Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm not going to keep answering, as everyone can see i have answered you repeatedly, as have others and yet you lied and denied this.
------------------------------
"Your first couple of links indicate is that you identify yourself as an atheist, and that your definition of an atheist means that you do not believe any deity or deities exist."
It's not my definition, it is the dictionaries, and once again the OED defines atheism as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." So I am not offering a subjective opinion here.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist
----------------------------------
Your positions don't reflect my atheism, and my atheism is accurately reflected by the dictionary definition. The options you offered do reflect my atheism as I said. No amount of repetition or ignoring my answers will change this.
------------------------------
"So it seems obvious to me that you know that you have not answered, and are dishonest."
Or you're trolling or a liar, or both. The only other option I can see is you have an execrable grasp of English,, and so don't see the stupidity of trying to dictate to atheists how they define themselves by the risible tactic of limiting them to two or three choices none of which reflect the primary definition of atheism.
I shall let others decide which. However more than one poster has made the same observation I have, and like them I am tiring of your dishonesty now.
-------------------------------------------
"So can you provide a link which indicated whether you take position (2) or (3) or just mention which one (2) or (3) it is, in your reply."
I already have told you multiple times none of those positions reflects my atheism, as I have here again, no doubt you will regurgitate the same dishonest BS, but for what it's worth there it is. I am starting to think you're a tedious troll.
The positions don't reflect your definition of an atheist. That is not surprising as with your definition those that take position (2) or (3) are both atheists. The question is not which of the positions (2) or (3) reflect your understanding of atheism. Neither would. You have stated your position of atheism. Repeatedly. And I have acknowledge that I understand it repeatedly. What you understand by atheism neither means taking position (2) or means taking position (3). That is clear, and has been for a while. I understood what you meant by an atheist. I have also pointed out that I am not asking you about your definition of atheism, but whether you take position (2) or (3). Either position you take would count as an atheist given your definition. I have explicitly stated that the answer doesn't depend on whether you define atheism as taking position (2) or (3) or whether you define it as taking (2). I am just asking which position do you take (2) or (3)? I do not know how slow you wish to pretend you are, but I am willing to continue this conversation to the point where pretty much every person on this site realises that there is no way you can be this slow no matter how long it takes (as long as that is < point I get bored in pointing it out)
I'll try bullet points.
1) It isn't my definition of atheism, it is the dictionaries.
2) It is beyond pointless to keep asking which of your positions I take on atheism, when I keep telling you, as of course do others, that none of your positions reflect mine.
3) I am an atheist in line with the primary definition in all dictionaries.
4) I do not believe any deity or deities exist.
5) This is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of one single belief.
-------------------------------------------------------
Please desist from your petty ad hominem.
[I have edited my original response quite heavily]
In response to your post:
1) I realise the dictionary definition of atheism that you favour.
2) I had written in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
---
The question is not which of the positions (2) or (3) reflect your understanding of atheism. Neither would. You have stated your position of atheism. Repeatedly. And I have acknowledge that I understand it repeatedly. What you understand by atheism neither means taking position (2) or means taking position (3). That is clear, and has been for a while. I understood what you meant by an atheist. I have also pointed out that I am not asking you about your definition of atheism, but whether you take position (2) or (3).
---
So why pretend you think I am asking you which of the positions is your take on atheism. I have made it clear that it not what I am asking you. I have made it clear that I am not asking you about atheism, but on whether you take position (2) or (3). There could be two different people, who both identify as an atheist using the definition of atheism you use, and one could take position (2) and one could take position (3). Being an atheists doesn't prevent them from taking one of those positions.
3) I have pointed out that https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheism has definitions different to yours.
4) I realise that is your position given your identification as an atheist, and the definition you identified with .
5) I realise that you definition of an atheist is the lack or absence of a single belief
So just to be clear the following positions are not about what the term atheist means.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
Do you take position (2) or (3)?
Eh, I will take a crack at this after scanning through this thread.
Taking it to a slightly different direction, going back to your original first post on this thread: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
Most definitions of atheist say "god" not deity.
