(July 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 28, 2012 at 1:09 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

If you believe in ghosts but not gods- still an atheist

If you believe in the power of Voodoo but not the Loas or Orishas - still an atheist

An atheist might believe in horoscopes, they might be honing their telekinetic abilities as a hobby. Some may have arrived at atheism from some evidence they found compelling, others because they never found any evidence they found compelling. Some couldn't care less about evidence either way, they simply don't believe. It's a big tent.

Christians are not atheists because they believe in god, they are not Muslims because they do not have faith in Islam. Similarly Muslims are not atheists because they believe in god, they are not Christians because they do not have faith in Christ. So no, they are not atheists by that definition - or any definition, though we can call them that if we want (because we can call anyone anything we like).

Actually I'm not sure there is a word for people who believe in ghosts and psychic stuff. The closest word I found was "spiritualist" but its not ideal.
spir·i·tu·al·ism (spr-ch--lzm)
n.
1.
a. The belief that the dead communicate with the living, as through a medium.
b. The practices or doctrines of those holding such a belief.
2. A philosophy, doctrine, or religion emphasizing the spiritual aspect of being.
spiri·tu·al·ist n.
spiri·tu·al·istic adj

My point is that you are classed with the beliefs you do hold before the beliefs you don't. Thats why Christians are called Christians rather than Atheists. The beliefs they do hold are taken into account before the beliefs they don't. This is applicable to any belief system. I hold no beliefs therefore I am defined by my lack of belief, I am labelled an Atheist.

I didn't realize that there was a Priority of Personal Classifications Symposium that had decided thusly on the matter. Spiritualists can be atheists. Psychics can be atheists, etc. I'm not trying to nitpick, just saving you from potential dissappointment should you ever meet an atheist who -despite being an atheist- just cannot fathom your reasons for doubting the power of the Tarot.

Everybody likes slogans. So here's one, for determining whether or not one gets to dine in the private atheist clubhouse - No god? No problem.

(July 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

Quote:Without meaning to come across as insulting;
If I conclude Aliens have psychic powers thats a position on Aliens. If I conclude Aliens don't have psychic powers then thats still a position on Aliens. If I conclude Aliens don't exist then the most you could squeeze out of it is thats a position on reality in that I don't think Aliens are actually part of it.
I conclude through lack of any evidence God exists that he does not exist. This is a position on evidence, it is a position on reality, on fiction. It may even be a position on life. How can it be a position on religion? I don't acknowledge it as a reasoned or backed thing to have a position on. I can no more have a position on that than on the belief of someone elses imaginary friend who I have concluded I have no reason to believe exists. The point of whether his cardigan is red or yellow would be moot, I don't think theres a cardigan there or even a persons body for it to rest upon.

My position cannot be religious, I fundamentally reject the premises on which religions operate.

All of this is tautological, given what you're assuming is the definition of a 'religious position'.

If someone asks, "What is your position on God's existence," would you consider "I'm an atheist" to be unresponsive? If it is responsive, then "I'm an atheist" is a "position on God's existence". Now, it seems reasonable to me that someone might consider "I'm an atheist" to be responsive. It also seems reasonable to me that someone would consider it unresponsive, since "I'm an atheist" is essentially equivalent to "I don't have one".

It's all just arbitrary based on what you're accepting as a "position". Like, imagine I ask the number of apples you're holding. You might say, "I'm not holding any number of apples"; or, you might say, "I'm holding zero apples." Which response is appropriate depends on what you accept as "holding k apples".

If I don't even accept the existence of God then that is a position on reality just as if I did not accept the existence of the easter bunny. If accepted the existence of God that would still be a position on reality.

However, if you make a claim on what God wants, how we should live our lives by that belief and how we should define our morality by the Bible. *That* is a religious position, it is also a position on life and morality.
Putting aside I would find this position on life and morality ridiculous for obvious reasons I would not be able to make a claim on what God wants. I don't accept God exists, I am unable to take a religious position. If you make a claim on what God wants I can only reiterate my position on reality in that God is not part of it.

---

(July 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I didn't realize that there was a Priority of Personal Classifications Symposium that had decided thusly on the matter. Spiritualists can be atheists. Psychics can be atheists, etc. I'm not trying to nitpick, just saving you from potential dissappointment should you ever meet an atheist who -despite being an atheist- just cannot fathom your reasons for doubting the power of the Tarot.

Everybody likes slogans. So here's one, for determining whether or not one gets to dine in the private atheist clubhouse - No god? No problem.

Yes yes yes. And Christians can be atheists, Muslims can be atheists, Jews can be atheists but they are not called atheists because of the beliefs they *do* hold as opposed to the ones they *don't*.
I would call someone who believes in tarot cards, psychics and ghosts a spiritualist like I would Sir Conan Doyle.

(July 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 7:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I've painstakingly and very clearly pointed out the serious flaws you've made and you've basically repeated them.

I can do no more.

No you didn't, you quoted various posts and said they contradicted with no elaboration as to why they do.
Seriously, what do you think you are gaining from stalling exactly? Because its not credibility.

I precisely laid out my reasoning and you haven't addressed it at all. You quote two comparable statements as evidence of two contradictory statements. Your position is clear as I've demonstrated. The ball is in your court to either retract or deny. You seem to be unable to understand. You have my sympathies.

(July 30, 2012 at 1:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: No you didn't, you quoted various posts and said they contradicted with no elaboration as to why they do.
Seriously, what do you think you are gaining from stalling exactly? Because its not credibility.

I precisely laid out my reasoning and you haven't addressed it at all. You quote two comparable statements as evidence of two contradictory statements. Your position is clear as I've demonstrated. The ball is in your court to either retract or deny. You seem to be unable to understand. You have my sympathies.

