Morer Questions For The Atheist [W:839]

[tosca1]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

 

[tosca1]

So it is disquieting that one cannot straightforwardly distinguish New Atheists from religionists in terms of 'unbelievers' vs 'believers'. These atheists are believers. They not only hold specific religious beliefs - about the existence of God, the divine nature of the universe, the proper interpretation of sacred texts, and so on. They hold them with passion and fervour.



First, the fact that atheists' beliefs about the divine are all negative in content doesn't mean that they aren't religious in orientation and character. After all, negative beliefs are central to many religions, e.g. that there is no more than one god, or, in some versions of Buddhism, that there are no gods. Indeed, it is striking that this kind of atheism is constructed in the same negative way as religious heresies, i.e. by beginning with orthodox beliefs and then rejecting one or more of them for more or less intellectually convincing reasons.

Second, the fervour of new atheism more resembles that of evangelical religions than a purely intellectual movement, such as the science it claims to identify with. Like members of many other religions (such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons) new atheists appear committed to sharing the Good News they have discovered with everyone else, and even to see proselytising as a sacred duty that is inseparable from their faith as a whole. Part of being this kind of atheist is to preach to the heathen masses and seek to save them from their false gods by converting them to the Truth.

To put it another way, even if I meet the strict definition of atheist because I believe there is no god, the way I hold that belief differs from the New Atheists. If I am atheist I am an apathetic one: the non-existence of god is a matter of great insignificance to me. And isn't that how it should be if atheism is true?

The Philosopher's Beard: Why I am not an atheist

 

[Amadeus]

The great thing about being an atheist is that you don't have to give a flying sh!t about what another atheist says about his/her atheism.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No one can prove that god does, or does not exist. The difference between the terms atheist and agnostic has more to do with the understanding of the burden of proof. Both atheists and agnostics will admit that it's theoretically possible that god exists, but the atheist recognizes that when there's neither evidence for or against something that no one has ever seen or can prove, it's better to assume the negative position rather than the positive one.

For instance, I don't waste one second wondering if pink unicorns are real. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Could pink unicorns exist? Sure, they could, but I'm not going to mentally hold open the possibility of their existence until there's a reason to do so. I'm not going to label myself a pink-unicorn agnostic just because it might possibly exist.

Now, let's apply this test in reverse. I'm telling you that there are 10 gods, each with different powers, fire, water, earth, etc. Are you atheistic toward my gods because you don't believe in them? After all, I could theoretically be correct so you should hold that possibility open in the back of your mind, right?

There are TONS of gods you don't believe in, I just took that one further than you. How does that make me dishonest and hypocritical?

 

[Redress]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

Literally, atheist means "not a theist". Learning how the English language works is key to understanding it. The most common full definition of atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods". I bolded the part that escapes you.

 

[tosca1]

Literally, atheist means "not a theist". Learning how the English language works is key to understanding it. The most common full definition of atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods". I bolded the part that escapes you.

So how do you define a theist?


theist:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,


So what does it makes an atheist if he is not a theist?

 

[tosca1]

I've also hear this silly explanation from some atheists talking about.....I think it was Dawkins who presented this too.

"1% believing that God could exist compared to the 99% belief that He doesn't exist" - so therefore they are atheists.


Let me ask you:

If you have a bucket of drinking water, and you see me spit just a tiny little drop in it - will you consider it still clean enough for you to drink? After all, what's a tiny drop of spit to a whole bucket of clean water?

 

[tosca1]

No one can prove that god does, or does not exist. The difference between the terms atheist and agnostic has more to do with the understanding of the burden of proof. Both atheists and agnostics will admit that it's theoretically possible that god exists, but the atheist recognizes that when there's neither evidence for or against something that no one has ever seen or can prove, it's better to assume the negative position rather than the positive one.

For instance, I don't waste one second wondering if pink unicorns are real. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Could pink unicorns exist? Sure, they could, but I'm not going to mentally hold open the possibility of their existence until there's a reason to do so. I'm not going to label myself a pink-unicorn agnostic just because it might possibly exist.

Now, let's apply this test in reverse. I'm telling you that there are 10 gods, each with different powers, fire, water, earth, etc. Are you atheistic toward my gods because you don't believe in them? After all, I could theoretically be correct so you should hold that possibility open in the back of your mind, right?

There are TONS of gods you don't believe in, I just took that one further than you. How does that make me dishonest and hypocritical?

Either you believe that God or gods exist, or you don't!

The rest is just cockamamie b**** simply because, common sense dictates that you'd have to be agnostic - that is, IF YOU RELY ON SCIENCE!


You can't have it both ways.

 

[HonestJoe]

By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism, it exists on an entirely different line. (A)theism relates to belief while (a)gnosticism relates to knowledge. Agnostic is generally about it not being possible to know or prove whether any gods exist or not. A personal can be an agnostic atheist (and I'd argue most are, including myself) and it's also technically possible to be an agnostic theist, believing in a god on the basis of faith yet acknowledging their existence can't be proven.