I am a STRONG atheist when using that common definition of atheist. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Your define-atheisim.com link defines it instead as "absence of belief in deities"
To me that is quite dishonest. I at first missed that in your definition. Deity is a different word and has a similar but distinctly different meaning then the word god. It can mean god, and is frequently used as a synonym for god, but it also can simply mean divine somehow, also a synonym for god. Why use deity instead of god in that definition? Perhaps because, at least someone like me, the word god has a lot more emphasis and concise definition then the words deity and divine. Words used in the definition of god like "worship" all powerful, etc that are not used in deity or divine.
I do believe in the (small!) possibility of some sort of greater being that may or may not of had some sort of "hand" in origin of life here on earth. It could be long dead, or more likely, never existed at all. There is no evidence for it found yet, but I am "agnostic" about the possibility of a greater being. But I still very strongly maintain that I do not in anyway believe in god(s) I put the likelihood of any major religion god idea being true even in small part, as the same likelihood that the sun will not rise from the direction we call "east" after it set in the west tonight.
Borrowing from what others have said in this thread; I consider myself a strong atheist, but I am agnostic about what I and no one else do not yet know.
I strongly reject any unfalsifiable premises as I try not to be hypocritical in utilizing basic necessary logical concepts required to live day to life, and then ignore those basic logical concepts in a particular area, (god idea and the accompanying organized religion.)
So to answer your original question, based on your used definition and the inconcise word usage like deity, I can say I pick option 1, 2, and 3. But! I am also atheist, as well as agnostic about what I do not know. The seemingly nonsensical answer of options 1,2,3 is because the question it self, when examined is poorly constructed and defined and mostly nonsensical.
The question you really need to ask is: do you believe in god(s) or not? And perhaps throw in your own personal, clear and concise definition of god so we know exactly what you are trying to ask in an honest way.
Don't try to play word games, and logic games, that does not work here.
By deity I mean a god or goddess.
I reworded (3) slightly from the original post.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
And as you can see (1) (2) and (3) are mutually exclusive.
So with what I mean by deity cleared up, and the reworded (3) can you answer whether you hold position (1), (2) or (3)?
Taking deity means god.
And taking this common definition of god:
1. the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Source of all moral authority. - Nope, that leads to the silly notion that morality is objective.
Superhuman. (so human but super? - Like superman? Nope.
Worshipped? - Very strong nope nope nope!
Power over nature and human fortunes? - Nope, there is zero evidence for this just like there is zero evidence I have power over you "someone."
So, Reality is one without any god(s) by the very commonly held definition of god. So you get your answer from me, B, my belief based on available evidence is: B is true and A is false so option 2. Again, assuming deity = god, and we agree on the commonly held definition of god.
@LogicForTW
Would your answer be the same if a god was defined as a spirit which was a/the creator of the universe?
"The seemingly nonsensical answer of options 1,2,3 is because the question it self, when examined is poorly constructed and defined and mostly nonsensical...
To me that is quite dishonest. "
He's been told this by just about everyone now, but refuses to even acknowledge they have answered. Who knows what he hopes to gain by lying.
"Do you take position (2) or (3)?"
I just answered that again....here it is again....
1) It isn't my definition of atheism, it is the dictionaries.
2) It is beyond pointless to keep asking which of your positions I take on atheism, when I keep telling you, as of course do others, that none of your positions reflect mine.
3) I am an atheist in line with the primary definition in all dictionaries.
4) I do not believe any deity or deities exist.
5) This is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of one single belief.
@Sheldon
1) I realise the dictionary definition of atheism that you favour.
2) I had written in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
---
The question is not which of the positions (2) or (3) reflect your understanding of atheism. Neither would. You have stated your position of atheism. Repeatedly. And I have acknowledge that I understand it repeatedly. What you understand by atheism neither means taking position (2) or means taking position (3). That is clear, and has been for a while. I understood what you meant by an atheist. I have also pointed out that I am not asking you about your definition of atheism, but whether you take position (2) or (3).
