Atheisms and the supernatural

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

So you're a kind of solipsist?

Pretty juvenile worldview, wouldn't you say?

 

[Goddess Kit]

How does this relate to deism?

I know people who believe in the abrahamic god are theists. I generalized but to correct myself some who believe in gods are deists and have mediums to talk to gods.

-

Are you referring to the OP?

Anyone who believes in a deity can be considered a theist.

Deists don't believe in a deity so much as a higher power, something akin to a conscious universe.

It's complicated, but given that it's all make-believe semantically arguing over labels is pointless.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Anyone who believes in a deity can be considered a theist.

Deists don't believe in a deity so much as a higher power, something akin to a conscious universe.

It's complicated, but given that it's all make-believe semantically arguing over labels is pointless.

I really don't have issues with it-deism, god, whatever. It's just like discussing any other topic based more on analogy and myth than facts. Philosophy, so have you. It's odd people would put down theology. We (people) can talk about nonexistent things in an educated manner.

I've only heard of deism on RF. A god that doesn't interact with the universe. The nature of the deity seems to shift from person to person. I'm indifferent to it.

 

[Goddess Kit]

I really don't have issues with it-deism, god, whatever. It's just like discussing any other topic based more on analogy and myth than facts. Philosophy, so have you. It's odd people would put down theology. We (people) can talk about nonexistent things in an educated manner.

I've only heard of deism on RF. A god that doesn't interact with the universe. The nature of the deity seems to shift from person to person. I'm indifferent to it.

As I think I have already mentioned, I become heedful when theists begin to implement their beliefs into secular government and law. I honestly don't care what they believe, just don't become a mini-dictator by way of religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're a kind of solipsist?

Pretty juvenile worldview, wouldn't you say?

Yes, very juvenile worldview. Do you got a problem with that?
I am a kind of a solipsist, though not an ontological solipsist. I am a methodological solipsist and to a certain extent an epistemological solipsist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, very juvenile worldview. Do you got a problem with that?

No, but it's good to know.
Because if you truelly are a solipsist, then I know that I need to no longer bother enaging you, as it literally would be like trying to argue with a brain in a vat.

Kind of pointless. After all, as far as the solipsist is concerned, talking to me is the same as having a conversation with himself....

I am a kind of a solipsist, though not an ontological solipsist. I am a methodological solipsist and to a certain extent an epistemological solipsist.

Using smart-sounding fancy words doesn't make the solipsist position any more sophisticated, except perhaps to the easily impressed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but it's good to know.
Because if you truelly are a solipsist, then I know that I need to no longer bother enaging you, as it literally would be like trying to argue with a brain in a vat.

Kind of pointless. After all, as far as the solipsist is concerned, talking to me is the same as having a conversation with himself....



Using smart-sounding fancy words doesn't make the solipsist position any more sophisticated, except perhaps to the easily impressed.

There are 3 kinds of solipsism.
That you don't know that, is your problem not mine. I am not the kind you refer to.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As I think I have already mentioned, I become heedful when theists begin to implement their beliefs into secular government and law. I honestly don't care what they believe, just don't become a mini-dictator by way of religion.

The first part agree. The second, for me personally, I wasn't exposed to christian theology to hate it. Same is Hindu and pagan. I don't agree with somethings and others I do. People are a different story. I dislike the behavior.

Analogy. I don't dislike the knife a person kills with. I don't dislike the person. She is who she is regardless what she does. I dislike the behavior.

That's me. No one else I know.

 

[PureX]

As I think I have already mentioned, I become heedful when theists begin to implement their beliefs into secular government and law. I honestly don't care what they believe, just don't become a mini-dictator by way of religion.

Sure, but keep in mind that the world is full of people who want to control everything and everyone around them. It's not particular to theists. And it's not a fundament of theism. It's just humans being human.

 

[PureX]

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

It matters to a any exchnge/discussion on the subject.

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.

Technically, the latter is "undetermined", not agnostic.

 

[night912]

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

It matters to a any exchnge/discussion on the subject

Yes, but it does not matter to the definition of atheism.

It's the same as with theism, which is only concerned with the belief in the existence of a god. The reason for how a theist reached that conclusion is not what dictates one to be a theist. Apparently, you already know this, evident of you now changing your position on this.

Logical and critical thinking only hold weight if it is relevant to what is being discussed. So you can talk philosophically or try to be logical all you want, but it's all meaningless since your arguments/points are irrelevant to this discussion. So perhaps you should take your own advice with some relevant modifications.

Well, If you believe in nothing that's relevant, and you propose nothing that's relevant, then why are you even speaking in this discussion?

 

[night912]

It matters to a any exchnge/discussion on the subject

And since that's not the subject of this discussion, it doesn't matter. Hence why a lot of people has pointed out your ignorance and how illogical/irrational you are regarding this discussion.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I am arguing that pink is in the set of "not 5."
It was kinda central to my argument.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but it does not matter to the definition of atheism.

Atheism is a philosophical position, not an "unbelief". As such it engenders reasoned justification, which "unbelief" is not. To define atheism as nothing, means nothing, and is basically just gibberish. To then insist on it in the face of this criticism is worse than gibberish, it's disingenuous gibberish.

 

[Heyo]

Atheism is a philosophical position, not an "unbelief". As such it engenders reasoned justification, which "unbelief" is not. To define atheism as nothing, means nothing, and is basically just gibberish. To then insist on it in the face of this criticism is worse than gibberish, it's disingenuous gibberish.

There is Atheism (philosophical) and then there is atheism (colloquial) and unfortunately it is too late to prevent atheism from being the nearly universally used meaning.
I try to establish at least the distinction in writing (capital/lower a).
The same goes for Agnosticism.

 

[blü 2]

It matters to a any exchnge/discussion on the subject.

It goes to why one's an atheist, no doubt, but doesn't alter that fact that one is.

Technically, the latter is "undetermined", not agnostic.

I'd say that this technicality is inside the agnostic tent, not outside it. But again, little hangs on it.

 

[Milton Platt]

I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelief in deities (Zues, Jehovah, et cetera-not-force and cosmos et cetera). It is also said because these two are not based on objective evidence, there is no reason to believe it (thereby the basis of being an atheist comes from, supposedly).

My questions are:

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

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

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.

You read something that is not accurate. Atheism CAN be the belief that there is not god (supernatural beings in general are another question not covered by atheism)but is is most often a lack of belief in a god. It is a rejection of a claim due to unconvincing evidence.

 

[night912]

Atheism is a philosophical position, not an "unbelief". As such it engenders reasoned justification, which "unbelief" is not. To define atheism as nothing, means nothing, and is basically just gibberish. To then insist on it in the face of this criticism is worse than gibberish, it's disingenuous gibberish.

So you went from gibberish to now defining atheism as being nothing"? And here i thought you only stick to one word, one definition. Irrational indeed.

Since you believe that the definition of atheism, is nothing, why are you even in here talking about atheism?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are 3 kinds of solipsism.
That you don't know that, is your problem not mine. I am not the kind you refer to.

The things you tend to post, suggest otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is a philosophical position

No, it is not.