Sympathies? They're not exactly required. You just claimed you laid out your reasoning after each quote. Well anyone who reads back can see you didn't, you didn't even make the attempt. You've just lied to me and every single reader here.
On the contrary fr0d0, you have my sympathies. Not only can you not list any contradictions but now you've made an entirely and demonstrably false claim.

Whoops? :-)


Oh and there seemed to be some confusion as to why these statements contradict:

(July 28, 2012 at 4:54 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Atheism is a position on God [deity].

This claims Atheism is a position on God and as a result implies that it is more than a simple lack of belief.

(July 28, 2012 at 4:54 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Get with the plan Raphael. Atheism = lack of belief in God. That's it. It's not confusing.

A lack of belief in God, in that there is no belief he exists. This, as you so adequately put, is all Atheism is.

A position on God must assume God exists to be made. If you lay out a moral code you believe to be consistent with the Bible which you believe to be inspired by God then it is a position on morality, on religion and on God. The same cannot be said for a simple lack of belief in him, it denies the very thing you would attempt to make a position on. I don't hold any belief in the easter bunny, thats not an easter bunny position. I'm fairly certain the cat in the hat is also not real. These constitute positions on what is real and what is fiction.

Before you answer any of these I insist you clearly list all the contradictions of the posts you quoted as I have requested repeatedly while giving my patient answers.
It is a simple task that should already have been done and this debate will not continue until it is.
Your choice.

Sympathies are so required Raphael lmao

So you don't have a position on God? So you can't say that you "lack belief in God" as that would be a position on God. You need to know what it is you lack belief in. God has a definition, which you have to be aware of to be able to make any decision about it. Do you understand?!

Wow I get the feeling that the most basic of human communication wouldn't be simple enough for you to understand. I have very clearly listed your contradictions and you don't seem to understand it. Go back and see if that's possible. I really did put it very clearly and very simply for you. Your self contradiction is plain to see for atheists, theists and everyone inbetween here. It seems like it's you vs the world.

(July 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sympathies are so required Raphael lmao

So you don't have a position on God? So you can't say that you "lack belief in God" as that would be a position on God. You need to know what it is you lack belief in. God has a definition, which you have to be aware of to be able to make any decision about it. Do you understand?!

Wow I get the feeling that the most basic of human communication wouldn't be simple enough for you to understand. I have very clearly listed your contradictions and you don't seem to understand it. Go back and see if that's possible. I really did put it very clearly and very simply for you. Your self contradiction is plain to see for atheists, theists and everyone inbetween here. It seems like it's you vs the world.

If thats what you need to believe then I will allow you to with pity.

I have just demonstrated why a lack of belief isn't a position on anything but reality. If you think otherwise then what is not believing in the easter bunny a position on? I was fairly certain it too was a position on reality but if you have a better answer let me know.

Tell you what, I'll let people read back to where you quote me numerous times and put afew sentences simply saying they contradict without any further explanation. Putting aside their non-existence, it would be a simple matter of presenting the contradictions here in the form of a list instead of writing entire paragraphs avoiding doing so entirely.

It is a clear indication there are no contradictions to present, if I am wrong then present them. If I am correct then do not. Either way I would request you stop wasting my and everyone elses time we could be reading and responding to real and respected debaters as opposed to mock ones such as yourself.

(July 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you don't have a position on God? So you can't say that you "lack belief in God" as that would be a position on God. You need to know what it is you lack belief in. God has a definition, which you have to be aware of to be able to make any decision about it. Do you understand?!

Of course I have a position on God. I prefer the mortal superior position.

Seriously, what do you want Raph to say? That God/gods being such a poorly defined term, he has no idea if he has any beliefs in them as he doesn't know what the hell we're talking about? [Ignosticism]

Or perhaps you'd prefer that he say, given what reports have been received regarding what gods may be, nope, haven't seen any around here.

Of course god has a definition. Many in fact. Which shall we use?

How about we just say we have no belief so far as we can tell in anything remotely resembling any of the many descriptions of gods encountered so far? No belief that they don't exist. No belief that they do exist. No belief that any of them need to be consulted or considered in any matter. Seems to me one can say all these things without having a clue what you mean by gods.

One more time Raph, I have very clearly stated why you contradict yourself. I quoted multiple examples and then given the reasons why. You can't say that I haven't given the clear evidence above of the fact. I can only think that you have some kind of physical disability that prevents you from seeing this. From this point onwards I no longer wish to repeat myself. If you can't see what I'm saying, please consult a trusted person to explain it to you.

If you call yourself an atheist, and your stated reason for that position is that you think a non corporeal entity is not real because you cannot have verifiable, empirical proof of it (this is a literal contradiction if you didn't realise it), then you have a position on god or gods.

You are therefore an atheist for the reason that you state (even though that reason is illogical).

If you had no position you would have no reason. You would not be an atheist.

As soon as you label yourself atheist, you are declaring a position. On a god or gods.

Is a person who hasn't declared a position an atheist? > no. They could either believe or not believe.

---

@ whateverist

You don't need to understand any more about deity than a single fact. Any dictionary can provide you with that.

That you have a position, even if it's one of "i find equally compelling evidence for the Easter Bunny" (a correct statement from ignorance (ignosticism)), then you still have a position on deity. You are reacting to a claim of belief with an opposite claim: lack of belief.

---

Interesting question.

You publically declare that you understand that god cannot be sensed*. I, as a strong believer agree with you that god cannot be sensed. Where does that leave your argument?

*both of us rule out non proven senses

If that is your only given argument for atheism. It isn't an argument. An argument has to be a disagreement over something surely?

(July 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God has a definition, which you have to be aware of to be able to make any decision about it. Do you understand?!

Ok then ...Define god.