---
So why pretend you think I am asking you which of the positions is your take on atheism. I have made it clear that it not what I am asking you. I have made it clear that I am not asking you about atheism, but on whether you take position (2) or (3). There could be two different people, who both identify as an atheist using the definition of atheism you use, and one could take position (2) and one could take position (3). Being atheists doesn't prevent them from taking either one of those positions.
3) I have pointed out that https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheism has definitions different to yours.
4) I realise that is your position given your identification as an atheist, and the definition you identified with .
5) I realise that you definition of an atheist is the lack or absence of a single belief
So just to be clear the following positions are not about what the term atheist means.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
Do you take position (2) or (3)?
I wish Someone would answer this question for me based on these two premises.
Premise A: Someone still masturbates in public
Premise B: Someone no longer masturbates in public
Answer choices (Which position do you choose?)
1. If (A) is true, then (B) must be false
2. If (B) is true, then (A) must be false
3. Someone fails to see the ironic relation between this and the loaded question Someone keeps asking over and over and over and over.....
Please choose (1), (2), or (3).
The first difference is that (A) and (B) were belief statements in what I presented. Not premises. If they were premises they would have been logical complements. In your example (A) and (B) are premises but they aren't logical complements. There are other logical options e.g. Someone never masturbated in public.
So then regarding the options:
(1) is fine because although Premise A and Premise B are not logical complements, they are mutually exclusive.
(2) is fine because although Premise A and Premise B are not logical complements, they are mutually exclusive.
(3) Unlike what I presented is not a position about a belief in (A) and (B). Further more It is loaded in the sense that to accept it I would have to accept I was asking a loaded question
Then there is the problem that the options provided do not exhaust the logical options. In the one I provided I mentioned the assumption that the person was not taking the position that there was no existence. So that option was provided, in the sense that the person could have stated that (1), (2) and (3) do not apply since they believe there is no existence/reality and therefore believe that A and B are both false. Obviously if the question doesn't provide an all logical options the person can point out which alternative option they take.
Incidently I do see an ironic relation between what you wrote and were asking, and what I wrote and what I was asking, and that is
what you presented had issues with it, and I was able to point them out, whereas you are unable to point out any issues with what I was asking. Which ironically indicates how if there are issues with what is being asked, they can be pointed out, like I did with yours, but if there aren't, then you won't be able to, as with what I was asking. The irony being that wasn't presumably what you intended highlight.
@Someone
"Would your answer be the same if a god was defined as a spirit which was a/the creator of the universe?"
You would have to carefully define "spirit." But probably not. I actually stated in my long post earlier:
"I think there is a small possibility (emphasis on small!) that there is some sort of greater being that may or may not of had a hand in the creation of life on this planet."
My view on "greater being" is more of an agnostic view, a "I don't know, but I could see it as being possible but unlikely."
To more clearly define "greater being" I would say something more along the lines of some ancient intelligent alien life, that we know nothing about, have no way to contact, are either long dead or they have near zero concern of the day to day activity of humans today, and they are certainly not "all powerful" or "all knowing." And most definitely do not require worship or temples built in their name.
I very strongly believe, as mountains upon mountains of evidence points to it:
Man created the "god idea," instead of the god created man.
@LogicForTW
So if a god was defined an entity existing prior to the 'Big Bang' and having no chemical composition, which was a/the creator of the universe, would you would no longer hold position (2)?
If it would no longer be position (2) what would your position change to (1) or (3)?
I choose choice number
735275939228989184075
rmfr
Again unfortunately I have to be careful with definitions to convey my concise answer.
en-ti-ty
noun
a thing with distinct and independent existence.
existence; being.
So a "something" that "existed", that had no chemical composition, and that something is the creator of the universe. Sounds to me like the something described in the theory of "singularity", a theory I find to be more likely than other theories of what preceded the big bang. I do not know if that theory is correct or not, nor does anyone else, we can only theorize.
Do I believe in the possibility of singularity, and the known universe popped from that singularity via the big bang? Sure I believe it is possible, I also think it is quite likely that theory in part or whole could have it wrong, what happened before the big bang cannot be observed with current technology and understanding, only theorized about. If you want to call that "singularity" god, then yes, by YOUR odd and unpopular definition of god, (I imagine just about anyone both theist or atheist would disagree with your definition of god!) Yes, you could say by using your definitions I can go to option 3 as I do not "know."
