Originally posted by divegeesterAtheism is simply a return to the default position. On top of that, fewer and fewer people are being raised in a religious environment. In the U.S., there are fewer people who idenTify themselves as Christian than at any other time in American history.
Logically I would agree with you. But as so many of us have been brought up in a religious environment, calling atheism a "default postion" is moot.
16 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThanks, GoaD.
Noooo, CalJust, i think that is the first thing you have posted in these forums that i disagree with. You are no longer a God to me. 😉
My atheism is only a description of what i believe reality to be in so far as it is a reality void of religious belief. It doesn't actually deliver anything tangible to make sense of the world around me. Upbringing, experience and education have done that.
I will respond in a bit more detail in my reply to twhitehead.
16 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo both you and vivify: I tend to agree with both your povs that we may be talking about world views differently.
That's fine as long as you realize that your definition of 'world view' is different from most other people and liable to cause confusion. In addition its not particularly useful. Why label my lack of belief in a real bugs bunny a 'world view'? What do you achieve by so labeling it?
I do not mean a World View that can be reduced to a formal statement - since then my reference to Bugs Bunny would be ridiculous, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps I see it as far more informal, e.g. : "What's your world view concerning environmentalism - or the free market system - or womens rights - or religion in general?" Most people would venture an opinion on these subjects, and my take on it is those make up your world view - again, my definition of it is the way things are , reminiscent of the three little mice in the corner of the Babe movie.
But hey, I really don't feel strongly about it and would not go to war over it. Perhaps (as twitehead suggest) there really IS a formal definition of WV, which requires a person who holds it to be able to concisely state it.
Bottom line, as far as this thread (and previous ones like it) is concerned, I concur that the attempt to paint atheism as a religion has serious flaws.
Humanism, on the other hand, as a more specific form of atheism and as articulated by Bertrand Russell, contains far more elements of a religion than merely general atheism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustSecular Humanism is a belief system. It doesn't actually require atheism, although I suspect few Secular
To both you and vivify: I tend to agree with both your povs that we may be talking about world views differently.
I do not mean a World View that can be reduced to a formal statement - since then my reference to Bugs Bunny would be ridiculous, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps I see it as far more informal, e.g. : "What's your world view concerning enviro ...[text shortened]... lated by Bertrand Russell, contains far more elements of a religion than merely general atheism.
Humanists are not atheists.
However just being a belief system doesn't make it a religion.
The religious parts of a religious belief system involving belief in the supernatural/gods/afterlives/worship/etc
are completely absent.
The parts of religious belief systems that make them religions as opposed to anything else are not the
social interaction 'being a belief system' parts. they are the parts that deal with worship and belief of and in
the supernatural and deities.
This is important as it makes clear what is and is not a religion. And it's what stops that word from being
meaningless.
16 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did say it has elements of a religion, and not that it actually is a religion.
Secular Humanism is a belief system. It doesn't actually require atheism, although I suspect few Secular
Humanists are not atheists.
However just being a belief system doesn't make it a religion.
The religious parts of a religious belief system involving belief in the supernatural/gods/afterlives/worship/etc
are completely absent.
The parts ...[text shortened]... kes clear what is and is not a religion. And it's what stops that word from being
meaningless.
Being a belief system is indeed one of those elements, but not necessarily a defining one, since most religions worship some external deity.
But as I pointed out, this is not a biggie for me, and I will drop out of this thread now.
17 Aug 15
Would someone please tell me if atheism is just non belief in gods then what do we call the guys that believe it the non existence of gods? Please don't say strong atheism or some such. It would imply that the wild leap from not believing in things unproven to believing in something unprovable is just a step.
Would someone please tell me if atheism is just non belief in gods then how does it differ from agnosticism? Agnosticism is just non belief in gods because they can't be investigated. Atheism is then just non belief in gods because why?
Oh and I can't stand terms like agnostic theist. The logical position that one can't know the unknowable i.e. supernatural, is not a license to now suspend logic and fill the supernatural with gods of choice.
I rather think that atheism is just the belief that gods do not exist or sounds enough like this that a redefinition wouldn't bother most who would join me as agnostic or remain atheist with a clearer definition. This of course would then make atheism a belief.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by JerryHPre-declaring that you don't like the answer we have already given and will certainly give doesn't make it wrong.
Would someone please tell me if atheism is just non belief in gods then what do we call the guys that believe it the non existence of gods? Please don't say strong atheism or some such. It would imply that the wild leap from not believing in things unproven to believing in something unprovable is just a step.
