Atheisms and the supernatural

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You'll know if you wait a minute. (When the other plane crashes into yours.)

FYI: the answer is "no." The heading that's opposite of due north is due south.

You seem to have the concepts of "opposite" and "complement" confused.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me.

Demons are negative et cetera events of those experiences. They don't do anything in itself.

And I still have no idea what you mean by "supernatural."

I can't remember if it were you or someone else but I said a specific definition. Something that exists outside the senses-outside physical reality. Its the common definition of it.

 

[Heyo]

FYI: the answer is "no." The heading that's opposite of due north is due south.

You seem to have the concepts of "opposite" and "complement" confused.

There are a dozen dictionary definitions for "opposite". I laid out, in an answer to Willamena, why I prefer it to be synonymous to negation. It is the most consistent one.
And it is especially useful when dealing with concepts that don't have a single defined "opposite" like "belief".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My questions are:

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

I suppose technically, no. Technically, a person can disbelieve in deities / gods yet still believe in supernatural things. Although in my experience, atheists usually tend to disbelieve anything supernatural - gods included.

Also, does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

No. The reason(ing) for not believing is NOT part of the label "atheism".

EDIT: added the "NOT" part in the sentence above. typo

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are a dozen dictionary definitions for "opposite".

And you don't take this as a sign that which definition is appropriate depends on context? Bizarre.

I laid out, in an answer to Willamena, why I prefer it to be synonymous to negation. It is the most consistent one.

It isn't consistent with actual usage, though.

And it is especially useful when dealing with concepts that don't have a single defined "opposite" like "belief".

You find it useful to insist that other people follow your personal preferences?

Is "useful" also a term that you have wonky ideas about?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Demons are negative et cetera events of those experiences. They don't do anything in itself.



I can't remember if it were you or someone else but I said a specific definition. Something that exists outside the senses-outside physical reality. Its the common definition of it.

So supernatural things aren't real, then?

 

[MikeF]

Atheism is not based on what anyone believes or disbelievers. It is based on the reasoned rejection of the theistic proposition that God/gods exist in some way that affects humanity.

Is atheism a rejection of the proposition that supernatural entities exist in some way that affects humanity, or a rejection of their existence entirely, regardless of a proposed affect on humanity?

 

[blü 2]

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

No. People who don't believe in the paranormal, for example, are not on that account usually called atheists ─ no surprise, since the word means 'not god'.

does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

If you don't think gods exist then you're an atheist. How you reached that view doesn't matter.

I know the definition of atheism-the strict definition that is-though I read a common consensus on RF that it goes beyond that. Hence the questions.

Well, there's also agnosticism, which has several versions, from saying that the question whether God exists / gods exist, is of its own nature unanswerable, to saying, I've thought a lot about it but I can't make up my mind.

And then there's ignosticism, also called igtheism, the view that the concept of a real god is incoherent. (That happens to be my own view.)

 

[Heyo]

And you don't take this as a sign that which definition is appropriate depends on context? Bizarre.

Of course it depends on context. In a political context the opposition are the parties in a parliament not forming the government, in chess opposition is a position where the kings are only parted by one square, in astrology opposition is when two bodies form roughly an angle of 180° on one plane when seen from earth. (Astrologers don't care about elevation. When you see the sun at 270° and the moon at 90° (+- 10°) you can have the sun at 10° elevation and the moon at 15 and it is called an opposition. With that astrology maths you could also call two planes heading in directions 360° and 180° with altitude gains of 0° and -30° going in opposite direction while two planes going 20° and 180° with gains 0°/0° are not.)
(Btw.: are two planes, one starting from Sydney and heading due south and the other starting at Helsinki and heading due north, going in opposite directions?)

It isn't consistent with actual usage, though.

Depends on the context. People just babbling without thinking might use opposition in a non-thinking way. When you are arguing using logic, you'd better use the more logical meaning.

You find it useful to insist that other people follow your personal preferences?

See above. When you want to use logic, use a logical meaning.
If you don't care about logic, go ahead.

 

[PureX]

Is atheism a rejection of the proposition that supernatural entities exist in some way that affects humanity, or a rejection of their existence entirely, regardless of a proposed affect on humanity?

Philosophically speaking, if the "gods" have no affect on humanity, their existence is irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

​

​

Well, here we go ... again.

You make an unsubstantiated assertion.
I ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion.
You say something like "I already did", when, in fact, you haven't.

If you did, then show us all, me and the peanut gallery, where you "already did".

If you can't or you won't or you try to duck and dodge by telling me I should look it up, then once again you have shown the veracity of your comments for all to see.

Nope.

 

[PureX]

The reason(ing) for not believing is part of the label "atheism".

THIS.

 

[blü 2]

Philosophically speaking, if the "gods" have no affect on humanity, their existence is irrelevant.

That's pretty much the Deist view ─ that once God had made the universe, [he]'d done all [he] intended and, never needing to come back, never has.

 

[firedragon]

​

​

Well, here we go ... again.

You make an unsubstantiated assertion.
I ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion.
You say something like "I already did", when, in fact, you haven't.

If you did, then show us all, me and the peanut gallery, where you "already did".

If you can't or you won't or you try to duck and dodge by telling me I should look it up, then once again you have shown the veracity of your comments for all to see.

Tell me. Whats the "unsubstantiated assertion" I made?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pink is not 5. Pink is not the opposite of 5. Where is the logic?

Pink is not 5 according to the law of non-contradiction in the ontological sense. Though they are not opposite in everyday language, yes and no are a case of opposite, 5 and pink are not the same in logical terms.
So in the set of all things not 5 is pink along with a lot of other things. In a sense not 5 is everything else including the concept of "not 5", but not 5. The only non-member of the set of not 5 is 5.
Read some classical logic on the law of non-contradiction.

Think of everything as a set and members of the set. Now do everything else than a member of a set. Pink is the member of not 5 and thus in this strict sense of being a member of the set of not 5, pink is opposite to 5, because one is a member and the other is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

THIS.

Actually, no - the opposite.

I edited the post. It was a typo. That should have read that it is NOT part of atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, you are against the evolution of language.

I guess you would have been upset by the man on the right replying "DUH" instead of just replying with another "GRUNT".


Well, whether you like it or not, whether you accept the reasons or not, languages do evolve. Dictionaries include changes to language when those changes have become part of the vernacular. Live with it.







One example of "ignorant linguistic misuse" is making up one's own definitions.
Another example of "ignorant linguistic misuse" is refusing to accept dictionary definitions.

One way to counter this is to make the offender aware of the errors of his ways.

Here are 2 usage of "existence". Which one is made up?
Definition of EXISTENCE
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To me "existence" is a meaningless as "god" are to some people.
I don't accept "existence" just as you don't accept "god".

 

[PureX]

That's pretty much the Deist view ─ that once God had made the universe, [he]'d done all [he] intended and, never needing to come back, never has.

Being 'finished' doesn't have to mean gone, though. Maybe just letting it be what it is. But I agree that in either case, it's moot to us.

 

[PureX]

Actually, no - the opposite.

I edited the post. It was a typo. That should have read that it is NOT part of atheism.

Too bad, you had it right the first time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Too bad, you had it right the first time.

No.

Atheism is just the non-belief of deities.
That non-belief can be motivated by anything.
It's the non-belief that defines atheism. Not the arguments or reasoning.

You can keep on believing otherwise if you like.
But the only thing you'll accomplish, is continue being wrong.