Essentially what you are saying is we can fiddle around with the definition of “god” long enough to eventually arrive at a point where we cannot reasonably deny it exists? Well - I guess you could do that with any term. I’d like to point out though that any term or designation that is not sufficiently well-defined to even allow for a reasonable debate over it’s object’s existence would be entirely meaningless.
Au contraire. I am pointing out the distinction! You were the one to bring deism into the debate. I just noted that so far you have not made it clear how it is relevant to a debate that is about theism/atheism.
I do not think it is immaterial either and I am by no means ignoring it. Theism is about god, not religion. The distinction is vital, because not every religion requires a god. Thus you can be a religious atheist.
My point exactly. We cannot entirely rule out the idea that the existence of Antarctica is all a big hoax but there is no shred of evidence that points in that direction. So we do not take that idea for a fact.
With gods it’s the same thing. I cannot entirely rule out their existence but I see no compelling evidence for it whatsoever and thus I do not take it for a fact. Why would I?
There’s a rabbithole that may not be worth jumping down, but here it is anyway:
I require evidence before I draw a conclusion (or at least that’s how I think of myself; let’s stipulate that it’s true).
Question: how did I decide that was the best way of reaching a conclusion?
If I cite evidence that this is a productive way of drawing conclusions, I’m begging the question: I’m citing evidence to support my conclusion that I should cite evidence to support a conclusion.
If I don’t cite evidence that this is the best way to reach a conclusion, am I suggesting that I adopted this epistemology without evidence–in other words, that I’ve adopted it on faith?
I know I’ve been throwing “epistemology” around like it’s on my word-of-the-day calendar, and I apologize for that; but I think it’s a useful word, inasmuch as it allows us to examine this question without resorting to describing materialism as a religion.
No need to snarl yourself into a pretzel about it.
It’s a simple observation based upon the linguistic rules I quoted.
If you dispute it, your dispute is with American Heritage.
I welcome your opinion.
But you can no more define MY concept of god than I can define yours.
I live in a tower in the forest out of spiritual conviction. I have reverence for the Nature at work here.
You define god (or not) your way.
I’ll define god my way. There may be nearly as many definitions of “god” as there are adult humans living on Earth.
adding:
Right!
And therefore you may logically deduce that either I’m a fool, or I have a reason for doing so that you have not identified.
It’s prophylaxis.
It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
And in any case, “THEY” do not diminish MY appreciation for the miracles of creation.
I’d never seen a hummingbird moth until I started seeing them on my own land.
LHOD, I like your line of approach to this question! ETA: post #142
May I humbly suggest (as a person who does not identify as “atheist”) that a relevant factor here is whether or not one concludes without finality — that is, the question may be reopened at any point if new evidence appears — as opposed to holding the attitude that the question has been dealt with and the truth in this matter is known?
This “disbelief in Antarctica” comparison is rather insulting. I’ve already said I would examine any verifiable evidence for any “god” someone proposes…it’s just that no evidence for any “god” has been brought forward. Compare this to any ridiculous “disbelief” in Antarctica:
There are eyewitness accounts that support each other in specific details.
There are photographs.
There are movies.
For the right amount of money you can even visit it personally, then come back and show off your own photographs and/or movies.
Some people seem to get annoyed when I compare a disbelief in gods to a disbelief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, my reasoning being that there are equal amounts of evidence for the existence of each, but this comparison of the existence of gods to the existence of Antarctica is much more insulting to our intelligence.
There are literally billions of people who talk about God as though God exists. Why do you think they’re doing that? What helped you reach that conclusion?
There are literally billions of people who talk about Antarctica as though Antarctica exists. Why do you think they’re doing that? What helped you reach that conclusion?
As an atheist, I find the comparison illuminating: I’ve drawn very different conclusions, based on very different evidence sets.
Well…sure. I’m not holding my breath for new evidence.
We also run into a problem with new evidence: the claim is so big, literally the largest claim a person can make about the cosmos, that it’s hard to think of evidence that wouldn’t support a humbler conclusion. If I suddenly look up in the sky to see stars spelling out, “DUDE, I AM GOD SENDING YOU A MESSAGE,” which is likelier: that I’m hallucinating, or that God has decided now of all times to reveal its presence? If everyone on earth suddenly grows octopus tentacles, which is likelier: Nyarolathotep the Crawling Chaos is pranking us, or the simulation we live in is glitching?
This seems like a dilemma, of course, but happily the claim provides a way out of the dilemma: if there truly is an omniscient and omnipotent God who wants to persuade me it exists, it knows how to do so and can do so.
You have poisoned the well by asking what defines a true atheist, rather than simply asking what is an atheist.
The USA is remarkable for the fervency of Christianity throughout it, in which one true believer sect calls out another true believer sect for not being true believers, and within sects, one true believer calls out another true believer for not being a true believer, and true believers are born again and again as they repeatedly affirm how truly they truly believe. It is absurd, but it is what it is, and it is a bigly-yuge part of why the USA has become what it is.
Your question is not applicable to atheists, for it implies that there is internecine dispute between atheists the way there is between Christian-American true believers, when in fact atheism is a big tent concept in which no one other than an occasional nutter gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut over the slight overlap between atheism and agnosticism concerning the evidentiary burden.
People who do not believe in gods (or if you want to get pedantic about it, people who who do not affirm the proposition “at least one god exists”) – let’s call those people atheists – simply are not interested in trying to fit their lack of belief in gods into the Christian-American “I’m truly truer that you” mind-set.
Saint Aquinas’ privation v. negation? Priest Donne’s no thing v. nothing? Evangelical’s fussing over hypocrisy v. true belief? Your “what defines a True Atheist?” Meh.
So how about going back and asking a clean question, rather than a loaded one.
No assumption at all–indeed, part of my skepticism stems from the vast differences in the entity they’re talking about. Compare that to conversations about Antarctica, which by and large are describing the same thing every time.
Knowledge and belief are intertwined, but one does not necessarily lead to another.
For example, I am strongly Agnostic in that I believe it is literally impossible for anyone to “know” about an absolute omniscient god, in the sense of scientific, philosophical, or evidence-based proof, as it raises too many contradictions about free will and so forth, and whatever “proof” is presented, one could always ask if there’s a higher truth beyond that one.
On the other hand, I will confess that a Deist belief of continuance of some kind after death helps me sleep at night.
Fair enough! As I say, I think it’s very reasonable to draw different conclusions about the existence of God and the existence of Antarctica, even though billions of people believe in both, because the evidence for each (indeed, the very definition of each) has such massive differences. If someone asks why I believe in one but not the other, even though I’ve never directly encountered either, I’m totally ready to explain my reasoning.
