(March 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: A deist is not a theist.
A deist does believe in God

Therefore one who is an atheist can believe in God, and still be an atheist.

A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism. It's just a specific subcategory of theism.

(March 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Frankly, I preferred when the term "atheist" was more specific, and had more meaning.

I don't care what you prefer.

(March 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: A deist is not a theist.
A deist does believe in God

Therefore one who is an atheist can believe in God, and still be an atheist.

A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism. It's just a specific subcategory of theism.

While related, the two words are not synonymous, and do have a distinction between them (theist and deist).

Anthony Flew came to believe in deism before his death, but still rejected theism.

Now there is a second and more vague definition, which describes theist as simply one who believes in God or gods.   In some dictionary's they contrast this to atheism

However many of those same dictionaries also contrast atheism and agnosticism.  Saying that atheist are ones who deny the existence of God or gods.  While an agnostic is a position of not knowing or skepticism (or cannot know).

Now I prefer the narrower definitions and distinctions, as they convey more information in a efficient fashion without the ambiguity (less chance of confusion).  But then again, I don't jump up and down just because someone uses another valid shade of meaning of the word.   I think a simple correction on what was meant is sufficient.

(March 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 4:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I do believe many atheist have had experiences with the numinous. So we agree on that. The next step is to interpret that experience. Being an atheist necessarily entails other beliefs needed to exclude one particular interpretation of the evidence. You need reasons to prefer the set of explanations that exclude the divine.

Yes.

It's called "understanding the null hypothesis".

That depends on what the null hypothesis actually is? The idea behind a 'null hypothesis' is that proving one explanation requires disproving the current explanation. You are proposing without justification that God's absence should be the preferred explanation that must be disproved.

Anyways, let's see how that applies to an alternative proposition. I think it would very disingenuous for nearly any atheist to say he or she disagrees with the claim "The world is all that exists" which is functionally equivalent to lack of belief in God.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism. It's just a specific subcategory of theism.

While related, the two words are not synonymous, and do have a distinction between them (theist and deist).

Anthony Flew came to believe in deism before his death, but still rejected theism.

Now there is a second and more vague definition, which describes theist as simply one who believes in God or gods.   In some dictionary's they contrast this to atheism

However many of those same dictionaries also contrast atheism and agnosticism.  Saying that atheist are ones who deny the existence of God or gods.  While an agnostic is a position of not knowing or skepticism (or cannot know).

Now I prefer the narrower definitions and distinctions, as they convey more information in a efficient fashion without the ambiguity (less chance of confusion).  But then again, I don't jump up and down just because someone uses another valid shade of meaning of the word.   I think a simple correction on what was meant is sufficient.

And historically deists were called atheists by Christians. I don't care what people have done in history. I prefer to break down the words.

Theism = theo + -ism.

Theo = god
-ism = philosophy/belief

Deists believe in at least one god in some form, so they fit the word theism. They just don't believe in your god.

Deism is not the point here, though. The point is the meaning of atheism. Atheists are simply people who do not believe in a god or gods. Why are you complicating this?

(March 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism.

Not really, for the same reason that pantheism isn't a subcategory of theism.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism.

Not really, for the same reason that pantheism isn't a subcategory of theism.

Wrong. Pantheists assert a god in some form. It's just not the personal god that Christians prefer. I will admit that pantheism is fucking stupid, though, if you'd like.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:18 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 6:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: While related, the two words are not synonymous, and do have a distinction between them (theist and deist).

Anthony Flew came to believe in deism before his death, but still rejected theism.

Now there is a second and more vague definition, which describes theist as simply one who believes in God or gods.   In some dictionary's they contrast this to atheism

However many of those same dictionaries also contrast atheism and agnosticism.  Saying that atheist are ones who deny the existence of God or gods.  While an agnostic is a position of not knowing or skepticism (or cannot know).

Now I prefer the narrower definitions and distinctions, as they convey more information in a efficient fashion without the ambiguity (less chance of confusion).  But then again, I don't jump up and down just because someone uses another valid shade of meaning of the word.   I think a simple correction on what was meant is sufficient.

And historically deists were called atheists by Christians. I don't care what people have done in history. I prefer to break down the words.

Theism = theo + -ism.

Theo = god
-ism = philosophy/belief

Deists believe in at least one god in some form, so they fit the word theism. They just don't believe in your god.

Deism is not the point here, though. The point is the meaning of atheism. Atheists are simply people who do not believe in a god or gods. Why are you complicating this?

I
Ok... but that method does not always work.  Also words can vary in meaning, or can have multiple meanings. Like those being discussed.   I can only imagine what you think a butterfly is!

And I just think it is funny, when people act like the other sense of the word, does not exist; and jump all over people for it.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I
Ok... but that method does not always work.  Also words can vary in meaning, or can have multiple meanings. Like those being discussed.   I can only imagine what you think a butterfly is!

And I just think it is funny, when people act like the other sense of the word, does not exist; and jump all over people for it.

Yes, people can and do use many varieties of meanings for words. That's why I am laying down my definitions. It's not my problem if you reject every one of them. That just means that you don't want to have a real conversation about what atheists do or do not believe.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: Yes.

It's called "understanding the null hypothesis".

That depends on what the null hypothesis actually is?

Quite right.

The null hypothesis is that gods do not exist.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The idea behind a 'null hypothesis' is that proving one explanation requires disproving the current explanation. You are proposing without justification that God's absence should be the preferred explanation that must be disproved.

No. I am stating, with perfectly adequate justification, that God's absence is the null hypothesis.

And it is. Because it is the position that posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities that is not already in evidence. It has met its burden of proof, and is the null hypothesis.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Anyways, let's see how that applies to an alternative proposition. I think it would very disingenuous for nearly any atheist to say he or she disagrees with the claim "The world is all that exists" which is functionally equivalent to lack of belief in God.

I don't see why, though your phrasing is fairly poor, so I'm not certain that your point is coming across as you intended it to.

---

(March 8, 2017 at 6:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: A deist is a theist, though. They fit the definition of theism.

Not really, for the same reason that pantheism isn't a subcategory of theism.

So... it is, then.

Because pantheism is very much a subcategory of theism.

(March 8, 2017 at 6:34 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 6:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I
Ok... but that method does not always work.  Also words can vary in meaning, or can have multiple meanings. Like those being discussed.   I can only imagine what you think a butterfly is!

And I just think it is funny, when people act like the other sense of the word, does not exist; and jump all over people for it.

Yes, people can and do use many varieties of meanings for words. That's why I am laying down my definitions. It's not my problem if you reject every one of them. That just means that you don't want to have a real conversation about what atheists do or do not believe.

Most atheists consider not believing in gods all that is necessary to be defined as an atheist. If you believe that is somehow insufficient to define one as an atheist, that is up to you to discuss it with that particular atheist why your definition is better.

What is important though, is not definitions, but concepts.

I do not currently believe that any of the gods ever presented to me, exist. If you don't want to call me an atheist, that is fine. I don't really care. But that does not alter the concept that I don't currently believe any gods exist.