But all you really achieved here is changing commonly held definitions to the point that I say I do not know. If we can veer off into not commonly held shared and agreed upon definitions, you can have someone say anything, if I switch around commonly held definitions enough on you, I could have you say: "I am a strong atheist" and your online name actually means "no one" (instead of someone) and that you have 3 arms.
General communication and discussion breaks down pretty quick when we start swapping around commonly held agreed upon definitions.
@LogicForTW
I would have thought that the singularity would have been a state of the Universe in the 'Big Bang' theory, and that the state of the universe changed from a singularity to not being a singularity. Therefore since with in the definition of god that I provided a god would be a/the creator of the Universe it would not be a state of it. It would be a separate entity. I accept your point that using unusual definitions can cause confusion, but hopefully I have cleared up that I would not consider the Universe in its singularity state to be a distinct existence from the Universe which could be considered its creator. Anyway let me simply adjust the definition of a god again, so as to investigate your position further:
Well what if a god was defined an entity existing prior to the 'Big Bang' and having no chemical composition, which was a/the creator of the universe, experienced, and could solve any mathematical problem that is solvable by any human mathematician, would you would no longer hold position (2)?
@Someone
I can agree with you that singularity is generally described as a possible state of the universe right before the big bang.
I think singularity theory could be a distinctly different state of the universe, as it is described as such sometimes, but it is also is something that preceded the big bang, and did not exist during or after the big bang most likely. All very very theoretical stuff that can go a thousand ways. As I stated before, my position is: I do not know. I do not make any assumptions of what happened before the big bang, some theorizes sound more likely to me than others, but none of them give enough concise information to make any sort of decision on any of them, instead ascribing to "I do not know, and nor does anyone else."
I think I get what you are trying to say, an entity to "be a distinct existence from the Universe" as more as something that existed before the universe, is seperate from the universe, and I think.. I have to guess, an added definition: is still "around," still creating, still involved etc.
Under your definition and the above assumption about what you mean, I still hold position 2.
While I will admit anything is possible, there are something I consider so remote in possibility, it is far better, less confusing, and better way to operate for these extremely remote possibilities, that instead I say: no, not possible. I would put your definition plus my assumption about your definition as: extremly, extremly! unlikely, but definitely more likely possible then your typical organized religion's deity working out the way as described by the religious organization. (Even w/o my assumption of your definition I still stay at position 2 btw.)
No one should try to operate in a way where they attempt to plan, strategize and account for extremely remote possibilities. You would be frozen in indecision. It is possible, but: extremely!!! unlikely that a sole winning billion dollar powerball lottery will float into my hand right now, and to make any sort of plans around that event happening would be beyond foolish.
.
As a possible conversation shortcut: here is what a definition of entity to get would have to be to get me to move from a "2" to position 3.
Some sort of entity capable of organized planned intelligence that existed at one point that played a critical role in the formation of life on this planet/universe. Remember I simply move this to "I don't know, it may be possible it may not be. I put the completely unscientific/un backed odds at 1 in a million, instead of 1 in trillions or much more for the other possibilities. A, will get hit by a bus tomorrow odds, instead of a sole winning billion dollar powerball lottery ticket floating into my hand in the next 3 seconds.
Not all powerful, not all knowing, not concerned with individual human affairs, not human like you and me at all. Add any of those to the definition and it goes back to position 2.
We're not limited to your three choices, as of course you have been told, and defining your deity into existence is no more compelling than defining pixies into existence.
@Someone Re: "The irony being that wasn't presumably what you intended highlight."
So, you choose neither (1), (2), nor (3). Excellent... *big grin*... I am actually pleased with your response. And you were clearly and concisely able to explain your reasoning for your lack of choosing. Very well done. And, amazingly, it is precisely the same way everybody else has been answering and explaining their responses to YOUR question, but you refuse to understand/accept their answers. Therefore, that is exactly the irony I was trying to indicate. Thank you.... *smile*...
