Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[JWeinCom]

 

 

Pemalite said:

JWeinCom said:

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

I'm aware that the things I'm saying are absurd, and that's the point.  They are the logical conclusion to the position you're holding.  If the only qualification, is lacking a belief, a sandwich would qualify.  If you object on the grounds that a sandwich is inanimate, then a cactus would still qualify.  

So, now you're adding cognitive capability.  But, an ant definitely has some kind of cognitive capability.  So, unless you believe that ants are atheists, then your definition is still not specific enough.  How much cognitive capability is required?  Where are we drawing the line?

No. A sandwich wouldn't qualify as it is an inanimate object.
Hence your argument is absurd... You are using conflationary tactics.

And if you think you are going to try and run some weird-ass circular logic, then you are highly mistaken... At this point you haven't offered a compelling argument.
It is also not my definition.

A-Theism. Absent-Theism. Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that... Thus a new-born baby would fall into that category as per my original argument, it's only later in life that it is indoctrinated into various religions/cults/beliefs.

If you disagree with that, then fine, but this never ending back-and-forth is going nowhere and has gotten rather droll.

OhNoYouDont said:


I almost feel bad for theists these days. It's tough being so obviously wrong, yet having to stalwartly defend your position to save your own sense of identity.

I feel even worst for Flat Earthers... Seen many that tend to leverage the Bible to justify their absurd position.

It's strange that I'm asking you very clear and straightforward questions to clarify your position, and you refuse to answer.  Which may be the reason why this is going nowhere.  And, reductio ad absurdum is a well regarded form of argumentation.  Essentially designed to attack positions that are overly broad or ill defined... like this one.

I thought my argument was quite clear, but if not, I'll restate it.

You've said that you believe pigs qualify as atheists.  However you presented a definition that would exclude them.

So, what are your qualifiers for what should or should not be considered an atheist?

For my part I would say an atheist has to...

1.  Be a person.

2.  Have the capability to hold a position regarding the proposition "a god or gods exist".

3.  Hold the position of atheism (holds the position that the proposition has not been shown to be true).

This is a clean cut criteria that includes everything I think we are really talking about when we talk about atheists, and excludes everything that we do not.

So, can you create a criteria that would include pigs and babies, while excluding ants?  And if so, why should we use a definition of atheist that includes pigs, when we are really never considering pigs when we discuss atheists?

Peh said:

JWeinCom said:

I'm not quite sure what point you're making.  If I wanted to make a label for "everyone who doesn't play games" (let's say non-gamer), then that would have to exclude cactii.  Because a cactus isn't part of the set of everyone.  

And if we wanted to create that label non-gamer (which would be different from not a gamer) wouldn't it make sense to define the label in such a way that it would only apply to those with the capability to play games?  Would it be useful or sensible to apply that sort of label to a cactus or a cloud? (although pigs actually can play videogames.) Probably not.  So it would be better to define it a way that would limit it to those with the potential to play video games.  Similarly, I think atheist should be defined in a way which would only apply to those with the capacity for belief.

Atheist is not a label for describing a certain theological position.  That's atheism.  Atheist is a person who holds that position.  If we define it like that (which I would say is probably a good definition), it would exclude cacti, pigs, and babies, as none of them could be demonstrated to hold any position.  

I personally don't wanna even take part in this conversation, because it's simple semantics. 

In the end it comes down to this:

Do you believe in any Deity? 

No -> Atheist

Yes -> Theist

I don't care -> Atheist (More accurate label is Apatheist)

Who? -> Atheist 

Atheist definition: 

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist  

Does a Baby believes in a specific God? Or any God? Does it know the concept of a God? 

No. If you never teach this child the concept what a God is it will never believe in one nor it will be aware of one. It will lack the believe in the existence of any deity. By default, no one actively believes in any deity regardless of where they are born or in what kind of family they are born into. 

The example with the cactus was kind of meh. But if it comes down to it, a cactus can't play video games. So can I call it a non-gamer? 

That depends on how we agree to define non-gamer.

We can definitely define the term non-gamer in such a way that would include cactus.  However, the question I'm posing is does it make sense to use such a definition?

If we are using the term non-gamer, what are we really trying to convey?  I'd imagine we are always trying to convey the idea of a person who does not play video video games.  If this is what we mean when we say non-gamer, we should construct the definition in such a way that it includes people who don't play video games, and only includes that group.  A definition that could apply to cacti would be too broad, and would include things in the category of non-gamer that we really don't mean to include

Let me put it this way.  Me and you want to perform an academic study on atheists in the United States.  In an academic paper we would have to define atheist in such a way that it would apply to every member of our population (everything that we want to consider an atheist in the US) and would not apply to anything outside of that population.

Would you want the 70 million or so pigs in the US to be counted as part of the population for our study?  I would say no.  So, we would need to define the term in such a way to exclude them.

Do we really want babies counted as part of our atheist population?  That's more of a gray area, but I'd probably say no.

To sum it up, I'm trying to get at what we REALLY want to talk about when we use the term atheist.  We should use a definition that clearly defines what we are really talking about.  And when we use the term atheist I'm 100% sure we never really want to talk about pigs.  And I'm pretty sure we almost never really want to talk about babies either.  So we need a definition that recognizes that distinction.