Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

The lack of belief definition was I believe introduced or at least first flagged up in 1976 by Anthony Flew in his Paper ''the presumption of atheism'' so on that day or the day they discovered it atheists were largely happy to describe themselves as atheists under various traditional definitions which represented actual reasoned positions against God.

Well, presumably Flew noted it in response to its being deployed, so it happened at some point in advance of that. How far in advance isn't necessarily that clear, but perhaps that's indicative that it had only recently started to become popular, or leak into the 'learned circles'.

Wer these other definitions abandoned?

There are probably some people that still espouse them, but as with any other idea as time goes on better and more precise ways of expressing and conveying them are developed. Some people will have realised that the new argument better represented what they felt and thought, some people undoubtedly thought that it represented a better tactical depiction for debates and conversations and deployed it for that reason perhaps slightly divorced from their actual stance. My take, at this point, is that it accurately represents the majority of atheist thinkers - whether that's because it's been around for a while and it's influenced their belief or whether it's just a better depiction of what they always thought I couldn't say.

Did strong atheists CONVERT to Flews redefinition of atheism? That is hardly credible. All it gave them was a device they could now hide behind. Is it possible to lie about disbelieving or Believing that God doesn't exist. Sure it is. Does the definition of atheism  as a lack of belief confer immunity from burden of proof to other iterations, I don't think so.

I think it's more likely that there were agnostic atheists before, but the debates were not that subtle and there wasn't a lot of space being afforded for that distinction.

O.

[Outrider]

How are you defining world view here?

I'm not, I didn't use the phrase.

On a planet or are you using the world in the sense of our planet and the universe?

Either, it's not a detail that's important to the discussion.

Wooooooaaahhh. Are you saying there are ways of viewing the world differently but yours is the correct way?

Can you read? Is English not even your second language?

Doesn't that make the default position ''Your view'' and the onus of proof on ''those who disagree with you?

No.

That still leaves the problem of your view versus my view. I have a view on how the world is and it becomes rapidly evident that our views are different. You may wake up and see your world as a collection of items and see that this God thing I keep talking about seems to be absent.

It's not 'absent', that implies it exists but has gone somewhere else. It's a claim that hasn't been substantiated yet.

That of course cuts no ice with Jack who feels God's presence whenever he wakes up or Jill for whom the whole universe is evidence since as far as she is concerned there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing

What Jack (or anyone else) feels is not necessarily a reliable indicator of what is. I see the universe as evidence for a god, it's just not good evidence when you examine it.

Except we haven't agreed on how the world is.....and yet you've gone ahead and used your world view unjustified as it might be to claim immunity from proof of your conclusion.

I haven't made a conclusion, I've just rejected yours. This is where you keep falling over - a rejection of your failed claim is not a claim of itself, I don't need to posit an alternative, I don't need a 'better' explanation, I just need to show one or more reasons that yours is not persuasive.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That you’ve yet to be convinced isn't relevant – what’s relevant instead is why you’ve yet to be convinced, ie, the part you never address. 

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you even trying to say?

More dishonest avoidance. Why do you claim to address arguments, but then continue your practice of never addressing them at all?

You've claimed that the one true meaning of the word atheist which renders other uses colloquial and not correct is the lack of belief in Gods. Faced with Atheist as meaning without God and not containing the idea of 'belief' there are other legitimate senses of the direct meaning. The notion of belief not contained in the term atheist is thus derived from elsewhere and your one true meaning idea is thus unlikely.

In terms of Lack of belief in God describing house bricks which don't reason puts a question mark over any claim that atheism is a reasoned position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not, I didn't use the phrase.

My mistake, how are you defining ''world''?

What Jack (or anyone else) feels is not necessarily a reliable indicator of what is. I see the universe as evidence for a god, it's just not good evidence when you examine it.

And how are you examining it? Are you looking for empirical evidence as Flew asks us to?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, presumably Flew noted it in response to its being deployed, so it happened at some point in advance of that. How far in advance isn't necessarily that clear, but perhaps that's indicative that it had only recently started to become popular, or leak into the 'learned circles'.

There are probably some people that still espouse them, but as with any other idea as time goes on better and more precise ways of expressing and conveying them are developed.

I think you might be confusing philosophy with science here

Some people will have realised that the new argument better represented what they felt and thought,

You mean they were thinking and feeling that atheism actually has no thought content whatsoever? One wonders how Flew manage to establish atheism as a non position(according to you) and then jockey it into the default position. Isn't the default position meant to be the most REASONABLE prior position to take?

