For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[Random Person]

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.


Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

Some assertions are asinine and some aren't. The ones that assert a conclusion not supported by the premises are at least not true and possibly asinine. Space goats and people created by aliens to harvest gold fit in that they are both wrong and asinine.

 

[Copernicus]

Ya, it's not really up to atheists to define to Christians, Muslims or whomever what their religion is about. It's their God, so they're the ones who need to define it.

I've been at pains to explain why this isn't true from a purely linguistic perspective, but you aren't the only one to reject the idea. The problem is that "define" has at least two senses. In one sense, it means "to provide a definition of common usage". In the other, it means "to prescribe how one ought to use a word".

Let's take the first sense--providing a definition of common usage. That is a straightforward empirical issue. The first thing you discover when you look at the word "god" is that atheists, Christians, Muslims, and people of whatever religious belief all use the same word sense for the common noun "god". Its meaning isn't tied to the religious identity of the speaker, because the common noun does not refer to the specific deity or deities that the speaker believes in. People of all religious beliefs also name their specific gods. Christians use the proper noun "God" (note the capitalization) to refer to theirs, and Muslims tend to use the Arabic derivative "Allah". The labels "theist" and "atheist" do depend on the meaning of "god", but not "God". Someone can believe that God does not exist but still believe in deities of other sorts. Such a person would still be a theist. And if someone disbelieved in all deities but the Christian God, that person would still be a theist. So your generalization is not right with respect to the first sense of "define".

You could have been talking just about the second sense--where speakers of the individual religion prescribe the intended usage. The thing to remember here is that they are not prescribing usage of the common noun. What they tell you about their specific gods have to do with concepts associated with just those particular deities. Since Christians tend to have a very strong taboo against belief in other gods, they will only try to define the one they believe in. But that would be a definition for "God", not "god". Those are two different words.

Tom, I want you to look at the spelling in your second sentence. You wrote "their God". Technically, that's a punctuation error, because you were capitalizing the common noun, not the proper noun. If you intended to use the proper noun, it would have been ungrammatical to use the so-called demonstrative adjective "their" as a modifier. Proper nouns don't tend to allow modifiers in English syntax. I think that the slip was the result of equivocation on the two senses of "G/god". People of specific religions have every right to prescribe common usage for specific gods. It's just that atheists do not reject belief in particular gods. They reject belief in all gods. So much of what you get out of Christians isn't going to be helpful in defining either theism or atheism, just a particular instance of god-belief. Maybe that is all you want for the purposes of discussion, but that is going to draw you into a lot of minutiae that have little or nothing to do with theism and atheism generally.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.


Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

Aliens creating humans is an example of ID as opposed to humans evolving from another species.

Is it the case that you didn't actually read the post you are pretending to be responding to or are you just pretending to (or possibly really) have no reading comprehension?

I see no point in repeating what I already posted in the post included above.

 

[Random Person]

Aliens creating humans is an example of ID as opposed to humans evolving from another species.

Is it the case that you didn't actually read the post you are pretending to be responding to or are you just pretending to (or possibly really) have no reading comprehension?

I see no point in repeating what I already posted in the post included above.

Are humans a product of evolution or were they designed by aliens?

 

[skepticalbip]

Aliens creating humans is an example of ID as opposed to humans evolving from another species.

Is it the case that you didn't actually read the post you are pretending to be responding to or are you just pretending to (or possibly really) have no reading comprehension?

I see no point in repeating what I already posted in the post included above.

Are humans a product of evolution or were they designed by aliens?

Your question shows a complete lack of reading comprehension. Get your mother to read and explain to you in simple language this post of mine.

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Originally Posted by Random Person

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.

Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

 

[Random Person]

Are humans a product of evolution or were they designed by aliens?

Your question shows a complete lack of reading comprehension. Get your mother to read and explain to you in simple language this post of mine.

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Originally Posted by Random Person

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.

Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

If your position is untenable, unleash the ad homs.

 

[Underseer]

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are true because they have been proved with evidence.

Creationism cannot be said to be true because it has zero evidence supporting it.

