Atheists, why do you deny the possibility of a 'god'?

[guyver79]

I don't hold to any one dictionary, no idea why you're assuming I must stick with the oxford dictionary, I never said that.


The dictionary isn't per se wrong about God, it just doesn't go into enough philosophical depth. But it cant, it's just a dictionary.

And yes, guyver, if you're arguing that you would have to show your model is realistic/correct and actually works.

Yes, you can have a self contained logical universe.

So you would have to show that god is realistic and correct and works.

So the description of a creator god that intervenes is not true?

[Chrysippus]

Since half the people in this thread do not know what an atheist is:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

An atheist is not a person that asserts that there is no god, an atheist is a person that does not believe.

To say that a person who does not claim that there is no god is an agnostic is absolutely objectively wrong. An agnostic is someone who "does not know", which is not what you're being asked, you're being asked if you believe, we know you don't know, lol!

Literally 100% of the people I've met who claim to be "agnostics" are atheist by definition. Why? Because none of the "agnostics" I've ran across have ever had an active belief in any god - you're an atheist by definition.

In general, agnostics are actually atheists that are either:
1.) Too pussy to call themselves atheists
2.) Confused on the definitions of words

This is a good investigation into the matter:



Tldr: Discoskeletons is objectively wrong. Boolean false. Zero points out of a possible one. No matter how many times he repeats his exactly wrong statements, they are still going to be just as wrong.

[Athanasius90]

Simply typing the statement "You/he/she is wrong" doesn't actually refute anything.

What do you call someone who believes god does not exist?

[ODBM]

Simply typing the statement "You/he/she is wrong" doesn't actually refute anything.

What do you call someone who believes god does not exist?

Antitheist or hard atheist. Both of which can be categorized under the umbrella term atheist.

Similar to how Christians and Muslims can be categorized under the umbrella term theist.

[Indivdude]

I tend to lean towards Bertrand Russell's thinking on agnostic and atheist. That they are separate positions in and of themselves but with many similarities and even overlaps. Bertrand Russell even said he wasn't sure what to say when asked which he was. He basically ended up with the idea that agnosticism was more precise when talking philosophically and atheism was easier to say when asked by a layman. But he was operating under the idea that atheism meant rejecting belief in god, not the newer definition of simply lacking belief.

Even the word agnostic was coined to come up with a position separate from theism and atheism. If you look at Huxley's sayings about it and what it meant, its clear it was its own position.

Now I don't really care too much about this but apparently it either rustles peoples' jimmies a lot or people are just ****posting here because 11 pages. Dang. So just throwing my 2 cents in.

[Athanasius90]

I tend to lean towards Bertrand Russell's thinking on agnostic and atheist. That they are separate positions in and of themselves but with many similarities and even overlaps. Bertrand Russell even said he wasn't sure what to say when asked which he was. He basically ended up with the idea that agnosticism was more precise when talking philosophically and atheism was easier to say when asked by a layman. But he was operating under the idea that atheism meant rejecting belief in god, not the newer definition of simply lacking belief.

Even the word agnostic was coined to come up with a position separate from theism and atheism. If you look at Huxley's sayings about it and what it meant, its clear it was its own position.

Now I don't really care too much about this but apparently it either rustles peoples' jimmies a lot or people are just ****posting here because 11 pages. Dang. So just throwing my 2 cents in.

This is generally correct, yes. This way has been the traditional definition in philosophy and is by far the simplest. This proposed new way just confuses things and breaks what didn't need fixing in the first place.

[ODBM]

I'm sure that with a little practice, it won't be confusing to you anymore. After all, we should be the ones complaining about all the branches of Christianity!

[Chrysippus]

Simply typing the statement "You/he/she is wrong" doesn't actually refute anything.

What do you call someone who believes god does not exist?

Someone who believes that god does not exist, does not believe in god, therefore, he too is an atheist; just like the person who has no active belief one way or the other (someone who does not believe in god).

But being an atheist does not require that one make any assertion at all.

[MangoPort]

Someone who believes that god does not exist, does not believe in god, therefore, he too is an atheist; just like the person who has no active belief one way or the other (someone who does not believe in god).

But being an atheist does not require that one make any assertion at all.

This is a nice succinct explanation.

[Athanasius90]

Someone who believes that god does not exist, does not believe in god, therefore, he too is an atheist; just like the person who has no active belief one way or the other (someone who does not believe in god).

But being an atheist does not require that one make any assertion at all.

It requires actually having a belief regarding this issue.

[ODBM]

It requires actually having a belief regarding this issue.

Repeating it enough times won't make it true, but it will make you look desperate.

[guyver79]

It requires actually having a belief regarding this issue.

I don't believe in folk stories.

That a good enough definition?

[Athanasius90]

Repeating it enough times won't make it true, but it will make you look desperate.

Unfortunately I need to repeat myself on these forums because sadly, too many on here are just slow. I'm aware repetition does equal truth. What makes it true is the arguments and evidence for it, and refuting the arguments presented for the contrary.


Ignoring and failing to engage with what I say does not make it go away or refute it. Atheism is at the very least, a belief in a proposition. Dealwithit.jpg.

[Athanasius90]

I don't believe in folk stories.

That a good enough definition?

You've said before you believe the supernatural does not exist.


Good enough for me.

Props for actually having the balls to affirm a belief regarding this.

[ODBM]

Unfortunately I need to repeat myself on these forums because sadly, too many on here are just slow.

If you tell me that the earth is flat, and I tell you that isn't so, it's not because I'm slow. It's just because you're wrong.

I also think you are misunderstanding guyver's post; not believing is not synonymous with believing the opposite.

[Athanasius90]

If you tell me that the earth is flat, and I tell you that isn't so, it's not because I'm slow. It's just because you're wrong.