Some people undoubtedly thought that it represented a better tactical depiction for debates

Although one wonders how jam jars being eligable to join the atheist throng represents a better tactical depiction

and conversations and deployed it for that reason perhaps slightly divorced from their actual stance. My take, at this point, is that it accurately represents the majority of atheist thinkers - whether that's because it's been around for a while and it's influenced their belief or whether it's just a better depiction of what they always thought I couldn't say.

Given the problems with getting inside peoples heads we may never know who is telling the truth. Whether they merely lack a belief in God or have committed secretly to another meaning of atheism the only thing is to watch behaviour and response.

Many atheists prior to 1976 are likely to be pushing up the daisies by now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've claimed that the one true meaning of the word…

I haven’t claimed that any words have one “true” meaning. Words are human constructions – they mean what consensually we decide they mean. At the same time, definitions have to be coherent and broadly consistent if they’re to be usable – otherwise language itself becomes impossible. In this case the “a-“ prefix means “not”, “without” etc (from the Greek a-, an- = "not”). That’s why “asexual” means “without sexual attractions”, “amoral” means “without morals” etc. They do not however mean “there’s no such thing as sexual attraction”, "there’s no such thing as morality” etc.

So you can stop lying about that too now.   
   

…which renders other uses colloquial and not correct is the lack of belief in Gods.

There’s are lots of colloquial usages that aren’t “correct”. You cannot for example include koala “bears” in a dissertation on bears even though that term is commonly used. 

Faced with Atheist as meaning without God and not containing the idea of 'belief' there are other legitimate senses of the direct meaning. The notion of belief not contained in the term atheist is thus derived from elsewhere and your one true meaning idea is thus unlikely.

Gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

In terms of Lack of belief in God describing house bricks which don't reason puts a question mark over any claim that atheism is a reasoned position.

Do you ever read anything you’ve eructated before you post it? Suggest you read this again and this ask yourself whether there’s actually a coherent thought in there somewhere that’s struggling to make itself known.

I’ll give you a clue: there isn’t.

So anyway, can you now see the difference between:

A. Your justifying arguments for god/leprechauns have failed to persuade me (and here's why...) so I do not accept the claim even though it could be true; and

B. God/leprechauns don’t exist?

Something?

Anything?

[Outrider]

My mistake, how are you defining ''world''?

Why is that relevant?

And how are you examining it?

I'm not, I'm scene setting.

Are you looking for empirical evidence as Flew asks us to?

I'm not restricting myself to it, but I'll take it under consideration as it's offered.

I think you might be confusing philosophy with science here

Do you? Why on earth would you do that?

You mean they were thinking and feeling that atheism actually has no thought content whatsoever?

No, I mean what I said. They were atheists, but they'd not quite come across the phrasing that felt 'right', so they were looking around and in the meantime adopting the position that was closest to what they felt.

One wonders how Flew manage to establish atheism as a non position(according to you) and then jockey it into the default position.

He didn't, he identified that it was already the default position, it just hadn't been recognised as such. Just as the default non-acceptance of ghosts, or alien invaders, or celestial teapots is not some revelation, the non-acceptance of gods is not a radical position in and of itself, it just would have seemed it against the history at the time.

Isn't the default position meant to be the most REASONABLE prior position to take?

No, the default position is 'justify your claim or it can be rejected'. The default position is 'I don't know', and then you see if there's something you can claim to know.

Although one wonders how jam jars being eligable to join the atheist throng represents a better tactical depiction

Well, if you can find a jam jar that adopts that 'prove it or lose it' position, I'll be happy to give them their badge.

Given the problems with getting inside peoples heads we may never know who is telling the truth.

Why do you presume mendacity when mere confusion or ignorance would probably suffice?

Whether they merely lack a belief in God or have committed secretly to another meaning of atheism the only thing is to watch behaviour and response.

Yes, it's in the handshake and the long history of secret atheist societies...

Many atheists prior to 1976 are likely to be pushing up the daisies by now.

But then they possibly weren't expecting anything else.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I haven’t claimed that any words have one “true” meaning. Words are human constructions – they mean what consensually we decide they mean. At the same time, definitions have to be coherent and broadly consistent if they’re to be usable – otherwise language itself becomes impossible. In this case the “a-“ prefix means “not”, “without” etc (from the Greek a-, an- = "not”). That’s why “asexual” means “without sexual attractions”, “amoral” means “without morals” etc. They do not however mean “there’s no such thing as sexual attraction”, "there’s no such thing as morality” etc.

