A question about atheistic “beliefs” (opinions, guesses, etc.)

[Frank Apisa]

Claim "fowl?" You did mean "foul"...right?

Anyway...the reason I came here was to ask a few questions.

I have disagreed with some of the comments. Are visitors here expected to accept everything fed to them without disagreement? Are people not allowed to question responses?

Do you know how to make any sense at all?

---

Yes foul, I have proof reading issues.

I make sense of it by looking at your approach, you used what most of us consider a less than acceptable one. Disagree and telling people they are wrong are two different animals.

Telling us/I that we/me had to accept the philosophical hypothetical 'a god could exist and you can't deny' (refine that all you want) as a valid position didn't set well from the very beginning. AFAIC arguing what if's is a waste of time, telling me that I have to accept them as valid, well, you've seen my response to that. .

If concrete evidence for a god can't be provided I'm not required to consider the hypothetical. God has been nothing but man's hypothetical concept from the beginning. Why should I consider yet another hypothetical version of it?

1)  They are two different things...and the thing I have been doing is to disagree. On those occasions when someone said something wrong, I might say they were wrong. (Witness the word "fowl.")

2)  Gods either exist or they don't. For you to say that it is impossible for gods to exist bears a burden of proof. The fact is that the existence of gods IS a possibility...is some that some atheists** simply cannot accept. 

3) If you do not want to accept that the possibility of gods exists...fine with me. There are people  on the other side of the issue who do not want to accept the possibility that no gods exist. That is also fine with me. Ya gotta deal with bull-headed people on the Internet.

**Whenever I use the word "atheists" in this forum, it is shorthand for "people who choose to use  "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor.

[brewer]

1)  They are two different things...and the thing I have been doing is to disagree. On those occasions when someone said something wrong, I might say they were wrong. (Witness the word "fowl.")

2)  Gods either exist or they don't. For you to say that it is impossible for gods to exist bears a burden of proof. The fact is that the existence of gods IS a possibility...is some that some atheists** simply cannot accept. 

3) If you do not want to accept that the possibility of gods exists...fine with me. There are people  on the other side of the issue who do not want to accept the possibility that no gods exist. That is also fine with me. Ya gotta deal with bull-headed people on the Internet.

**Whenever I use the word "atheists" in this forum, it is shorthand for "people who choose to use  "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor.

The burden of proof for gods existing as more than a concept is on the claimant. The argument in #2 is simply an extension of concept. god(s) are not provable or unprovable (except by lack of concrete evidence). Arguing that 'can't disprove gods' is silly philosophical position and often held by theists. The premise of a god(s) is flawed from the beginning. There is no need to state 'impossible' unless the individual has some belief that the god concept exists in reality (outside the mind) is valid. I reject the initial premise of god, the possible or impossible argument extension is a non starter.

You can disagree and think that your position is correct that's fine. Understand that it's only correct for you.

If you want to continue being part of the forum and taken seriously in the future you need to move on.

[Frank Apisa]

1)  They are two different things...and the thing I have been doing is to disagree. On those occasions when someone said something wrong, I might say they were wrong. (Witness the word "fowl.")

2)  Gods either exist or they don't. For you to say that it is impossible for gods to exist bears a burden of proof. The fact is that the existence of gods IS a possibility...is some that some atheists** simply cannot accept. 

3) If you do not want to accept that the possibility of gods exists...fine with me. There are people  on the other side of the issue who do not want to accept the possibility that no gods exist. That is also fine with me. Ya gotta deal with bull-headed people on the Internet.

**Whenever I use the word "atheists" in this forum, it is shorthand for "people who choose to use  "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor.

The burden of proof for gods existing as more than a concept is on the claimant. The argument in #2 is simply an extension of concept. god(s) are not provable or unprovable (except by lack of concrete evidence). Arguing that 'can't disprove gods' is silly philosophical position and often held by theists. The premise of a god(s) is flawed from the beginning. There is no need to state 'impossible' unless the individual has some belief that the god concept exists in reality (outside the mind) is valid. I reject the initial premise of god, the possible or impossible argument extension is a non starter.

You can disagree and think that your position is correct that's fine. Understand that it's only correct for you.

If you want to continue being part of the forum and taken seriously in the future you need to move on.

I do want to continue being part of the forum and to be taken seriously...but I do not (metaphorically) intend to sell my soul in order for that to happen.

People like you have been misstating what I have said and inferred. I have been reasonable and logical in my arguments. You folk disagree. Fine. But to suppose I must change in order to meet some standard you people do not live up to yourselves...is ludicrous. 

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not kidding myself. I expect the moderators and administrators to invent a reason to get rid of me.

Okay...it is their forum and they have that right.

When it happens, I will go peacefully...with fond memories of the battles fought.

---

By the way, Brewer...the burden of proof for "the existence of gods is impossible"...falls on the person making the claim...which is what I said.

If you think that a person making that claim can logically revert to, "The burden of proof falls on people claiming gods exist"...you are wrong.

[brewer]

The burden of proof for gods existing as more than a concept is on the claimant. The argument in #2 is simply an extension of concept. god(s) are not provable or unprovable (except by lack of concrete evidence). Arguing that 'can't disprove gods' is silly philosophical position and often held by theists. The premise of a god(s) is flawed from the beginning. There is no need to state 'impossible' unless the individual has some belief that the god concept exists in reality (outside the mind) is valid. I reject the initial premise of god, the possible or impossible argument extension is a non starter.