Would someone please tell me if atheism is just ...[text shortened]... ic or remain atheist with a clearer definition. This of course would then make atheism a belief.
You're personal definitions are wrong, in as much as they bare no relation to what other people mean
when they use them, and what is recorded in dictionaries, and those given by relevant organisations.
We have answered this question of yours several times.
If you don't like that answer.
Tough cookies.
Atheism IS most broadly a simple LACK of belief in gods.
This INCLUDES those who believe in the lack of gods, as that is a subset of those who simply lack belief.
If you cannot understand that, you need to go re-learn set theory from primary school.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo the guy that believes that there are no gods is an atheist. The guy that believes that one can't say there are no gods but also that one can't say that there are gods, he's an atheist also. Well now, why not just take the last wild leap too. The guy that says there are gods, he's an atheist. Now we are all atheist.
Pre-declaring that you don't like the answer we have already given and will certainly give doesn't make it wrong.
You're personal definitions are wrong, in as much as they bare no relation to what other people mean
when they use them, and what is recorded in dictionaries, and those given by relevant organisations.
We have answered this question o ...[text shortened]... elief.
If you cannot understand that, you need to go re-learn set theory from primary school.
The guy that believes there are no gods, believes he know something about the supernatural. The guy that believes there are gods, believes he knows something about the supernatural. The guy that believes that one can't say there are no gods but also that one can't say that there are gods, is not making any supernatural claims. He's saying I can't know about the supernatural.
You really haven't answer this question before for me googlefudge. Which guys are you lumping together again and why?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by JerryHOk, well I now have serious doubts about your ability to reason or understand plain English.
So the guy that believes that there are no gods is an atheist. The guy that believes that one can't say there are no gods but also that one can't say that there are gods, he's an atheist also. Well now, why not just take the last wild leap too. The guy that says there are gods, he's an atheist. Now we are all atheist.
The guy that believes there are no go ...[text shortened]... swer this question before for me googlefudge. Which guys are you lumping together again and why?
We HAVE answered that question, but lets go again.
A THEIST is a person who has a belief, [a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist.
An ATHEIST is any person who is NOT a theist, ie they LACK a belief that a god or gods exist,
or believe that gods don't exist.
WHY these people believe that gods exist, or lack a belief that gods exist, or believe that gods don't exist...
IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS.
These definitions say absolutely nothing whatsoever about who is right, they say nothing else about
what these people believe, or how valid their reasoning is.
The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not they believe in the existence of gods. Period.
Whether these people have any views on the supernatural, agree with your bizarre definition of it,
share your warped 'logical reasoning', or agree or disagree on anything else, is irrelevant.
For clarity, lets do this with explicitly with set theory.
For all those idiots who otherwise complain, lets start with the set P, the set of all people.
The qualifying criteria, "being a person". [thus ruling out all the 'your definition applies to rocks' nonsense]
Now lets define a sub-set of P, that lies entirely within P so that the members of this new set are all also
members of P.
This set we will call T. The set of all theists.
The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] 'who believes [has a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist'.
Now lets define a new set A. The set of all atheists.
This set will be defined as "All the members of P that are NOT members of T".
The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] "who does not believe [have a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist"
To represent this graphically, we take a piece of blank A4 paper. [landscape].
The entirety of this piece of paper represents the set P, the set of all people.
Inside one half of this piece of paper we draw a circle. This circle represents the set T, the set of all theists.
Everything on the paper OUTSIDE of that circle, is Not-T, [~T] and is the set A, the set of all atheists. [P but ~T]
We can now add in more details.
In the other half of the A4 piece of paper [in the set A] we can draw another circle [that does not overlap with the
first circle] that represents the subset of A [the set of all atheists] who believe that gods do not exist, in addition
to lacking a belief that gods do exist. This is the set SA, the set of all strong atheists.
Completely inside the set T [without touching or crossing the sides] we can draw a smaller circle, which
will represent the set GT, the set of all gnostic theists who not only believe that a god or gods exist, but who
also claim to know that a god or gods exist.
Completely inside the set SA [without touching or crossing the sides] we can draw a smaller circle, which
will represent the set GA, the set of all gnostic atheists who claim to know that a god or gods do not exist,
in addition to believing that gods do not exist, and lacking a belief that gods exist.
And finally we can define the set AG, the set of agnostics, as being members of the set P, who are not members
of the set GT AND are not members of the set GA. These are all the people who claim not to know if a god or gods
exist, OR, claim that you cannot know whether a god or gods exist.
It should look something like this.
http://snag.gy/0OXA5.jpg
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour diagram is interesting. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but just visualizes how you label and group. I can also draw a diagram of my labeling and grouping and when I did I realized that my diagram had a property that yours doesn't. My problem now is that I can't decide if this has any meaning.
Ok, well I now have serious doubts about your ability to reason or understand plain English.
We HAVE answered that question, but lets go again.
A THEIST is a person who has a belief, [a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist.
An ATHEIST is any person who is NOT a theist, ie they LACK a belief that a god or gods exist,
or believe that gods d ...[text shortened]... whether a god or gods exist.
It should look something like this.
http://snag.gy/0OXA5.jpg
Let's draw your diagram again together please. We'll start as before with the set P, the set of all people.
Next we define a sub-set of P, that lies entirely within P so that the members of this new set are all also members of P. This set we will call T, the set of all theists. The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] 'who believes [has a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist'.
To represent this graphically, we take a piece of blank paper. The entirety of this piece of paper represents the set P, the set of all people. Inside one half of this piece of paper we draw a circle. This circle represents the set T, the set of all theists.
So far we agree and yes I'm reusing you description as a template, for speed and concision.
Your, "Now lets define a new set A. The set of all atheists." is not fair. The term atheist is in contention between us. There is a solution to this though and you gave it.
This set will be defined as "All members of P that are NOT members of T". The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] "who does not believe [have a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist". You relabeled your [P but ~T] as A. Now let's retain [P but ~T].
In the other half of the piece of paper in [P but ~T] we can draw another circle, that does not overlap with the first circle, that represents the subset of [P but ~T] who believe that gods do not exist, in addition to lacking a belief that gods do exist. This is the set X, because the lable "SA" is also in contention.
This diagram is finished as far as I need, but continue to fill it if you like. Next I need a second diagram to make my point.
We'll start the second as the first with the set P, the set of all people.
Next we define a subset of P, that lies entirely within P so that the members of this new set are all also members of P. This set we will call X. The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] 'who believes [has a firm conviction] that a god or gods do not exist'.
To represent this graphically, we take a piece of blank paper. The entirety of this piece of paper represents the set P, the set of all people. Inside one half of this piece of paper we draw a circle. This circle represents the set X.
Now lets define a new set [P but ~X]. This set will be defined as "All members of P that are NOT members of X". The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] "who does not believe [have a firm conviction] that a god or gods do not exist".
In the other half of the piece of paper in [P but ~X] we can draw another circle, that does not overlap with the first circle, that represents the subset of [P but ~X] who believe that gods do exist, in addition to not believing that gods do not exist. This is the set T, the set of all Theists.
Now D1, diagram 1, P = D2 P
D1 T = D2 T
D1 [P but ~T] - D1 X = D2 [P but ~X] - D2 T = the set M
D1 X = D2 X
and in both diagrams
T U M U X = P
Now try to add your labels to D2. The people in M don't move from D1 to D2. No one is added to M and no one is removed from M. Likewise T and X. M can be labeled, "all atheists that are not strong atheists" in D1. If labeled so in D2 then you get a mess. What set is the union of [all atheists that are not strong atheists] and [Theists]?
Now draw out my position. Start with People P and add S, believes they can say something about the supernatural. Next ~S which we label N for natural. Now place atheism and theism as subsets of S. Yes my atheism is your strong atheism. Play with my diagram as above. See if you can get a handle on what I'm trying to get a handle on.
Is my logic flawed? Is it sound but it's treatment of your diagram meaningless? Is your diagram flawed? Is your position? I'm still working on it and I hope you will also.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHI think your confusion here is that you think definitions prove something. They do not. Definitions are nothing more than useful labels we use to communicate. If you wish to have your own definition of what the word 'atheist' means then well and good, it wont change any facts. It will however be a source of confusion if you use it in conversation with someone who has a different definition.
Your diagram is interesting. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but just visualizes how you label and group.
The definition being pushed in this thread by googlefudge and I and others is based on the dictionary / encyclopaedia definitions as well as the root meanings of the words in questions (athiest literally means 'not theist' and agnostic literally means 'without knowledge'.)
So go ahead and label groups however you like, just be sure to include a clear definition of what you mean whenever you use the words in conversation with someone who does not yet know what you mean by the labels.