Every time someone asks a creationist to prove creationism, they attempt to do so by disproving evolution or the Big Bang theory.

You can't prove A by disproving B. That's not how it works. If you want to prove A, you have to actually prove A. Even if you could disprove B (and in this case you can't), disproving B only proves that B is false. It does not and cannot prove that A is true.

If you want to say that a magical being created life with magic, then you have to provide evidence of the magical being in question, then provide evidence of the magical being creating life with magic. No creationist can do this and every creationist knows that they can't do this, which is why they always respond with requests for proof with laughably bad attempts to disprove evolution. The argument itself is evidence that deep down they know that creationism is false.

Further, the attempt to link this to a discussion about whether or not god exists shows that you similarly know that you are unable to prove your claim that any god or gods exist.

Evolution is a completely independent claim from the claim about gods. Once again, you make the connection because deep down, you know that you can no more prove the existence of your god than you can prove creationism.

 

[Underseer]

Your question shows a complete lack of reading comprehension. Get your mother to read and explain to you in simple language this post of mine.

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

Originally Posted by Random Person

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.

Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

If your position is untenable, unleash the ad homs.

You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Let me help you with that.

An argument with good logic is an argument that supports its conclusion. An argument with bad logic (fallacy) fails to support its conclusion.

Let's look at two statements:

1. You are a doodeyhead
2. Your opinion about intertidal marine biology is false because you are a doodeyhead.

Number one is a claim, not an argument. Number one cannot be a logical fallacy because a logical fallacy is an argument that fails to support its associated claim. The person making claim number 1 has the responsibility of presenting arguments (which can include evidence) that supports the claim, but the claim itself cannot be a fallacy.

Number two is an argument and an example of an ad hominem fallacy. The argument fails to support its conclusion because whether or not someone is a doodeyhead has fuck all to do with whether or not their claim about intertidal marine biology is true or false. Newton was by all accounts an asshole, but that has nothing to do with whether or not his claims about science were accepted. His claims about optics and the three laws of motion were accepted because they were proved by experiment. The fact that Newton was an asshole had no bearing or which of his claims were true or false.

If we assume that number one is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, then that means that all negative criticisms are automatically false. We wouldn't even be able to criticize Nazis for the holocaust because that would be an "ad hominem fallacy" according to your understanding of what ad hominem means.

Do you think you can tell the difference now?

He has made a claim about your reading comprehension. It is up to him to support or fail to support his claim, but the claim itself cannot be a fallacy of any kind, much less an ad hominem fallacy.

Do you think you can keep the difference straight this time?

 

[Random Person]

Your question shows a complete lack of reading comprehension. Get your mother to read and explain to you in simple language this post of mine.

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

If your position is untenable, unleash the ad homs.

You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Let me help you with that.

An argument with good logic is an argument that supports its conclusion. An argument with bad logic (fallacy) fails to support its conclusion.

Let's look at two statements:

1. You are a doodeyhead
2. Your opinion about intertidal marine biology is false because you are a doodeyhead.

Number one is a claim, not an argument. Number one cannot be a logical fallacy because a logical fallacy is an argument that fails to support its associated claim. The person making claim number 1 has the responsibility of presenting arguments (which can include evidence) that supports the claim, but the claim itself cannot be a fallacy.

Number two is an argument and an example of an ad hominem fallacy. The argument fails to support its conclusion because whether or not someone is a doodeyhead has fuck all to do with whether or not their claim about intertidal marine biology is true or false. Newton was by all accounts an asshole, but that has nothing to do with whether or not his claims about science were accepted. His claims about optics and the three laws of motion were accepted because they were proved by experiment. The fact that Newton was an asshole had no bearing or which of his claims were true or false.

If we assume that number one is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, then that means that all negative criticisms are automatically false. We wouldn't even be able to criticize Nazis for the holocaust because that would be an "ad hominem fallacy" according to your understanding of what ad hominem means.

Do you think you can tell the difference now?

He has made a claim about your reading comprehension. It is up to him to support or fail to support his claim, but the claim itself cannot be a fallacy of any kind, much less an ad hominem fallacy.

