".

 

[sangha]

you quoted my response where i did but apparently didn't read it. perhaps that is why you have close to 2500 posts in less than 20 days as a new member of this forum. quantity is no subtitute for quality in debate. but i think readers have determined that already about you based on the watercooler chat.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/102523-happy-athiest-19.html#post1059669217

the fact that some people use a particular definition doesn't address the flaws in that definition.

Now I can see why I promptly forgot about your "explanation". Your intuition is not a basis for denying a definition

just one of many examples: a person is not convinced that any of the gods proposed by man exist because of a lack of evidence but nonetheless believes that their consciousness survives in some manner after their body dies.

If they don't believe things because of a lack of evidence, then why do they believe in anything supernatural?

i even gave a quote earlier in this thread of someone on this forum who has a similiar belief. if you actualy read the thread then you would have noticied.

I have never said that no one believes so. I asked what the basis for believing so is. And while you have provided a basis for their not believing in God, that basis does not support their belief in an afterlife or any other supernatural belief. So I'll ask again

On what basis can someone not believe in god(s) existence AND believe in anything supernatural?

 

[Cephus]

It's sad that you don't realize that it does not answer the question I asked.

No, what's sad is you don't recognize how nonsensical the question you asked was. You act like because one group makes a claim, it suddenly changes things for everyone. If someone says the moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't prove that astronomers everywhere think so. It means that one person is wrong.

 

[sangha]

No, what's sad is you don't recognize how nonsensical the question you asked was. You act like because one group makes a claim, it suddenly changes things for everyone. If someone says the moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't prove that astronomers everywhere think so. It means that one person is wrong.

I never said that anything has changed for anyone. I asked: On what basis can someone not believe in the existence of god(s) and believe in the existence of the supernatural

 

[Cephus]

I never said that anything has changed for anyone. I asked: On what basis can someone not believe in the existence of god(s) and believe in the existence of the supernatural

And people have explained it to you and you keep flogging your straw man. How many times do people have to tell you that the existence of a god and the existence of the supernatural are not intrinsically linked?

 

[scourge99]

Now I can see why I promptly forgot about your "explanation". Your intuition is not a basis for denying a definition

this is a strawman. I did not say nor imply that intuition is or is not a basis for denying a definition. rather, i gave an example of someone who does not believe in gods but believes in an afterlife. it is but one example of many. this completely sinks your argument that someone must believe in god(s) to believe in an afterlife or anything supernatural except for gods.

If they don't believe things because of a lack of evidence, then why do they believe in anything supernatural?

who says they dont believe anything because of a lack of evidence? perhaps they have personal experiences or find particular arguments for an afterlife convincing. perhaps they only believe things that make them happy.

but these are examples only. they demonstrate the larger point: belief in the supernatural is not contingent on a belief in gods.

Are you claiming that no one can disbelieve in gods and believe in anything supernatural without having inconsistent or incoherent beliefs?

I have never said that no one believes so. I asked what the basis for believing so is. And while you have provided a basis for their not believing in God, that basis does not support their belief in an afterlife or any other supernatural belief. So I'll ask again

On what basis can someone not believe in god(s) existence AND believe in anything supernatural?

one example is personal experience. perhaps a near death experience.

another example is that they find dualism or some other philosophy compelling and find holy books tales unconvincing.

your entire argument appears to boil down to "unless i approve of the reason why someone would believe in an afterlife yet disbelieve in gods then they are not an atheist."

 

[sangha]

And people have explained it to you and you keep flogging your straw man. How many times do people have to tell you that the existence of a god and the existence of the supernatural are not intrinsically linked?

You havent answered my question. I said nothing about them being intrinsically linked.

 

[sangha]

this is a strawman. I did not say nor imply that intuition is or is not a basis for denying a definition. rather, i gave an example of someone who does not believe in gods but believes in an afterlife. it is but one example of many. this completely sinks your argument that someone must believe in god(s) to believe in an afterlife or anything supernatural except for gods.

I did not deny that such people exist. I agree with you that they do. I only asked how they came to such a conclusion without any logical contradictions

who says they dont believe anything because of a lack of evidence? perhaps they have personal experiences or find particular arguments for an afterlife convincing. perhaps they only believe things that make them happy.

IIRC, it was you who said something like "They don't believe in god because there is no evidence of gods existence, and they believe in an afterlife". That provided a basis for the first, but not for the second. However, you have now, with your reference to personal experience, begun to provide that basis, and I thank you for that. If I may rephrase, you are now saying "They have neither scientific nor experiential evidence for Gods existence, but they do have experiential experience of the supernatural (ex afterlife)

but these are examples only. they demonstrate the larger point: belief in the supernatural is not contingent on a belief in gods.

I agree

Are you claiming that no one can disbelieve in gods and believe in anything supernatural without having inconsistent or incoherent beliefs?

No, I am saying I don't how they can believe so. That doesnt mean it can't be

one example is personal experience. perhaps a near death experience.

another example is that they find dualism or some other philosophy compelling and find holy books tales unconvincing.

your entire argument appears to boil down to "unless i approve of the reason why someone would believe in an afterlife yet disbelieve in gods then they are not an atheist."

No, I am not saying that. I wasn't saying anything about who is and who is not an atheist. I was merely asking if someone could come up with a coherent line of reasoning for believing so. I think you're done a good job of explaining that to me. Thanks

 

[Cephus]

You havent answered my question. I said nothing about them being intrinsically linked.

Of course you have, you keep asking how someone can believe one and not the other, which inherently makes them linked. Or don't you see that?

 

[sangha]

Of course you have, you keep asking how someone can believe one and not the other, which inherently makes them linked. Or don't you see that?

Please read scourges' response to me above. He managed to understand and answer my question

 

[Cephus]

Please read scourges' response to me above. He managed to understand and answer my question

He catches you in your misunderstanding, actually. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Full stop. It says nothing about *WHY* someone lacks belief in god(s), only that they do. You assume, and scourge points out where you're wrong, that they disbelieve because of lack of evidence. That's not necessarily the case. Why someone disbelieves is irrelevant to the fact that they do disbelieve.

 

[sangha]

He catches you in your misunderstanding, actually. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Full stop. It says nothing about *WHY* someone lacks belief in god(s), only that they do. You assume, and scourge points out where you're wrong, that they disbelieve because of lack of evidence. That's not necessarily the case. Why someone disbelieves is irrelevant to the fact that they do disbelieve.

Not misunderstanding; a lack of understanding. That's why I asked a question.

You have mistaken my question for an assertion, even though there was a question mark at the end of it.