The reason why so many theists do not like and argue so strongly against the definitions we are pushing is because they either incorrectly believe that definitions do have an effect on reality, or they dishonestly believe that they can cause confusion by clever word play eg 'you are an atheist therefore you must match my definition of atheist, therefore you are a,b,c'.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHFirstly, an agnostic theist is someone who claims that one cannot know whether there is a God but chooses to believe that there is one. It is a seemingly irrational position, but then humans are somewhat irrational creatures - and theism seems to really bring that out in people.
Oh and I can't stand terms like agnostic theist. The logical position that one can't know the unknowable i.e. supernatural, is not a license to now suspend logic and fill the supernatural with gods of choice.
Regarding your views on the supernatural, I think you have made some good points but also some errors. I have long argued that the typical definition of 'supernatural' is incoherent and designed to be so in the hope of avoiding having to answer too many questions. It is usually used to mean 'my statement doesn't have to be logical or match reality because I am talking about something outside of the realm of your understanding'.
However, I think you are too quick to make conclusions from there and that your conclusions are in fact wrong.
1. You assume that God is supernatural. This is not necessarily the case if 'supernatural' is defined in the incoherent way I describe above. Theists can easily believe in an entirely natural God (by your definitions), and use the word 'supernatural' to mean something different.
2. You claim that we cannot know whether something defined incoherently can exist. I say that is wrong. Something defined incoherently cannot possibly exist. If you believe the word 'supernatural' is incoherent then you should not be agnostic about the existence of supernatural entities, you should be absolutely sure that they do not exist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHAs twhitehead says, I wasn't trying to prove anything.
Your diagram is interesting. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but just visualizes how you label and group.
I was giving a/my/our definition of atheism/theism and all the variants thereof.
You can choose to accept this definition, or not.
But it's the one I/we will be using and you will come into conflict with me/us every time you use it differently.
You asked how I label and group and define atheism/theism and I gave you exactly that answer.
There really isn't anything more to add/discuss.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would also like to add that the idea that 'the supernatural' is by definition a necessarily
Firstly, an agnostic theist is someone who claims that one cannot know whether there is a God but chooses to believe that there is one. It is a seemingly irrational position, but then humans are somewhat irrational creatures - and theism seems to really bring that out in people.
Regarding your views on the supernatural, I think you have made some good ...[text shortened]... ut the existence of supernatural entities, you should be absolutely sure that they do not exist.
incoherent concept is not universally held.
[although I agree entirely that any concept that is incoherent can and should be recognised as
also being impossible and non-existent.]
And I do/have argued that what people really mean when they talk about the supernatural is
not actually incoherent. [although people's attempts at defining it often are, however just because
people fail to give coherent definitions of what they are talking about doesn't necessitate that
the idea they are trying to define is itself incoherent. Most people are no trained in logical
reasoning and providing logically consistent definitions, and thus it's unfair to take their attempt
at a definition, prove it incoherent, and then use that as a basis to rule that the concept itself
is also incoherent.]
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
There is a trend in science and law to define the word "supernatural" as "the untestable," which is perhaps understandable for its practicality, but deeply flawed as both philosophy and social policy. Flawed as philosophy, because testability is not even a metaphysical distinction, but an epistemological one, and yet in the real world everyone uses the word “supernatural” to make metaphysical distinctions. And flawed as social policy, because the more that judges and scientists separate themselves from the people with deviant language, the less support they will find from that quarter, and the legal and scientific communities as we know them will crumble if they lose the support of the people. Science and the courts must serve man. And to do that, they must at least try to speak his language. And yet already a rising tide of hostility against both science and the courts is evident. Making it worse is not the solution.
As I argue in Sense and Goodness without God (pp. 29-35), philosophy is wasting its time if its definitions of words do not track what people really mean when they use them. And when we look at the real world, we find the supernatural is universally meant and understood to mean something metaphysically different from the natural. I could adduce many examples of the bad fit between real language and this ill-advised attempt at an "official" definition, but here are just two:
The underlying mechanics of quantum phenomena might be physically beyond all observation and therefore untestable, but no one would then conclude that quantum mechanics is supernatural. Just because I can't look inside a box does not make its contents supernatural.
Conversely, if I suddenly acquired the Force of the Jedi and could predict the future, control minds, move objects and defy the laws of physics, all merely by an act of will, ordinary people everywhere would call this a supernatural power, yet it would be entirely testable. Scientists could record and measure the nature and extent of my powers and confirm them well within the requirements of peer review. .................