You can disagree and think that your position is correct that's fine. Understand that it's only correct for you.

If you want to continue being part of the forum and taken seriously in the future you need to move on.

I do want to continue being part of the forum and to be taken seriously...but I do not (metaphorically) intend to sell my soul in order for that to happen.

People like you have been misstating what I have said and inferred. I have been reasonable and logical in my arguments. You folk disagree. Fine. But to suppose I must change in order to meet some standard you people do not live up to yourselves...is ludicrous. 

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not kidding myself. I expect the moderators and administrators to invent a reason to get rid of me.

Okay...it is their forum and they have that right.

When it happens, I will go peacefully...with fond memories of the battles fought.

I didn't say change, I said move on. This has reached an unresolvable impasse.

[zwanzig]

I don't think he has anything else to talk about. Arewe was right. He's here for one thing.

[Frank Apisa]

I do want to continue being part of the forum and to be taken seriously...but I do not (metaphorically) intend to sell my soul in order for that to happen.

People like you have been misstating what I have said and inferred. I have been reasonable and logical in my arguments. You folk disagree. Fine. But to suppose I must change in order to meet some standard you people do not live up to yourselves...is ludicrous. 

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not kidding myself. I expect the moderators and administrators to invent a reason to get rid of me.

Okay...it is their forum and they have that right.

When it happens, I will go peacefully...with fond memories of the battles fought.

I didn't say change, I said move on. This has reached an unresolvable impasse.

I have moved on, Brewer.

People keep posting comments in this thread that I started...I continue to respond!

---

I don't think he has anything else to talk about. Arewe was right. He's here for one thing.

More than one thing. I do want to ask questions of the atheists here...and I do want to discuss the responses they give.

I thought that is what any visitor would want to do.

You seem to think there is something wrong with that.

Why?

[brewer]

There is no requirement to reply.

Self inflicted wounds are a bitch.

[Frank Apisa]

There is no requirement to reply.

Self inflicted wounds are a bitch.

I do not only do things that are required. I sometimes say "Thank you" to people even though it is not required. Here on the Internet when I do something wrong, I say, "My bad, I was wrong" even though it is not required. 

When I start a thread, I feel it is only right to respond to as many posts as possible...especially as the thread starts to thin out.

Hey...thanks for allowing me another chance for a response. If you really want me to stop, you should not be replying. I mean, you seem to know that self-inflicted wounds are a bitch.

[Angrboda]

But you say that you define an atheist as someone who identifies as atheist.  That suggests to me an interesting thought experiment.  Let's say you're learning Chinese, and you know a good bit of Chinese but have yet to learn the word for atheist.  Now suppose you're talking to a person who speaks only Chinese, and you want him to tell you what the Chinese word for atheist is.  Stating it in English, what would you ask your Chinese friend in order to get him to tell you the word for atheist in Chinese?

That is not an "interesting thought experiment"...that is desperation being typed.

Okay, if you say so. Do you have an answer?

But if a person decides to include the word "atheist" in a descriptor he/she applies to self...that person almost certainly has a "belief" that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Otherwise the person including atheist is doing so only because some dictionaries demand it be be done. Anyone doing that is an asshole.

Or, perhaps they understand the word atheist differently than you do. Is it not possible that, unlike your explanation, they simply view the word differently, that atheism only implies a lack of belief?

Funnily enough, I actually agree with you to a degree. For many atheists, they do have a belief about gods. Unfortunately it's not universal, which means it's not essential to the definition of atheist, and so makes a poor foundation for describing all atheists.

[Frank Apisa]

That is not an "interesting thought experiment"...that is desperation being typed.

Okay, if you say so.  Do you have an answer?

Not sure what you want answered here. The question is not clear to me. Please ask it again and I will attempt a coherent answer.

[quote pid='2046046' dateline='1624717178']

But if a person decides to include the word "atheist" in a descriptor he/she applies to self...that person almost certainly has a "belief" that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Otherwise the person including atheist is doing so only because some dictionaries demand it be be done. Anyone doing that is an asshole.

Or, perhaps they understand the word atheist differently than you do.  Is it not possible that, unlike your explanation, they simply view the word differently, that atheism only implies a lack of belief?

I agree with you on that. But what I am saying (consider this carefully) has almost nothing to do with the "meaning" of the word...but rather in the choice to use it as a descriptor.

I am saying that in my experience just about EVERYONE who uses "atheist" as a descriptor does "believe" either that there are no gods, or (more usually) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

THAT subtlety, in my estimation, is what causes a person to declare him/herself an atheist...not the fact that some dictionaries define it as someone lacking a belief in gods.

Using the "it only means lacking a belief in gods" as THE definition...unnecessarily causes some people (LIKE ME) to be forced to be deemed an atheist when we do not want that designation. The use of designations like that should be a choice...NOT a compulsion.

I do not "believe" any gods exist; I lack that "belief." But I also do not "believe" that there are no gods; I also lack that "belief."

I do not under any circumstances want to be de facto considered an atheist...when the alternative is easily available.

Funnily enough, I actually agree with you to a degree.  For many atheists, they do have a belief about gods.  Unfortunately it's not universal, which means it's not essential to the definition of atheist, and so makes a poor foundation for describing all atheists.

Thank you for that, Angrboda. I agree it is not universal. But the idea that anyone "lacking a belief in gods" is de facto an atheist SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL makes no sense.

I hope you can understand my position on this issue. Please feel free to ask any questions to clarify anything I have said so far...or to refute what you see as erroneous thoughts.
[/quote]