Does anyone follow the "Way"? ☯

[Paleophyte]

In related news I found out just how weird some of the Scandinavian troll beliefs are. And some of the crazy shit that the Icelandic think happens around Christmas. Superstition is fascinating.

[Free]

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Ummm ... the dictionary definitions are exactly the same as my own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

On the Dawkins Scale, I am a 7. I can make the positive claim that no supernatural deities exist and justify it due to the Evidence of Absence argument. Before anyone is even required to prove the existence of their supernatural deity, they must firstly prove the existence of the supernatural. If they can't do that, their deity cannot be proven to exist.

The state of the deity is supernatural. Therefore, if anyone says they believe in the supernatural, but then says, "God does does not exist," is not a true atheist, and their claim is nonsensical because if they believe in the supernatural, they cannot eliminate the possibility of a supernatural deity existing.

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

What if someone is an atheist not because they're rational, but for some other doctrinal reason?

Our natural state is atheistic, as that is the way we are all born. But the moment you start believing in the supernatural, you cannot be a pure atheist as you must accept the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist.



Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

Dawkins is outside his area of expertise here -- which often gets him into trouble. I've never bought into his scale because it perpetuates the wrong-headed notion that there's some kind of gradual continuum between theism and atheism with agnosticism as a sort of conceptual midpoint.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge claims (there's no way to KNOW there's a god) and atheism addresses belief claims (I don't BELIEVE there's a god). They vary independently of each other and influence each other but do not belong on the same scale together.

For there to be an answer, a direct question must be asked:

Does God exist?

There are only two options that directly answer that question;

1. Yes, and that makes you a theist.

2. No, and that makes you an atheist.

Any other reply denotes agnosticism.

A deity is described as a supernatural sentient entity. Atheists reject that in its entirety. If a deity could exist, but wasn't supernatural, it would be natural. How then could you reject the possibility of its existence? You can't, because the possibility exists. As long as there's a possibility, it cannot be dismissed, only doubted.

But we reject a supernatural deity because there is no evidence of the supernatural, let alone the deity.

We reject the whole ball of nonsense because of the supernatural aspect.

We reject even the possibility of the existence of the supernatural.

On the other hand, if you say you don't believe in God, you are not affirming the non-existence of God, but only that you doubt the existence. That makes you an agnostic. And if you claim even the possibility that the supernatural exists, it only follows that the possibility of a supernatural deity could also exist. You can't rule out the existence God, and again, that makes you an agnostic.

I suspect that most people here are agnostics leaning towards atheism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question is loaded. We're talking about belief, not knowledge.

[Free]

The question is loaded. We're talking about belief, not knowledge.

How am I expressing a belief if I say God does not exist?

In the same way that we can know there are no chairs in an empty room, we can know there is no God.

It's empirical, not philosophical.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question is loaded. We're talking about belief, not knowledge.

How am I expressing a belief if I say God does not exist?

In the same way that we can know there are no chairs in an empty room, we can say there is no God.

It empirical, not philosophical.

Disprove my Uncle Danny.

[Free]

The question is loaded. We're talking about belief, not knowledge.

How am I expressing a belief if I say God does not exist?

In the same way that we can know there are no chairs in an empty room, we can say there is no God.

It empirical, not philosophical.

Disprove my Uncle Danny.

Apples and oranges? Seriously?

The natural vrs the supernatural?

We have evidence to suggest the possibility that you could have an uncle Danny, since humans exist in the natural world. As long as the possibility exists, we cannot disprove his existence until we have empirical evidence.

In regards to a supernatural, the negation is observational just like in the natural world we can observe that there are no chairs in an empty room. No one looks into an empty room and says, "I believe there are no chairs here."

You know there's none.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How am I expressing a belief if I say God does not exist?

In the same way that we can know there are no chairs in an empty room, we can say there is no God.

It empirical, not philosophical.

Disprove my Uncle Danny.

Apples and oranges? Seriously?

The natural vrs the supernatural?

We have evidence to suggest the possibility that you could have an uncle Danny, since humans exist in the natural world. As long as the possibility exists, we cannot disprove his existence until we have empirical evidence.

In regards to a supernatural, the negation is observational just like in the natural world we can observe that there are no chairs in an empty room.

As noted above, you've yet to lay out any quantifiable standard for how many non-observations it takes to disprove something. What's your yardstick?