Do you think you can keep the difference straight this time?

You're lost. Let me help you out.

Your question shows a complete lack of reading comprehension. Get your mother to read and explain to you in simple language this post of mine.

^ This is an example of attacking me instead of the argument. That's called an ad hominem.

 

[Rhea]

Let's take the first sense--providing a definition of common usage. That is a straightforward empirical issue. The first thing you discover when you look at the word "god" is that atheists, Christians, Muslims, and people of whatever religious belief all use the same word sense for the common noun "god". Its meaning isn't tied to the religious identity of the speaker, because the common noun does not refer to the specific deity or deities that the speaker believes in.

HI Copernicus,

You’ve been at pains to define the discussion in your frame. I’ve been startled to see you use terms like “rejecting gods” about atheists. Which is interesting because atheists typically don’t reject gods, they reject arguments made for gods that are useless. Until someone comes up with an argument for a god that isn’t useless, there’s nothing to believe _in_. There’s no god(dess)(es). There are no gods to reject, only descriptions provided by humans.

There are no gods to reject.
Only arguments for gods made by humans.

Several people have defined lower case god(dess)(es). Perhaps you can compile those good faith answers and see if there is any remaining confusion?

 

[Rhea]

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
--Robert G. Ingersoll

This is very true. Since gods are made up by humans, the existence of humans is necessary for the “existence” of gods.

Perhaps it would help to define god(dess)(es) as,

“Those beings, fabricated in the minds of humans, imbued by tose imaginations with the powers outside of physics. They are fictional characters.”

That’s a God. And a god.

 

[Copernicus]

Let's take the first sense--providing a definition of common usage. That is a straightforward empirical issue. The first thing you discover when you look at the word "god" is that atheists, Christians, Muslims, and people of whatever religious belief all use the same word sense for the common noun "god". Its meaning isn't tied to the religious identity of the speaker, because the common noun does not refer to the specific deity or deities that the speaker believes in.

HI Copernicus,

You’ve been at pains to define the discussion in your frame...

I think we all do that, especially including you. We all have different perspectives to bring on the question of what gods, atheism, and theism are about. So, no apologies for that.

...I’ve been startled to see you use terms like “rejecting gods” about atheists. Which is interesting because atheists typically don’t reject gods, they reject arguments made for gods that are useless. Until someone comes up with an argument for a god that isn’t useless, there’s nothing to believe _in_. There’s no god(dess)(es). There are no gods to reject, only descriptions provided by humans.

What I've said is that they reject belief in gods. It follows from that that they reject arguments supporting belief in gods. So we seem to be in violent agreement here.

There are no gods to reject.
Only arguments for gods made by humans.

Yup. That's why I said "reject belief in gods". That is the same as saying that there are no gods to believe in. I also reject belief in elves and unicorns, and there are none of those either, AFAICT. It appears that you have mischaracterized what I said and then taken issue with the mischaracterization. I hope that I've helped you to knock over that straw man.

Several people have defined lower case god(dess)(es). Perhaps you can compile those good faith answers and see if there is any remaining confusion?

Since the confusion seems to be all yours, I leave that task to you.

 

[Rhea]

I was referring to this post of yours. I don’t think we are in complete agreement.

As a preliminary step to grasping the concept of "god", you should probably start by recognizing that it is a common noun, not a proper noun that refers to, say, the monotheistic Abrahamic god. So when you refer to "the real one", you are showing that you have an intuitive grasp of the meaning of the word "god", which is a synonym for "deity". Atheists reject belief in "God"--the Christian one--because that god is just another instance of the general category that you already understand. My point has been that the generic concept that you, Lion, and I share comes from the English language, not any subset of people who take a position on the existence of particular gods. Atheists reject the existence of all such entities, whereas theists tend to believe in a small subset. In this era of monotheism, many believers simply do not want to talk about gods that they don't believe in, although they ought to be able to explain why they believe in any god. Conversely, I believe that atheists ought to be able to explain why they reject belief in the existence of any such entities.

It was these words that I found inacurate. We do not “reject gods” so much as we reject human arguments for the gods they describe. We don’t make something up and then reject it. The use of these words is so close to what Theists claim, and it’s based on an assumption of existence of gods. We do not assume they exist. We hear arguments by others who assume theyy exist and we are unpersuaded by those arguments. Theists like to say we’re “mad at” their god and hence “reject him” and “deny his existence,”. And it’s tedious to find the words to explain to them that it is impossible to reject something that doesn’t exist.

That is why I commented on your use of the word “rejet” as an imprecise word.

It really isn't all that difficult. Sometimes it is just a matter of using the same reasoning that theists use to reject belief in so-called "false gods".

They don’t reject the belief, they reject the status, though, right?

I say "so called", because I believe that there are no entities in existence that could reasonably be called "gods" in a conventional sense. If you ask theists why they don't believe in pagan or false gods, the first thing they say (in my experience) is that they have no good reason to believe in such beings.

I find that they say, “god told me not to worship that one.”

There is simply no evidence that they exist. What it comes down to, in my view, is that any particular theistic doctrine relies heavily on special pleading to survive competition with other theistic doctrines.

I agree. There is simply no evidence that they exist. So I reject the argument that claims there is evidence.



So to sum up, I do not think it’s accurate to say “atheists reject belief in god” or “atheists reject the existence of god,” since there is nothing to reject and that only feeds te logic of the theist who says, “see? You just don’t like him.” What we reject is the arguments made by man. They are stupid arguments, worth rejecting. Meanwhile the possible deities are absolutely silent and so whether they exist or not is irrelevant and doesn’t matter. I don’t need to “reject” that which does not exist.

 

[Random Person]

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

This is very true. Since gods are made up by humans, the existence of humans is necessary for the “existence” of gods.

Perhaps it would help to define god(dess)(es) as,

“Those beings, fabricated in the minds of humans, imbued by tose imaginations with the powers outside of physics. They are fictional characters.”

That’s a God. And a god.

Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, making your argument fallacious.

 

[Copernicus]

...
So to sum up, I do not think it’s accurate to say “atheists reject belief in god” or “atheists reject the existence of god,” since there is nothing to reject and that only feeds te logic of the theist who says, “see? You just don’t like him.” What we reject is the arguments made by man. They are stupid arguments, worth rejecting. Meanwhile the possible deities are absolutely silent and so whether they exist or not is irrelevant and doesn’t matter. I don’t need to “reject” that which does not exist.

Rhea, you are making a huge distinction without a difference, Rhea. I don't know whether you are being intentionally contrary or you genuinely believe that you have found some nit to pick with me. Rejection of belief in a conclusion entails rejection of the arguments that arrive at that conclusion. I'm not saying that the arguments in favor of gods are worth accepting, so why are you trying to make it look like I am? This has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous "atheists hate God" argument--something I never talked about and that you just gratuitously inserted here. As I said, I reject belief in unicorns and elves, too. Do you have a problem with that? They don't exist either. Like gods, they are also mythical beings that don't exist.

 

[Rhea]

Perhaps it would help to define god(dess)(es) as,

“Those beings, fabricated in the minds of humans, imbued by tose imaginations with the powers outside of physics. They are fictional characters.”

That’s a God. And a god.

Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, making your argument fallacious.

If I were making an “argument,” you might have a point.
It was a definition.
I was defining what Atheists don’t believe in.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, you are making a huge distinction without a difference, Rhea. I don't know whether you are being intentionally contrary or you genuinely believe that you have found some nit to pick with me. Rejection of belief in a conclusion entails rejection of the arguments that arrive at that conclusion. I'm not saying that the arguments in favor of gods are worth accepting, so why are you trying to make it look like I am? This has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous "atheists hate God" argument--something I never talked about and that you just gratuitously inserted here. As I said, I reject belief in unicorns and elves, too. Do you have a problem with that? They don't exist either. Like gods, they are also mythical beings that don't exist.

??

I am not being intentionally contrary, I don’t know why you would ssay that.

I am discussing the implications of the way we discuss this. Since it started as an attempt to define what atheists don’t believe in because of how theists feel that’s something they need to know, I am contemplating the corners of it. If that bothers you, you do not have to engage with me if you find it a problem.

I’m not playing games of any kind, I am discussing the content of the thread. I am not “picking a nit” with “you” since I don’t care at all who said it, I am discussing the content. I don’t know why you would accuse me of that.

 

[Copernicus]

Perhaps it would help to define god(dess)(es) as,

“Those beings, fabricated in the minds of humans, imbued by tose imaginations with the powers outside of physics. They are fictional characters.”

That’s a God. And a god.

Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, making your argument fallacious.

If I were making an “argument,” you might have a point.
It was a definition.
I was defining what Atheists don’t believe in.

I think that RP was trying to make the point that you cannot include an existence claim in a definition, especially if it doesn't actually reflect the usage of people using the word. Theists use the words "God" and "god" all the time without believing that they are fictional characters.

If you take the position that gods are defined as fictional or nonexistent, then you open the door of the kind of sophistry that we get out of theists who try to resurrect Anselm's old discredited arguments about God being assumed as a "necessary" being. Anselm took the position that God was perfect and that nonexistent things lacked perfection. So God was, by definition, a being that existed. You may believe that gods are fictional, but that wouldn't be part of the definition of what a god is. That would just be an empirical claim.

 

[Copernicus]

Rhea, you are making a huge distinction without a difference, Rhea. I don't know whether you are being intentionally contrary or you genuinely believe that you have found some nit to pick with me. Rejection of belief in a conclusion entails rejection of the arguments that arrive at that conclusion. I'm not saying that the arguments in favor of gods are worth accepting, so why are you trying to make it look like I am? This has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous "atheists hate God" argument--something I never talked about and that you just gratuitously inserted here. As I said, I reject belief in unicorns and elves, too. Do you have a problem with that? They don't exist either. Like gods, they are also mythical beings that don't exist.

??

I am not being intentionally contrary, I don’t know why you would ssay that.

It appears to me that you seek to disagree with everything I say lately, but maybe I'm reading too much into your posts. I see little or no incompatibility between rejecting a belief and rejecting the argument that supports that belief. This seems to irritate you, but I apologize if I'm misreading you.

I am discussing the implications of the way we discuss this. Since it started as an attempt to define what atheists don’t believe in because of how theists feel that’s something they need to know, I am contemplating the corners of it. If that bothers you, you do not have to engage with me if you find it a problem.

I’m not playing games of any kind, I am discussing the content of the thread. I am not “picking a nit” with “you” since I don’t care at all who said it, I am discussing the content. I don’t know why you would accuse me of that.

OK. I've just been replying to comments you've made about my posts that seem to misunderstand or distort what I said. My main contribution so far has been to point out that there is a fundamental difference in meaning between "God" and "god" and that atheists reject belief in the latter category. A rejection of belief in all deities entails a rejection of belief in any specific deity. What we need to come up with here is therefore a reasonable description of what we mean by common nouns like "god" or "deity". We aren't interested in specific gods, because we can't be atheists unless we believe that all gods are fictional (i.e. nonexistent) beings. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[abaddon]

My main contribution so far has been to point out that there is a fundamental difference in meaning between "God" and "god" and that atheists reject belief in the latter category.

They're the same category. A God is a particular god that got singled out for reverence by whichever theists.

If theists find the distinction significant, that's their problem (and yours if you want to extend special deference to that view).

What we need to come up with here is therefore a reasonable description of what we mean by common nouns like "god" or "deity".

And what is the "need to come up with" compulsion?

This is a bullshit thread split off from another because some theist wanted to shift the burden, and then you came up with a distinction of no distinction that complicated the matter needlessly.

We aren't interested in specific gods, because we can't be atheists unless we believe that all gods are fictional (i.e. nonexistent) beings. Is that clear enough for you?

How do you mean "not interested in specific gods"? Does "interested" mean "believe in"? If it doesn't mean "believe in" then why can't an atheist be interested in specific gods?