Different people apply different definitions to the word atheist, often for specific purposes. I guess the key question is whether you believe a person could be neither atheist nor theist (remembering that is not agnostic). The argument against that is that theist means someone who believes in a god or gods and so anyone who doesn't fit that definition, regardless of their certainly or specific details, is an atheist by definition.

One benefit of that idea at least is that it makes clear how diverse and unconnected all the "non-theists" in the world are and how flawed lumping all atheists together and presuming a single mind-set of them is.

 

[X Factor]

No one can prove that god does, or does not exist. The difference between the terms atheist and agnostic has more to do with the understanding of the burden of proof. Both atheists and agnostics will admit that it's theoretically possible that god exists, but the atheist recognizes that when there's neither evidence for or against something that no one has ever seen or can prove, it's better to assume the negative position rather than the positive one.

For instance, I don't waste one second wondering if pink unicorns are real. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Could pink unicorns exist? Sure, they could, but I'm not going to mentally hold open the possibility of their existence until there's a reason to do so. I'm not going to label myself a pink-unicorn agnostic just because it might possibly exist.

Now, let's apply this test in reverse. I'm telling you that there are 10 gods, each with different powers, fire, water, earth, etc. Are you atheistic toward my gods because you don't believe in them? After all, I could theoretically be correct so you should hold that possibility open in the back of your mind, right?

There are TONS of gods you don't believe in, I just took that one further than you. How does that make me dishonest and hypocritical?

Who said you were dishonest and hypocritical (I admit, I didn't watch the video)? There's a difference between "I don't believe there is a God" and "There is no God". The second is an affirmative statement of belief (actually presented as fact). Those who espouse the second tend to be the most evangelical of atheists seemingly taking personal offense that others do believe in God.

 

[Dragonfly]

So tedious and boring.
The title of this thread says something about questions for atheists, yet the OP contains no questions.

More of the same gibberish.

 

[Redress]

So how do you define a theist?


theist:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,


So what does it makes an atheist if he is not a theist?

I can't see how you would be confused. An atheist is, quite simply, one who does not have a belief in a god or gods. "A"= not, "theist" = belief in the existence of a god or gods. Put them together and you get not having a belief in a god or gods. isn't English wonderful!

 

[Kobie]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

What's the question?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Who said you were dishonest and hypocritical (I admit, I didn't watch the video)? There's a difference between "I don't believe there is a God" and "There is no God". The second is an affirmative statement of belief (actually presented as fact). Those who espouse the second tend to be the most evangelical of atheists seemingly taking personal offense that others do believe in God.

It's just tosca's nonsense. Hang out and read a few of her eccentric posts and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I've also hear this silly explanation from some atheists talking about.....I think it was Dawkins who presented this too.

"1% believing that God could exist compared to the 99% belief that He doesn't exist" - so therefore they are atheists.


Let me ask you:

If you have a bucket of drinking water, and you see me spit just a tiny little drop in it - will you consider it still clean enough for you to drink? After all, what's a tiny drop of spit to a whole bucket of clean water?

This is literally the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.

Either you believe that God or gods exist, or you don't!


The rest is just cockamamie b**** simply because, common sense dictates that you'd have to be agnostic - that is, IF YOU RELY ON SCIENCE!


You can't have it both ways.

Actually, there are a whole LOT of other options. You may believe in one god, multiple gods, no gods, natural gods, unnatural gods, and each of these could be different. You have your own subjective picture of what you think god is or isn't.

Second, as you've demonstrated about a thousand times by now, you do not understand science in the slightest. Scientists are not required to believe everything they're told until proven otherwise, in fact, it's the exact opposite. Science requires that we don't accept information as truth until there is evidence to prove it. Science firmly places the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. You claim there's a god, I claim there is no evidence to support that. When you can prove that god exists, the burden of proof will be shifted back towards atheists.

Please prove right now that there aren't 10 gods. Until you can, you HAVE to believe it. That's how your logic works, right?

Also: Saying "I don't believe in god" is NOT a positive statement requiring evidence, it's an opinion.

So tedious and boring.
The title of this thread says something about questions for atheists, yet the OP contains no questions.

More of the same gibberish.

Yeah, several times a week she makes these idiotic threads which don't actually have any point other than her screaming from her soapbox that we all have to believe exactly what she does until we prove it's wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Trying to attack or defend any belief based on faith alone is futile. One may believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial beings and yet not believe that they have visited Earth, much less live next door, have personally conversed with them or have some special power over them (either now or after death). The mere fact that there are said to be multiple "true" gods each having dictated different "true" ways to live (behave?) should be enough to spark some reasoned debate - even among those "true" believers.

To point out that there are differences of opinion among "atheists" is no more shocking than to point out differences in opinion among Catholics or Jews about "spiritual" (moral?) matters. Does or does not the "true" god (or is it gods?) frown on the use of birth control or capital punishment?

 

[zyzygy]

So how do you define a theist?


theist:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,


So what does it makes an atheist if he is not a theist?

Consult a dictionary.

 

[OrphanSlug]

By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

FFS, how many times do we have to go through this? No matter how many clever internet videos you find you and they do not get to change the definition of these words as some ploy in dealing with your opposition. For the last time...