[Free]

Disprove my Uncle Danny.

Apples and oranges? Seriously?

The natural vrs the supernatural?

We have evidence to suggest the possibility that you could have an uncle Danny, since humans exist in the natural world. As long as the possibility exists, we cannot disprove his existence until we have empirical evidence.

In regards to a supernatural, the negation is observational just like in the natural world we can observe that there are no chairs in an empty room.

As noted above, you've yet to lay out any quantifiable standard for how many non-observations it takes to disprove something. What's your yardstick?

Go into an empty room 100 times, and if all 100 times you see no chairs in the room, should you merely believe there are no chairs in the room?

Or should you know there are no chairs in the room?

Once is sufficient for doubt, but numerous times is sufficient for affirmation of the negative.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So 100 observations with null results is sufficient to confirm a negative in your mind?

[Cavebear]

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

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

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

There's nothing wrong with exploring the numerous reasons as to why we are atheistic.

What if someone is an atheist not because they're rational, but for some other doctrinal reason?

I HAVE known atheists who were otherwise complete idiots. It isn't mutually exclusive. I think it is rare, but it does happen.

[SYZ]

...There is an abundance of evidence for atheists who do believe in some form of the supernatural.

I'd be interested to see some citations supporting this notion, and why exactly they
do  believe in the supernatural.    At any rate, they're seriously misinformed.

So-called "supernatural" phenomena simply do not exist.   End of story.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...There is an abundance of evidence for atheists who do believe in some form of the supernatural.

I'd be interested to see some citations supporting this notion, and why exactly they
do  believe in the supernatural.    At any rate, they're seriously misinformed.

As you can see in the above graph, up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers.

Agnostics were more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than atheists across the board. Notice how the graphs have similar patterns but with different point values.

[...]

The data suggests this is the case. Despite their claims to the contrary, non-believers — many, at least — are not any more rational or scientific than the rest of the population, and can easily fall for the same logical fallacies everybody else does. Given this, it makes sense that somebody who is sure there is no invisible man in the sky is still somewhat convinced by the idea of Karma; anybody can use the post hoc fallacy.

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/at...belltitem6

The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view.) At the same time, roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. None of the atheists we surveyed, however, say they believe in “God as described in the Bible.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-atheists/

So-called "supernatural" phenomena simply do not exist.   End of story.

Speaking for myself, I'm not arguing the existence of supernatural phenomena. I'm arguing that there are atheists who believe that stuff is real. It's a very different point.

[mordant]

Does God exist?


There are only two options that directly answer that question;

1. Yes, and that makes you a theist.

2. No, and that makes you an atheist.

Any other reply denotes agnosticism.

Huxley is turning in his grave. But like I said, I no longer have an interest in explaining his take on agnosticism to people who have their own take and want to call it the same thing. I already said agnosticism isn't on a scale between theism and atheism any more than baking soda is on a scale between bread and toast. You are just stating that it is. Vive la difference, I guess. Whatevs.

The question, by the way, is "Do any gods exist".

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question, by the way, is "Do any gods exist".

That is far too non-binary for serious consideration, sir!

[Phaedrus]

I would like to follow the way of people no longer responding to this thread.

[Free]

Does God exist?


There are only two options that directly answer that question;

1. Yes, and that makes you a theist.

2. No, and that makes you an atheist.

Any other reply denotes agnosticism.

Huxley is turning in his grave. But like I said, I no longer have an interest in explaining his take on agnosticism to people who have their own take and want to call it the same thing. I already said agnosticism isn't on a scale between theism and atheism any more than baking soda is on a scale between bread and toast. You are just stating that it is. Vive la difference, I guess. Whatevs.

The question, by the way, is "Do any gods exist".

In regards to the context of this discussion, and the question asked, agnosticism stands on its own since it cannot offer a direct answer to the question asked. It is not in between theism and atheism.

But what I said is true. If you cannot answer directly with a yes or no, the only alternative is "unknown."

[Free]

So 100 observations with null results is sufficient to confirm a negative in your mind?

Easily, yes. 

And what's more, the negative result has been consistent over thousands of years, demonstrating that not even the progress of science had been capable of squaring that circle. Like squaring the circle, you simply accept that it cannot be done. It's like acknowledging that the counting of numbers can continue infinitely and eternally and no matter how hard you try or how long you go, you'll never find the last number.

So you accept it because not accepting it is irrational.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay.