Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[PureX]

Or - hear me out - they just haven't bought into the framework and definitions that you personally came up with and try to pass off as objective truth.

I didn't come up with any definitions. They are what they have been for hundreds of years. But people will use language to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth as much as they will use it to clarify and illuminate the truth. And our dictionaries record all this deliberate obfuscation. So we need to follow and explain the logic of the words we use and not the tales being spun if we really want to understand something. I have explained many times on this thread what the terms mean and why that's what they mean. And no one so far has managed to come up with any logical reasons why these definitions shouldn't stand that weren't just their own personal bias.

So the logical definitions stand, and the whiners keep whining about it. But they aren't offering any logical rebuttal. So I'm ignoring them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Over 200 posts in and I'm still waiting for a logical rebuttal, from ANYONE. But nope. Still mostly just whining and complaining and personal slurs.

Well stop doing it then.

 

[F1fan]

Lacking a position is not atheism. It's simply moot.

Theism/religion is a learned category of belief/culture/behavior. Many folks in the USA aren't religious and don't really have an active position on any of the many religious options. But if asked they tend to answer that they beliueve in a God. These passive "believers" have a position, but it is one that came from social conformity and not an active and engaged belief. Such folks who don't really think about religion or any gods aren't atheists, they are essentially in intellectual limbo. I don't consider then as having a position.

Atheism tends to be a category of people who have thought about religious claims (typically supernatural) and have rejected them intellectually. These are active positions. Even agnostics (which I assert is everyone since there is no way to know anything factually about the supernatural claims made by religion) are a position and one that has engaged with whether they have an intellectual reason to believe any of the religious claims they have encountered.

Not as newborns. That is why they aren't atheists. Ot theists. Their minds are moot on the subject.

I would agree that non-belief is not necessarily non-theism (atheism) since theism itself is a category of complex and abstract ideas.

What it requires philosophically is logical reasoning. Both in support of the theist proposition and in opposition to it. Not being able to muster this does not make one an atheist or a theist. It just makes them confused.

Yet logic isn't used to conclude that religious concepts are true, it's faith. Believers actually brag about it.

 

[Koldo]

But we're talking about the origin of "nature". Thus, whatever that origin is, it would by definition be greater than (surpass in power and scope), and beyond (transcendent of) the limitations of the natural universe that it originated. And your simply repeating that it's not so does not logically refute it.

No, we are talking about the origin of the universe, which might have been caused by natural processes.

Yes, but theology comes after and as a response to accepting the philosophical proposition.

No, it doesn't. The proposition that god exists is part of a theological framework that comes along with it's attributes. It is not a separated first step.

So it can't logically be used to support rejecting what's already been accepted. Whether God thinks or not is a debate that can only occur after the existence of God has been established and accepted. You can reject the theological assertion that God thinks, but to do that you had to have accepted the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist.

Without defining the term 'God', it means nothing to accept or reject the proposition that God exists. And what I am saying is that being the creator of the universe doesn't match the baseline for what constitutes 'God'.

 

[Alien826]

But we're talking about the origin of "nature". Thus, whatever that origin is, it would by definition be greater than (surpass in power and scope), and beyond (transcendent of) the limitations of the natural universe that it originated. And your simply repeating that it's not so does not logically refute it.

I don't agree with "surpass in power or scope". Logically, this creator would only need one ability, that is to create the original "whatever" from which the physical universe developed. That is a fairly limited "scope" and "power" we simply can't assume as then we would have to make some assumption about the methodology involved. Putting it another way, if we claim that a creator is necessary, all we can say at that stage is that it created the universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't come up with any definitions. They are what they have been for hundreds of years.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe this.

But people will use language to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth as much as they will use it to clarify and illuminate the truth. And our dictionaries record all this deliberate obfuscation.

Wait: is this your way of saying that you acknowledge that your approach isn't reflected in dictionary definitions of "atheism" and "atheist"?

So we need to follow and explain the logic of the words we use and not the tales being spun if we really want to understand something.