Theism - belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnosticism - a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God or gods.

Verificationism - a philosophical term, and a doctrine that a proposition is only cognitive if it can be definitively determined to be either completely true or completely false.

Therefor your video makes a series of mistakes. You cannot be an atheist and still believe in God. You also cannot be an atheist and be concerned with Verificationism. Atheism does not "embody a diversity of views" nor does Atheism include Agnosticism and Verificationism. That is a blatant lie. If anything, Agnosticism has close ties to Verificationism but only in the sense of limitations on what is unknown and perhaps unknowable. But, Verificationism does have absolutes. You either determine something to be completely true or completely false. Agnosticism does not make that effort, nor is it about "having your cake and eating it too."

Theism and Atheism are flip sides of the same coin. They both make a statement of belief that happens to be opposing to one another. Hence the "A" in atheism to theism. That is the core reason there is no such thing as a believer atheist. Saying "maybe true" and "is true" then flies in the face of what Verificationism, again as a philosophical statement, is trying to make concrete one way or the other as completely true or completely false.

The video then trying to trap someone into saying "does or does not exist" as an absolute does not prove atheism or theism to be fact, it only tries to trap into the saying of which belief system one agrees with. The biggest issue there is one does not have to be one or the other. You can make a statement of belief that God or gods exist, you can make a statement of belief that God or gods do not exist, and you can make a third statement saying we cannot know for sure to give Verificationism any merit in this debate.

It seems both the people in that video were either confused or willfully trying to cloud definitions to make a failed point about what each thinks these terms mean.

 

[DDD]

In min 2.40 the question is: What justification do you have that God does not exist?

Dickens answers rightly that it is due to lack of evidence that it does exist.

Nothing new here. What is the point?

 

[WCH]

No one can prove that god does, or does not exist. The difference between the terms atheist and agnostic has more to do with the understanding of the burden of proof. Both atheists and agnostics will admit that it's theoretically possible that god exists, but the atheist recognizes that when there's neither evidence for or against something that no one has ever seen or can prove, it's better to assume the negative position rather than the positive one.

For instance, I don't waste one second wondering if pink unicorns are real. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Could pink unicorns exist? Sure, they could, but I'm not going to mentally hold open the possibility of their existence until there's a reason to do so. I'm not going to label myself a pink-unicorn agnostic just because it might possibly exist.

Now, let's apply this test in reverse. I'm telling you that there are 10 gods, each with different powers, fire, water, earth, etc. Are you atheistic toward my gods because you don't believe in them? After all, I could theoretically be correct so you should hold that possibility open in the back of your mind, right?

There are TONS of gods you don't believe in, I just took that one further than you. How does that make me dishonest and hypocritical?

The 'verificationism' was the one that made me laugh.

Never heard that term before.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So how do you define a theist?


theist:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,


So what does it makes an atheist if he is not a theist?

If you say that there is a pea under the center, of 3, nut shells on the table before us, and I doubt your word, then we both have expressed beliefs (as neither can see a pea). To argue that the other's belief is wrong is bound to happen since they are opposite and therefore mutually exclusive statements of fact. Your argument amounts to both beliefs are equally valid or invalid - science would indicate that the space under the nut shell must be examined to make the call.

 

[d head]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

Interesting that you would post that clip. Hitch clearly won that debate.
You are an atheist about all man made gods except one.
So you should clearly understand where we are coming from.
We only add one more we don't believe in to your, already very long, list.

 

[zyzygy]

So how do you define a theist?


theist:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,


So what does it makes an atheist if he is not a theist?

Don't schools teach the religious the meaning of words?

 

[Dragonfly]

Don't schools teach the religious the meaning of words?

Some people believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and that all fossils are "fakes" planted by god, for reasons only he/she knows.

So what schools teach is often not recognized by the extreme fringes.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The 'verificationism' was the one that made me laugh.

Never heard that term before.

The best part about "Verificationism" is its close ties to logical positivism, the effort to make philosophy (call it a movement in the early 1900's) more guided to conclusive statements that were verifiable by some means. The range of verifiable statements at origin included everything from logical determination (mental exercise) up to empirical determination (actual numeric or conclusive observation of truth or falsehood.) The further they went the further they leaned towards empirical determination, which caused a rift among those considering life's purpose especially when it comes to... ironically... theism.

What makes the video so comical is the assumption that Atheism has anything to do with Verificationism, as in later stages of logical positivism there was little respect for the mental exercise that took someone from observation level thinking to atheism as a conclusion. And again, ironically, agnosticism became the more plausible conclusion in that one could not make the determinations that Theism and Atheism make without a system of belief to base them on. Raw observation in the determination of truth today cannot take one to atheism or theism. Truth being defined without the qualifier of belief, or the old Fact vs. Truth debate.

So when someone today suggests Atheism encompasses Verificationism they are speaking from an extreme minority position within philosophy with little respect from those practicing logical positivism using the observance empirical standard.

 

[Ikari]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

Oh hey look, a theist trying to tell people who they are and what they actually believe and what their opinions should be. That's certainly new :roll: