Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

[Dan123]

if theism is the belief in a god or gods then to be without that belief doesn’t require an affirmative belief in the opposite, a-theism.

athe, ‘without god’, ism, belief, would be the belief we are without a god or gods, and an affirmative belief.

 

[joeybaggz]

Damian:
That is the problem for why I come to these sites. Being ignorant is not someone’s fault if they are never exposed to the information. But stupid is when you are exposed to the information and you still don’t take it in or engage as to why you don’t agree. It’s just putting your head in the sand. I don’t care if you change your position if you explain it, but I do care if you don’t engage at all. IE: End of Discussion.
[/quote]

You either have very poor reading or comprehension skills by your response. I don’t give a tinker’s da%* about your academic discussion of the significance and/or meaning of a semantic term. My response is to your relational aspect. You moaned about rejecting a spouse based on belief. Well my answer was simple. If I am raising my seven year old son consistent with my Catholic (Theistic) belief, I don’t want a spouse looking over my shoulder and telling my seven year old that “daddy is six cherries short of a fruitcake. There is no God just like there is no Santa Claus.” In the very simple, everyday, “where the rubber meets the road” sense of the word, atheist means that the adherent of such a term does not believe in God and maintains that God does not exist.

Can atheists be nice people, with respect for others, and living a morally decent life. Of course. Some of the atheist posters on this site are quite intelligent and respectful of the other members. But in my everyday, “what does it have to do with the price of eggs?” sensibility, atheist has a definite and traditional meaning.

You’re welcome to all the academic discussions your heart desires. But think before you accuse others of having their head in the sand. You just might sound like you have your head up……………

 

[joeybaggz]

I thought baptism is the measure of whether one is Catholic.

Nominally melterzerboy, you are right. But over 70% of those baptized Catholic don’t practice their faith to any great degree if any at all. Being Catholic is living catholic, with all the bumps and bruises, twists and turns it entails. Cultural catholic … yea, practicing Catholic …

 

[Vonsalza]

The Greek negative of a- is not functionally equivalent to the Latin non-.

Now if you want to call yourself a non-theist I’m totally cool with that.

Dawkins himself flirted with the term for a while.

 

[MPat]

Atheist - Single position on a single question.
Question - “Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?”
Answer - “No, No I am not.”
The label “Atheist” is just that, someone who is not ,currently, convinced that the supernatural exists based on the bad reasons and bad evidence presented for why someone else does.

That already hints that your claim is misleading if not false. There are many things that follow from atheism, and many more that are strongly correlated with it.

For example, are you going to claim that an atheist is likely to believe “Onthological argument works.” or “Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.”? At the very least, such a state is very unstable.

They would not date an atheist, they would work to destroy the relationship between their children and the atheist they are dating, etc. When pressed on why they would be bigoted this way,

That is not bigotry, just being careful. Marriage is hard enough when husband and wife have similar views. Why make things still harder? Sure, there are exceptions, but it makes sense to leave hoping for them to someone else.

The default position for everyone on any idea is to not believe it until they become convinced that is the case.

Your deity should know what it would take to convince me and is either choosing to not present that information or can not. Either way, not my problem.

Beliefs are not a choice. They are the application of your current understanding of applying logic to the data you get from reality.

Let’s see if you are going to keep such reasoning elsewhere.

So, are you going to say we should reject the belief in, let’s say, Global Warming by default, there is no need to lift a finger to investigate the matter, and people who do not believe in Global Warming are, if not right to do so, then certainly blameless?

For that matter, why not say that, since belief is not a choice, the ones who believe that atheists are evil (or do not believe atheists can be good, or something) are also blameless, and it is all your fault that you did not offer them enough evidence?

It is the best current process we have for

So if anyone can find a better process for analyzing an event, we will update the process.

Um, how would you imagine finding that? Would you find such an update with a less reliable method?

 

[Vico]

For example: jar of marbles that no one can investigate.

That is an assumption that no one can investigate. In Christian theology the Holy Trinity has revealed himself. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and does not require proof.

Collins Dictionary, faith, noun:

(American) 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

 

[Damian]

The part about the analogy where no one can investigate it is what makes it unreasonable to the person who does not believe anyone can conclude either even or odd. Without that information how could you conclude either way? They are just letting you know why they don’t agree with your conclusion and what they would need to reach the same conclusion that you have. So if your goal is to get them to believe what you believe, get that information for them.

Collins Dictionary, faith, noun:

(American) 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

So it is a belief in something that requires no proof or evidence, any claim can be believed by that regardless if it is true or not, right? Two people with direcly contradictory beliefs can hold these views on faith. How do you determine who is actually correct if they are talking about reality?

 

[Damian]

So, are you going to say we should reject the belief in, let’s say, Global Warming by default, there is no need to lift a finger to investigate the matter, and people who do not believe in Global Warming are, if not right to do so, then certainly blameless?

No this doesn’t follow with the jury analogy. They are, by default, not believing in the claim the prosecution claims. Only after the evidence and arguments are put forth are the jury members convinced. No one starts out believing someone else’s claim until they have explained why that person holds that claim. If they convince the audience, that is when you believe them.

 

[Damian]

Um, how would you imagine finding that? Would you find such an update with a less reliable method?

No idea, that’s why I haven’t suggested a way to improve on the philosophical process of the scientific method

 

[Damian]

For that matter, why not say that, since belief is not a choice, the ones who believe that atheists are evil (or do not believe atheists can be good, or something) are also blameless, and it is all your fault that you did not offer them enough evidence?

We can have a conversation to see why they believe this and I’ll point out where I think they are wrong. Before that new information its fine if that true for them. After the conversation , I don’t think its fine for them to continue to hold that belief and I believe I am justified in believing they are bigots.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I thought his definition were a bit connative.

 

[thistle]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ATHEISM. Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: “Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it” (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the Council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)

 

[Vico]

The part about the analogy where no one can investigate it is what makes it unreasonable to the person who does not believe anyone can conclude either even or odd. Without that information how could you conclude either way? They are just letting you know why they don’t agree with your conclusion and what they would need to reach the same conclusion that you have. So if your goal is to get them to believe what you believe, get that information for them.

Vico:

Collins Dictionary, faith, noun:

(American) 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

So it is a belief in something that requires no proof or evidence, any claim can be believed by that regardless if it is true or not, right? Two people with direcly contradictory beliefs can hold these views on faith. How do you determine who is actually correct if they are talking about reality?

The existence of God and some at least of His attributes are revealed, one of which is the gift of faith. Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the realization [Gk: hypostasis] of what is hoped for and evidence [Gk: elenchos] of things not seen.”

 

[Dan123]

That is an assumption that no one can investigate. In Christian theology the Holy Trinity has revealed himself. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit and does not require proof.

I think it’s reasonable to say if someone has had a personal revelation then they’re justified in believing, most of these discussions come down to what evidence people should accept from others. If I told you the Holy Spirit told me you’d send me $500 there’s no way you’d believe me. Likewise if someone makes a claim about the jar, even if they claimed divine revelation as to how they know the number of marbles you’d not personally be able to use that evidence. Now throw in one person saying they had it revealed that there are 1000 marbles and another person claiming divine revelation that there are 1200 marbles.

Divine revelation tends to be personal, since YOU didn’t have it it’s hard to work out a way to determine which claim is true.

 

[Wesrock]

So what would it take for me to believe in the invisible pet dragon?

Thank you for the effort put into your post.

But I can’t believe you pulled out the flying spaghetti monster/invisible unicorn argument.

 

[Dan123]

It’s a tool for identifying standards of evidence and burden of proof. It may be contrived and cliche but that doesn’t make it invalid.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s a tool for identifying standards of evidence and burden of proof. It may be contrived and cliche but that doesn’t make it invalid.

It has little to nothing to do with common theological arguments for God and thinking that God can be compared to leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, Zeus, etc…

Hold up. I think it likely that you think I’m merely making a distinction in order of greatness. You might think I’m saying unicorns are molehills and God is the tallest mountain in the universe. You might think I’m saying you can’t compare a molehill to a mountain, and you’d be very correct in responding that it doesn’t matter if it’s a molehill or mountain, even the tallest mountain; the burden of proof is the same.