Indeed. Here's one good way to "follow the logic": we can infer from usage of the relevant terms that:

1. Theists are not atheists. However someone tries to define "atheist," if it includes any theists, it's wrong. (Example of such a wrong definition: "an atheist is someone who rejects the existence of God")

2. Atheists exist. Whatever it takes for a person to be an atheist, it's something that a human being is capable of; if a definition would require atheists to do something beyond the ability of a human being, it's wrong. (Example of such a wrong definition: "an atheist is someone who rejects the existence of all gods")

Any time someone - as you have - suggests a definition or approach that violates either of these basic points, we know they're arguing for something that doesn't reflect actual usage.

I have explained many times on this thread what the terms mean and why that's what they mean.

You've asserted what you want them to mean, sure.

And no one so far has managed to come up with any logical reasons why these definitions shouldn't stand that weren't just their own personal bias.

Sure.

So the logical definitions stand, and the whiners keep whining about it. But they aren't offering any logical rebuttal. So I'm ignoring them.

If you want to keep being wrong, you go right ahead. I'll just hold a mirror up to it from time to time.

 

[PureX]

Theism/religion is a learned category of belief/culture/behavior.

No, it's not. Theism is a logically derived existential proposition. Religion is the life practice based on a specific interpretation of that proposition. Now, please explain logically why you think this is wrong.

Many folks in the USA aren't religious and don't really have an active position on any of the many religious options.

How one responds to any given religious depiction of God is irrelevant to the theist proposition that God/gods exist.

But if asked they tend to answer that they believe in a God.

What they believe is not relevant to anyone but them. And what they believe does not define the terms; theism, or atheism, or religion, or the color purple.

These passive "believers" have a position, but it is one that came from social conformity and not an active and engaged belief.

Their belief is irrelevant. The intensity of their belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they assert to be a valid concept of reality relative to the theist proposition, and how they logically support this assertion.

Such folks who don't really think about religion or any gods aren't atheists, they are essentially in intellectual limbo.

It doesn't matter to anyone what they do or don't think about. What matters is what they assert to be a valid concept of reality relative to the theist proposition, and how they logically support this assertion.

I don't consider then as having a position.

They either assert their position and validate it logically, or they don't.

Atheism tends to be a category of people who have thought about religious claims (typically supernatural) and have rejected them intellectually.

What they thought about religion is not relevant. No one cares what anyone thinks about religion. The question at hand is, is the theist proposition that God/gods exist valid? The question at hand is NOT which God or gods exist, or how, or to what purpose. Because those question are all predicated on the having already accepted the the theist proposition as valid.

These are active positions.

But they are not philosophical positions. They are responses to various religious depictions of God/gods intended for people that have already determined that the theist proposition is valid.

Even agnostics (which I assert is everyone since there is no way to know anything factually about the supernatural claims made by religion) are a position and one that has engaged with whether they have an intellectual reason to believe any of the religious claims they have encountered.

Agnosticism, specifically, is a position regarding the possibility of our being able to know an extant God. Like religion, it is predicated on having already accepted the theist proposition that God/gods exist. Not knowing IF God/gods exist is, as you point out, a fact of reality for all of us. And is therefor not at issue.

I would agree that non-belief is not necessarily non-theism (atheism) since theism itself is a category of complex and abstract ideas.

Theism itself is just the proposition. How we respond to that proposition varies from absolute dogged religiosity to equally dogged indifference. But negating someone else's response does not negate the original proposition. And this is something that many atheists around here are working very hard NOT to recognize.

Yet logic isn't used to conclude that religious concepts are true, it's faith. Believers actually brag about it.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual theist proposition. It's just another of the many ways people will choose to respond to it.

 

[Ajax]

Atheists never seem to grasp that no one cares what they don't believe. Why do they think their non-belief matters to anyone? Why do they label themselves anything at all?

So why did you start this thread throwing the most silly idea that, as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together? Atheists, as far as I know, reject anything supernatural including all Gods (and without being bitten by anyone). You easily bypass the fact that almost all atheists were theists once and the majority of them have a far better picture of the scriptures than theists, which was essential to them before dropping their religion.

I think the reason is that they DO believe that God/gods don't exist. And they DO believe that their atheist beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all theists. And they do really want all those silly superstitious theists to know it.

How can anyone who doesn't believe in something can be labelled as believer?

Just like the religious zealots are true believers in their own gods. And just like they believe their religious belief is far more wise and righteous than atheism. And just as they too want all those atheist sinners to know it.
Turns out these two groups are mirror images of each other. Both completely defining themselves by their "beliefs", and jacking themselves up with the zealotry and imagined superiority of their righteousness. And neither willing to even listen to or consder the validity of the other.

You contradict yourself. You said that atheists DO believe that God/gods don't exist and then you said they are true believers in their own gods.
The game you try to play is an old one. You are trying to prove that atheism is a belief and even worse a religion. Well, not believing in something, is not a belief. It's the rejection of a particular belief, until such belief is proven to be valid.

 

[PureX]

No, we are talking about the origin of the universe, which might have been caused by natural processes.

You're stuck on repeat. With no logical support. It is logical to presume that whatever determined the "natural processes" that created and sustaining the universe would have to be greater in scope, in power, and in intention than that which it determined and set in motion.

Without defining the term 'God', it means nothing to accept or reject the proposition that God exists. And what I am saying is that being the creator of the universe doesn't match the baseline for what constitutes 'God'.

We have no "baseline" for what constitutes God. God is a necessary mystery. And humans all across the world have recognized this from the dawn of human history because humans have been designed by those "natural processes" to seek solutions to exactly this mystery.

 

[Ajax]

But people will use language to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth as much as they will use it to clarify and illuminate the truth.

Nobody has more deliberately manipulated and misrepresented the truth, than the 45,000+ Christian denominations.
I am agnostic by the way.

 

[Ajax]

You're stuck on repeat. With no logical support. It is logical to presume that whatever determined the "natural processes" that created and sustaining the universe would have to be greater in scope, in power, and in intention than that which it determined and set in motion.

Argument from ignorance. (Something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true).

We have no "baseline" for what constitutes God. God is a necessary mystery. And humans all across the world have recognized this from the dawn of human history because humans have been designed by those "natural processes" to seek solutions to exactly this mystery.

Argumentum ad populum (An appeal to what most people think, like, or believe, instead of justifying our position with evidence) with a couple of unreal claims.

 

[HonestJoe]

Atheists never seem to grasp that no one cares what they don't believe. Why do they think their non-belief matters to anyone? Why do they label themselves anything at all?

Again, you started a thread about what atheists believe, based on another thread directly asking atheists about what they believe.

I think the reason is that they DO believe that God/gods don't exist. And they DO believe that their atheist beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all theists. And they do really want all those silly superstitious theists to know it.

That is certainly true of a subset of atheists but it is definitely not true of all atheists. Most atheists aren't even consciously aware that they're atheist and will never engage in discussions like this one.

Both completely defining themselves by their "beliefs", and jacking themselves up with the zealotry and imagined superiority of their righteousness. And neither willing to even listen to or consder the validity of the other.

I'm sure my vicar friend and I will have a good laugh about that image next time I see him.

 

[PureX]

So why did you start this thread throwing the most silly idea that, as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together?

Because nearly every atheist here has done that, silly as it is. And they are still fighting hard to continue doing it. And to justify it, silly as it is.

Atheists, as far as I know, reject anything supernatural including all Gods (and without being bitten by anyone).

Yeah, the problem with that is we humans have no idea what the actual limits of "nature" are. So we wouldn't be able to tell if something defied those limitations or not, to become "supernatural". The other problem is that we humans so far observe that the universe had a beginning, and whatever determined that it begin, and how, would by definition have to have been "supernatural", since it defined and enabled whatever it s that we are calling "nature".

You easily bypass the fact that almost all atheists were theists once and the majority of them have a far better picture of the scriptures than theists, which was essential to them before dropping their religion.