So you can stop lying about that too now.   
   
There’s are lots of colloquial usages that aren’t “correct”. You cannot for example include koala “bears” in a dissertation on bears even though that term is commonly used. 

Gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

Do you ever read anything you’ve eructated before you post it? Suggest you read this again and this ask yourself whether there’s actually a coherent thought in there somewhere that’s struggling to make itself known.

I’ll give you a clue: there isn’t.

So anyway, can you now see the difference between:

A. Your justifying arguments for god/leprechauns have failed to persuade me (and here's why...) so I do not accept the claim even though it could be true; and

B. God/leprechauns don’t exist?

Something?

Anything?

Since you have got involved in defining atheism Hillside. I strongly advise readers to consult other sources on the definition and etymology of the term atheism
E.g. Wikipedia, encyclopedia Brittanica, WWWSwiveleyedRabidPositiveatheism.com.

[Outrider]

Since you have got involved in defining atheism Hillside. I strongly advise readers to consult other sources on the definition and etymology of the term atheism
E.g. Wikipedia, encyclopedia Brittanica, WWWSwiveleyedRabidPositiveatheism.com.

Why? What's wrong with the definition we're working with?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since you have got involved in defining atheism Hillside. I strongly advise readers to consult other sources on the definition and etymology of the term atheism
E.g. Wikipedia, encyclopedia Brittanica, WWWSwiveleyedRabidPositiveatheism.com.

First, why? The meaning is clear enough for the reasons I’ve explained to you at some length without rebuttal. Should we also look for alternative definitions of “asexual”, “amoral” etc when their standard uses don’t satisfy you too?

Second:

“Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8]“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

How does that help you?

[Stranger]

Since you have got involved in defining atheism Hillside. I strongly advise readers to consult other sources on the definition and etymology of the term atheism
E.g. Wikipedia, encyclopedia Brittanica, WWWSwiveleyedRabidPositiveatheism.com.

It's you who keep on wittering about the meaning of atheism, apparently as another transparent and desperate attempt to distract from total collapse of your other supposed 'arguments'. Everybody else seems to know exactly what they mean by it here, in this context, on this forum.

Why are you finding it so bleedin' 'ard...?

[Gordon]

Vlad

So far as I can see all the atheists posting here have a clear understanding of what the term means and, crucially, what it doesn't mean: and it doesn't mean what your straw-man version implies.

I'm struggling to see how your atheist-bashing approach in any way supports your own theism, though it seems you prefer to avoid that subject at all costs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's you who keep on wittering about the meaning of atheism, apparently as another transparent and desperate attempt to distract from total collapse of your other supposed 'arguments'. Everybody else seems to know exactly what they mean by it here, in this context, on this forum.

Why are you finding it so bleedin' 'ard...?

Essentially you're right I have spent rather too much time on this matter with nothing, but establishing the atheist truth that a brick qualifies as an atheist( I did say ''brick''), to show for it.

[Outrider]

Essentially you're right I have spent rather too much time on this matter with nothing, but establishing the atheist truth that a brick qualifies as an atheist( I did say ''brick''), to show for it.

Can you show me this brick that's explained how it doesn't accept your argument for god, or is this one of those bricks where you've just presumed that it has swivel-eyed anti-theist tendencies?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you show me this brick that's explained how it doesn't accept your argument for god,

O.

Membership of negative atheism is your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you show me this brick that's explained how it doesn't accept your argument for god

I can't even show you a person that's explained how they don't accept my argument for God.

[Gordon]

Membership of negative atheism is your problem.

You do take the biscuit at times, Vlad: in fact, given your evasiveness under pressure, I'd say you're our very own 'Jammy Dodger' (for the avoidance of doubt that isn't intended as a compliment).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can't even show you a person that's explained how they don't accept my argument for God.

From the unending list of whoppers you've told over many years, i wonder if this may be the biggest whopper of all?

You've had explanations for why your justifying arguments for your clam "god" are shit literally thousands of times here and, to my knowledge, not once have you managed or even attempted with any honesty to rebut them. Not once.

Why then even bother lying about this?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

From the unending list of whoppers you've told over many years, i wonder if this may be the biggest whopper of all?

You've had explanations for why your justifying arguments for your clam "god" are shit literally thousands of times here and, to my knowledge, not once have you managed or even attempted with any honesty to rebut them. Not once.

Why then even bother lying about this?

Bluehillside, do you even know what Outrider calls ''my argument for God'' is.
Cite or give your debunking of it here and now. What I find is that you usually fail to at this point.
I on the other hand can give you a list of questionable ideas used by you to try to debunk me.
They can be found on this thread. Add to that the famous occasion when on the same thread you accused me of never giving an argument and that these arguments i'd never given were obviously wrong......happy days

So go on Hillside give it your best shot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bluehillside, do you even know what Outrider calls ''my argument for God'' is.

Yes. There are several of them. They’re all shit. They’re all shit for the reasons I and others have explained to you countless times, and that you cannot or will not rebut.

Cite or give your debunking of it here and now. What I find is that you usually fail to at this point.

1. Stop lying.

2. Your “necessary god” for example relies on “it’s magic innit” to get you off the hook of the same “don’t know” answers about the universe.

That makes it a shit argument.

QED

I on the other hand can give you a list of questionable ideas used by you to try to debunk me.

No you can’t. If you could, you’d have done it by now rather than endlessly straw manned, diverted or just run away.

By all means though give it a go for your first time ever here.

They can be found on this thread.

No they can’t. Stop lying.

Add to that the famous occasion when on the same thread you accused me of never giving an argument and that these arguments i'd never given were obviously wrong......happy days

Except what you're actually accused of (rightly) is never having sound arguments. You have plenty of shit ones instead, but no-one disputes that.

So go on Hillside give it your best shot.

You seem to have forgotten that it’s your job finally to come up with a justifying argument for your fact claim “god” that isn’t shit, for the reasons that keep being explained to you.

Good luck with it.

[Maeght]

Would that evidence be empirical evidence?

Not necessarily. I could be convinced by other experiences but wouldn't expect anyone else to be convinced by my experiences.

[Maeght]

And I am unconvinced by most of those argumentsI address objections here all the time.

That's fine by me.

What people call a demand I address there point is often really a demand that I agree with their position. In other words, they are answered, but they don't like the answer.

I do know what you mean. I tend to try to point out why the arguments of theists aren't convincing to me. I think it is quite reasonable when it comes to scientific evidence that if theists say that they have scientific evidence that that be challenged. If someone has a personal experience which they interpret as being supernatural then it is fair enough, on a forum such as this, to question why that person interprets it in that way. If someone believes something and comes onto a forum to discuss or defend that belief it is reasonable to question that belief and to question the answers given. In another environment maybe  that is less reasonable, it depends.

The discussions on here do get a bit confrontational at times but that comes with the territory,

[Stranger]

Bluehillside, do you even know what Outrider calls ''my argument for God'' is.
Cite or give your debunking of it here and now. What I find is that you usually fail to at this point.
I on the other hand can give you a list of questionable ideas used by you to try to debunk me.
They can be found on this thread. Add to that the famous occasion when on the same thread you accused me of never giving an argument and that these arguments i'd never given were obviously wrong......happy days

So go on Hillside give it your best shot.

Can't help thinking of this: Monty Python - The Black Knight - Tis But A Scratch.

[No Vlad, you're not Arthur.]

[Outrider]

Membership of negative atheism is your problem.

If it's my problem, how come you're the one that seems to be complaining about it?

I can't even show you a person that's explained how they don't accept my argument for God.

Well I can't teach you to read for comprehension, but the last few I remember have been variants on pointing out the special pleading that's inherent in your rehash of the cosmological arguments and your complete inability to make a coherent arrangement of whatever it is you think makes contingency important.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it's my problem, how come you're the one that seems to be complaining about it?

Well I can't teach you to read for comprehension, but the last few I remember have been variants on pointing out the special pleading that's inherent in your rehash of the cosmological arguments and your complete inability to make a coherent arrangement of whatever it is you think makes contingency important.

O.

OK so your not sure how they did it but some mention of special pleading sold it for you.
The argument from contingency starts with contingent things and ends with God. And having reached that point ends there. God is the necessary entity whatever the necessary entity turns out to be.

The special pleading objection comes from the insistence that everything must be contingent.....which is a logical absurdity.

On another matter You made the distinction between the atheism I.e.lack of belief of a stone and a person.
This rather suggested IMHO that in rejecting theist argument you were in fact reasoning your way than atheist argument which sounded to me like strong atheism