I also think you are misunderstanding guyver's post; not believing is not synonymous with believing the opposite.

That is because there is abundant evidence for the Earth being round and henceforth, abundant evidence against the Earth being flat. I have provided argument and evidence for what I say here, and it is mostly met with foot-stamping and eye-covering.

I haven't misunderstood guyver at all. I remember what guyver has said before on this. He believes the supernatural does not exist. He takes a stance on this and provides arguments, albeit ones I do not find very compelling.

[ODBM]

Whether or not you have an argument against a flat earth is irrelevant. The point is that you being wrong about something does not make others slow.

As long as you can comprehend the difference between "not believing X" and "believing not X," then I don't think there's much more to argue about. You can kick and scream all you want, but you aren't going to drag people from the former to the latter.

[guyver79]

You've said before you believe the supernatural does not exist.


Good enough for me.

Props for actually having the balls to affirm a belief regarding this.

Ath, at the the same time, for you the opposite must be true?

You believe in the supernatural, how do you define it and how would you know a supernatural event when you see it?

I've said it before, in this age of unprecedented information at our finger tips, we still have millionaire psychics.

[Athanasius90]

Whether or not you have an argument against a flat earth is irrelevant. The point is that you being wrong about something does not make others slow.

As long as you can comprehend the difference between "not believing X" and "believing not X," then I don't think there's much more to argue about. You can kick and scream all you want, but you aren't going to drag people from the former to the latter.

I do comprehend the difference, but my point is distinguishing between agnosticism and atheism (both of which are encompassed under 'not believing X' yet are different positions).

Your continued and sustained antagonism towards me on this is most aggravating. I think I need to take some of these:




haha

[Athanasius90]

Ath, at the the same time, for you the opposite must be true?

You believe in the supernatural, how do you define it and how would you know a supernatural event when you see it?

I've said it before, in this age of unprecedented information at our finger tips, we still have millionaire psychics.

I don't believe wholesale in the supernatural (as in, I don't believe that every member of the set "supernatural entities" exists)

[guyver79]

I don't believe wholesale in the supernatural (as in, I don't believe that every member of the set "supernatural entities" exists)

You expand on that?

Define what you regard as supernatural?

It's an umbrella term for all sorts of superstitious nonsense, ghosts, psychics, telepathy, demons, monsters, creation myths, Demi gods.

What for you is a defining characteristic?

[ODBM]

haha

Do you ever find it awkward being the only one laughing at your bad jokes?

But like I said, you can complain all you want but you are in the minority who thinks atheism is necessarily the belief in opposite claims. You might as well be trying to convince us of a flat earth.

[Athanasius90]

You expand on that?

Define what you regard as supernatural?

It's an umbrella term for all sorts of superstitious nonsense, ghosts, psychics, telepathy, demons, monsters, creation myths, Demi gods.

What for you is a defining characteristic?

c'mon guyver, you know what the supernatural is. You don't need me to define it for you.

Do you ever find it awkward being the only one laughing at your bad jokes?

But like I said, you can complain all you want but you are in the minority who thinks atheism is necessarily the belief in opposite claims. You might as well be trying to convince us of a flat earth.

Whether or not I'm in the minority on an internet forum has absolutely no bearing on the truth. I was already well aware of that before even saying anything, as it is my belief most internet forum denizens are wrong about this. This pervasive misinformation is what I seek to combat.

And my jokes are not bad, they're hilarious.

[guyver79]

c'mon guyver, you know what the supernatural is. You don't need me to define it for you.

And my jokes are not bad, they're hilarious.

Ok then you believe in ghosts and psychics.

[Athanasius90]

Ok then you believe in ghosts and psychics.

No I don't

[guyver79]

No I don't

How am I supposed to know that!?

You say the supernatural is real, it's a fact and it's an explanation of certain phenomena.

Some people are utterly convinced that ghosts and psychics are real.

As in they truly believe and I believe that they truly believe ghosts and psychics to be real.

Yet I don't believe they are real, I believe you can provide naturalistic explanations for why people believe in ghosts and psychics.

What is the yardstick for YOU to determine where naturalism ends and the supernatural takes over.

[Weightaholic]

It requires actually having a belief regarding this issue.

Only in your head, Myriad. Only in your head....

[Athanasius90]

How am I supposed to know that!?

You say the supernatural is real, it's a fact and it's an explanation of certain phenomena.

Some people are utterly convinced that ghosts and psychics are real.

As in they truly believe and I believe that they truly believe ghosts and psychics to be real.

Yet I don't believe they are real, I believe you can provide naturalistic explanations for why people believe in ghosts and psychics.

What is the yardstick for YOU to determine where naturalism ends and the supernatural takes over.

Like I said before-- Just because I believe supernatural is a real reality, does not mean I believe every 'entity' ever postulated by a human exists.

There is no "yardstick" to determine where naturalism ends/other views begin etc. Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting philosophical positions. They both can't be true.

At least we agree on our views on atheism.

[guyver79]

Like I said before-- Just because I believe supernatural is a real reality, does not mean I believe every 'entity' ever postulated by a human exists.

There is no "yardstick" to determine where naturalism ends/other views begin etc. Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting philosophical positions. They both can't be true.

At least we agree on our views on atheism.

So you do have some sort of "personal" yardstick for determining what supernatural claim to believe and what not to.

I agree they both can't be true, but they're not conflicting no more than young earth creationism is conflicting with geology and evolution.

I'm not aware of anyone putting forth a supernatural claim as a legitimate explanation.

Could you give a few examples?

(By a huge coincidence, I read this morning Sean Carroll happens to be releasing a book next year on this very subject!)

[bertostare]

there's water found on mars, is there a god on mars now too?