One has to be introduced to the theist proposition before one can choose to reject it as invalid. So of course every atheist will have had the theist proposition imposed upon them at some point by someone. And it was probably someone pushing religion instead of a philosopher that imposed it. But that's no excuse, as the logical reasoning involved is always available to everyone. And we are responsible for using it or neglecting it, either way.

How can anyone who doesn't believe in something can be labelled as believer?

It's easy. All we have to do is stop believing our own BS. After all, all we're really "believing in" when we beieve is that we are right, even though we don't actually know that we are. So why not just stop it? Stop pretending that we know things that we don't actually know, and then we'll be free to change our minds whenever we want, for whatever reason we want. Belief is just egotism. Quell the ego and suddenly we don't need to believe anymore. We can just accept the facts and logic, provisionally, until they change.

You contradict yourself. You said that atheists DO believe that God/gods don't exist and then you said they are true believers in their own gods.

No, they are true believers in their phony, anti-religious atheism. But it's not my contradiction, it's theirs.

The game you try to play is an old one. You are trying to prove that atheism is a belief and even worse a religion.

I have written a ton of posts now trying to explain that theism, AND atheism are not determined or defined by anyone's belief. Since you clearly are not getting this, I think the whole conversation is likely over your head. Or you just want to argue without understanding what you're even arguing about.

Well, not believing in something, is not a belief. It's the rejection of a belief, until such belief is proven to be valid.

Belief has nothing to do with anything. It's just ego, mostly. It's why people who truly believe in what they think they know can't learn anything new. Belief is a kind of intellectual prison, and there are as many self-proclaimed atheists in that prison as there are theists.

 

[PureX]

Nobody has more deliberately manipulated and misrepresented the truth, than the 45,000+ Christian denominations.
I am agnostic by the way.

So am I. I am also a theist, but as an act of faith preference, not as a "belief.

What truth do you think all those denominations misrepresented?

 

[PureX]

Again, you started a thread about what atheists believe, based on another thread directly asking atheists about what they believe.

That is certainly true of a subset of atheists but it is definitely not true of all atheists.

I agree. But it is this faction (not a "subset") that I am addressing.

Most atheists aren't even consciously aware that they're atheist and will never engage in discussions like this one.

They very likely aren't atheists at all. They're just indifferent to the theist proposition. Indifference is not atheism. Neither is indecision. Atheism is a specific counter-position.

I'm sure my vicar friend and I will have a good laugh about that image next time I see him.

If he's not a zealot, I bet he knows some.

Many religious theists are profoundly confused about the difference between belief and faith. They think these are just two words meaning the same thing. But they aren't, and the difference is crucial. See if your friend recognizes this. I'm curious.

 

[Ajax]

Because nearly every atheist here has done that, silly as it is. And they are still fighting hard to continue doing it. And to justify it, silly as it is..........................................................................

You have written a ton of vague, irrelevant replies to me, throwing the ball out of court in each one and constantly contradicting yourself...
In just our two conversations you claimed that you don't care of what atheists don't believe in and it doesn't matter to anyone, but you started two threads about atheists' beliefs. You insist that atheists are believers and then you state that belief has nothing to do with anything. You said that atheists don't believe in any gods and then you claimed they believe in their gods.
Relax for a while, have a scotch, put your thoughts in order and come back.

 

[Koldo]

You're stuck on repeat. With no logical support. It is logical to presume that whatever determined the "natural processes" that created and sustaining the universe would have to be greater in scope, in power, and in intention than that which it determined and set in motion.

That presumes that the natural processes were determined by something.

We have no "baseline" for what constitutes God. God is a necessary mystery.

If you have no baseline, you are talking about nothing. But you do have a baseline, you are talking about the creator of the universe. That's your baseline. And all I was saying is that not only there are many god concepts that don't match that baseline, there are many more that use another baseline: possessing mental properties.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's not. Theism is a logically derived existential proposition.