"The first difference is that (A) and (B) were belief statements "
At least you have finally admitted it, making up assertion that are belief claims, and insisting atheists must pick one, slightly sad but predictable theistic behaviour.
My atheism does not require any beliefs about deities, only the absence of belief in them.
You also never answered why it is so important to you to try and disingenuously label atheism as a belief? We can guess why you have avoided answering that one though.
Someone's not listening.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
"Please choose (1), (2), or (3)."
No, make me.
I have replied to that in:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
and regarding your claim that it is beyond pointless to me to keep asking which of the positions is your take on atheism, when you keep telling me that none of your positions reflects yours, I had written
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
So I imagine that a few readers would have perhaps wondered given what I have written in those replies, that you repeatedly suggest I keep asking which of positions 1, 2, and 3 is your take on atheism. Is it that when I have repeatedly written "the question is not which of the positions (2) or (3) reflect your understanding of atheism" you think that I mean that the question is which of the positions (2) or (3) reflects your understanding of atheism, or did you realise that I was not asking which of the positions reflected your understanding of atheism?
Also given that you have told me that you do not believe (A) to be true, can you tell me whether you believe (B) to be true? Or is it that you don't mind telling me whether you believe (A) is true, but whether you believe B is true is what you are trying to hide.
I can't tell if he's being deliberately dishonest, or that he really believes this drivel he's posted is compelling. I found his accusation of intellectual cowardice hilarious though, talk about ironic, given he just endlessly repeats his tautologies, and his ridiculously loaded question over and over, but refuses to address all objections other posters offer.
This was like a trip to the argument clinic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&t=88s
Just sum it up this way.
Atheist World View = there are no deities. Period.
Otherwise, the world is what you make of it.
rmfr
All your assertions 1, 2 and 3 are rejected. Your position us unattainable. That has been made perfectly clear to you more times than I wish to go back and count. Ask the same question any way you like and the answer will be the same.
He's also offered no evidence to support his claim for design. Simply asserted it in his argument with risible tautologies like "The evidence for design (In humans) is the evidence that humans experience.
Priceless. If only religious apologists had realised it was that easy. Then all they have to do is assume it's their deity that did it. No evidence and no explanation for that assumption of course, justcdefine your deity into existence. The irony is this requires yet more unevidenced assumptions that the arbitrary and unevidenced attributes used to define "Someone's" deity into existence are both necessary for a designed & created universe, and are possible (begging the question fallacy). Then all someone need do is use special pleading to ringfence this imaginary deity from the very rules and requirements they just claimed limit everything else.
There is no evidence from design, only the assumption of design. There is no fine tuning of the universe until someone can present objective evidence that it's even possible for universes to exist in any other state, or that different universes couldn't produce alternative life forms, or that random chance didn't produce universes until one existed that had the potential for life in one tiny speck of it. A more wasteful inept and capricious deity is hard to imagine even if they could do any of that.
A deity to put it bluntly, with a vicious barbaric and sadistic hard on for suffering and death; and dinosaurs of course.
The mind boggles, and they get all this from bronze age myths about magic apples and talking snakes?
@Sheldon
I assume you are referring to me when you state: He's also offered no evidence to support his claim for design.
I supplied the evidence in the initial post. And explained why it was evidence. You supported the assertion that personal experience could not be a proof of anything, in an attempt to counter the argument that I supplied. For if that assertion was true, then how could my argument be right. But you were then reduced to avoiding answering whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3... . Because if you admit it then you have admitted personal experience can be proof, proof that at least some of reality is experiencing. So you know you are lying when you state that I have provided no evidence. I have provided an argument to which you have provided no counter, and have reduced you to avoiding answering a question in order to avoid admitting you were wrong.
The reason I suspect you are even posting about another thread on this thread is to distract away from you being willing to state whether you believe
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
is true, but not being willing to state whether you believe
B) Reality is one without any deities.
is true. When asked you usually just resort to indicating that you do not believe A is true. As though that suffices for an answer as to whether you believe B is true. The weird thing is that you seem to believe that the readers on this forum aren't capable of noticing, even if it is pointed out to them.
Pages