But theological arguments don’t follow that tact. A molehill and a mountain differ in size, but they ultimately are both just bumps in the earth. The mountain may be the greatest bump among all other bumps, but it’s still a bump. It being the greatest should in now way change the burden of proof. There is no more reason to believe this mountain exists than any molehill when neither has evidence. I agree. I wholeheartedly agree with you there. There’s no reason to believe in any such thing absent ant evidence, call it a unicorn or call it a god. You and I are on the same page. We both deny the same thing.

But it also means you have an incorrect view of who and what is meant by God, plain and simple. And why reasoned arguments for His existence are based on logical necessity from reaility. Whether you agree with the arguments is one thing, but if you’re using an invisible unicorn argument you just don’t even understand what monotheists believe in to begin with.

 

[rcwitness]

I prefer the definition of faith given in the Bible.

Hebrews 11
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

 

[Dan123]

It being the greatest should in now way change the burden of proof.

Depends on the claim actually. If we were standing outside and I told you there’s a molehill a mile north of us, you may believe me. Especially if there’s moles in the area, if you’d just seen me walk back from the north, and ultimately because the claim is fairly benign, there seems no motive for me to lie about the molehill and it doesn’t seem to affect your life one way or another.

If on the other hand I claim there’s a mountain a mile north of us when you can’t see one, you may be more skeptical. A mountain a mile away should be clearly visible to you. You’d expect there to be … well a mountain.

If I go further and claim it’s an invisible mountain, that I just climbed to the top of and at the top there’s a box and inside the box is a paper upon which the creator of the universe has written his favorite chili recipe … well you’re going to tell me to have a nice day and quickly walk away because you’ve run into some nut who’s trying to ruin your nice walk through nature.

This is the old ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ idea. So yes the metaphorical ‘size’ of the claim does change the burden of proof. The less the claim appears to comport with reality the more evidence we generally expect. This is the standard we use for almost every claim we come across outside a religious nature.

So you can assert that due to God’s nature this standard can’t apply, and that’s fine. It’s ‘special pleading’ to say “my claim doesn’t require proof”, which doesn’t mean it’s wrong but it is unfortunate, because if you allow that for one religious claim and want to be intellectually consistent you’ll end up believing pretty much all religious claims. If @Bradski had claimed that his dragon was not only pink and invisible, but also by it’s nature a logical necessity and therefore not subject to needing ‘evidence’, would that be a more believable claim?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It being the greatest should in now way change the burden of proof.

Depends on the claim actually. If we were standing outside and I told you there’s a molehill a mile north of us, you may believe me. Especially if there’s moles in the area, if you’d just seen me walk back from the north, and ultimately because the claim is fairly benign, there seems no motive for me to lie about the molehill and it doesn’t seem to affect your life one way or another.

If on the other hand I claim there’s a mountain a mile north of us when you can’t see one, you may be more skeptical. A mountain a mile away should be clearly visible to you. You’d expect there to be … well a mountain.

If I go further and claim it’s an invisible mountain, that I just climbed to the top of and at the top there’s a box and inside the box is a paper upon which the creator of the universe has written his favorite chili recipe … well you’re going to tell me to have a nice day and quickly walk away because you’ve run into some nut who’s trying to ruin your nice walk through nature.

This is the old ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ idea. So yes the metaphorical ‘size’ of the claim does change the burden of proof. The less the claim appears to comport with reality the more evidence we generally expect. This is the standard we use for almost every claim we come across outside a religious nature.

Of course we can add more nuances. I agree with all of this.

So you can assert that due to God’s nature this standard can’t apply, and that’s fine. It’s ‘special pleading’ to say “my claim doesn’t require proof”, which doesn’t mean it’s wrong but it is unfortunate, because if you allow that for one religious claim and want to be intellectually consistent you’ll end up believing pretty much all religious claims. If @Bradski had claimed that his dragon was not only pink and invisible, but also by it’s nature a logical necessity and therefore not subject to needing ‘evidence’, would that be a more believable claim?

I’m very much aware of what special pleading is. Your statement here again confirms you didn’t follow what I was saying and don’t understand what is meant by monotheists when they speak of God and you don’t understand the arguments for His existence (whether you agree with those arguments or not).