There's nothing logical in any theism, which is just some structural belief system that some sort of God/creator exists.

Religion is the life practice based on a specific interpretation of that proposition. Now, please explain logically why you think this is wrong.

It's essentually synonymous with theism.

How one responds to any given religious depiction of God is irrelevant to the theist proposition that God/gods exist.

My point was that many Americans don;t have any religious inclination or affilition.

What they believe is not relevant to anyone but them. And what they believe does not define the terms; theism, or atheism, or religion, or the color purple.

It matters when we categorize citizens as atheists, theists, or non-religious.

Their belief is irrelevant. The intensity of their belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they assert to be a valid concept of reality relative to the theist proposition, and how they logically support this assertion.

It's relevant when we categorize citizens in how they believe in religious ideas.

It doesn't matter to anyone what they do or don't think about. What matters is what they assert to be a valid concept of reality relative to the theist proposition, and how they logically support this assertion.

Funny how often you say things don't matter when you spend so much time expressing views that matter to you. The fact is many citizens don;t go to church, aren't religious, but if asked in a poll will say they believe in God. They have no actual postition like we do in debate. They are in limbo categorically.

What they thought about religion is not relevant.

Really? What atheists think about religion is not relevant? You seem to disbelieve that given your passionate distaste for atheists.

No one cares what anyone thinks about religion.

Except you, of course.

The question at hand is, is the theist proposition that God/gods exist valid?

Based on assessing the evidence, no.

The question at hand is NOT which God or gods exist, or how, or to what purpose. Because those question are all predicated on the having already accepted the the theist proposition as valid.

A distinction without a difference.

But they are not philosophical positions. They are responses to various religious depictions of God/gods intended for people that have already determined that the theist proposition is valid.

I'm not sure how philosophy is relevant to religious ideas being scrutinized intellectually. It can be, but isn't necessary.

Agnosticism, specifically, is a position regarding the possibility of our being able to know an extant God.

It would be possible if gods existed, which evidence does not support, so a very low possibility.

Like religion, it is predicated on having already accepted the theist proposition that God/gods exist. Not knowing IF God/gods exist is, as you point out, a fact of reality for all of us. And is therefor not at issue.

Yup, all guesswork and illusion, not factual understanding.

Theism itself is just the proposition. How we respond to that proposition varies from absolute dogged religiosity to equally dogged indifference. But negating someone else's response does not negate the original proposition. And this is something that many atheists around here are working very hard NOT to recognize.

Of course we do. We acknowledge that different believers (including you) claim contrary and personal things, and atheists respond to the believer and their claims. Theism is a mess because the lack of evidence means anyone can make up their own truth, and there is no foundational facts.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual theist proposition. It's just another of the many ways people will choose to respond to it.

What theists claim is completely faith. It's never a reasoned conclusion by following evidence.

 

[PureX]

That presumes that the natural processes were determined by something.

Again, you can't seem to cognate the logic behind it. That something couldn't logically come from nothing. And that perpetuity doesn't logically manifest as change. Leaving a deliberate creative act as the only logical remaining possibility. You can keep tryng to ignore this till the cows fly but until you can propose an equally logical alternative your just stuck on baseless repeat.

If you have no baseline, you are talking about nothing. But you do have a baseline, you are talking about the creator of the universe.

No, I am talking about the logical necessity for one. We know nothing of this "creator of the universe" except that logic demands there be one.

That's your baseline. And all I was saying is that not only there are many god concepts that don't match that baseline, there are many more that use another baseline: possessing mental properties.

There is no God conception "baseline" being offered. So your constantly referring to religious diversity is both pointless and irrelevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, you can't seem to cognate the logic behind it. That something couldn't logically come from nothing.

Have you ever applied your "logic" to your god?
If something can't come from nothing, whence
came your god? But if your god can exist for
all eternity backwards & forwards in tome,
then why can't the material world?

"Logic" isn't something to claim for oneself.
Logic is to be applied. And it needs cromulent
premises. Without those, it's just illusory navel
gazing.