Can atheists convert theists?

[Edwardo Piet]

But that all changes when a serious assessment of the proposition is asked for, for instance when the claim entails that all methodically shared facts of reality suddenly no longer hold.

Why does it? If I know of no evidence for a concept defined by whoever whenever and disbelieve it... what's the problem there?

Projected from tradition by you, isn't it?

Yes but it's still a definition. And the existence of the actual Easter bunny defined by tradition+me through my projection still lacks evidence. So I disbelieve it.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry I thought you were implying your acknowledgement of the existence of the common traditional definition of the Easter Bunny.

Because the definition was not given. You lured yourself into thinking it was given.

I thought I've already defined the Easter bunny? The common traditional definition. An unspecific/undetailed definition is still a definition it's just a unspecific/undetailed one.

That's just too easy on the proposers of the proposition because you and the proposers don't address any specifics of the claim.

What relevance has easiness got to do with this argument? Aren't we going from facts to values there?

The result will be, as is manifested all over this forum, that you are chasing ever changing meanings of the concept.

Only when the concept's meaning is changed by being redefined.

Can you give me your criterion on how vague a concept is allowed to be before you don't consider it as a sound proposition?

Well it's sound if there's evidence supporting the truth of the claim, regardless of vagueness or specificness I would think? So long as the definition is understood... however general or specific it is.

Or is it the case that anything goes? For some god is love, is a definition too. Is that vague enough for you? Than surely you'll have to acknowledge that god exists.

If defined that way then yes.

The meaning of "the creator of the universe" isn't straightforward at all. Nature might be the creator of the universe as we know it. In that case your atheism is bunk.

Well then it wouldn't really be a supernatural creator and a deity. So that's a different definition.

When you say that it's plain that no natural creator is meant, the trojan horse supplied to you by believers with a vague definition is doing its work.

How so?

Is their divine personal agency in the definition?

Depends how they define it. Either way, whether it's a personal supernatural deity that created the universe (a theistic one) or an impersonal one (deistic) - it lacks evidence, hence my disbelief, hence my atheism.

Is omnipotence in the definition?

Often.

Is care for humans in the definition?

That's common.

Your attribution to all this is a free ride for the believer and the believer at any time can stop you with: "Hey, that's not my god!".

Aren't we going from facts to values again? Free ride for them or not what has that got to do with the fact I don't have to hold any knowledge of God's existence in order to disbelieve and be an atheist.

What is and what should be are two different arguments. Facts and values are separate - wouldn't you agree? Aren't you kind of mixing the two there?

That would not be an assessment under the rules of predicate logic. When a strong claim is made, a strong definition must be given up front. Giving in to assessing vague claims is nice to kill time, it's no serious debate.

Sounds like you're speaking values here too. Where is the relevance to this argument there?

Assessing unseen and vague general claims is for fools.

How is your judgement that it is for 'fools' relevant? Isn't that just values ... again?

I am an atheist because no sound propsition on the meaning and definition of god has been presented to me.

I thought you were a theological noncognitivist like Knight? How is it not unreasonable for you to disbelieve in God but it's unreasonable for me to disbelieve in God? If you claim that no meaningful definition of God can be given then how can you disbelieve it and be an atheist? If you agree that a definition that can be disbelieved in can be given then you rebut yourself do you not?

I make no assumptions about the meaning of the god concept. That is up to the believer.

That's a choice again, values we're talking here again... that's not a factual question.

I agree that you don't need to make no assumptions about the god concept, but by guessing what is meant by god you in effect indeed do just that.

Guessing definitions is just giving what I think a definition is... I can then disbelieve in the existence of the thing defined quite happily. What's the problem there? However God is defined it doesn't really matter, I don't have to assume any "knowledge" - I just have to define something and then ask myself if I think there's any evidence for it. I disbelieve certain types (it happens to be, concepts of a supernatural deity creating the universe, etc.) and due to lack of evidence I call myself an atheist as a label for that. That is all. What assumptions are required?

Exactly, but the definition was not given. You guessed it.

So how wasn't it defined - whether it's guessed or unguessed it's still a definition that I can ask myself if there's evidence to support it or not.

You are leaving out the soundness of the claim in terms of logical coherence, completeness and consistency as a criterion. I argue that a big claim demands logical robustness in this sense or you'd be chasing gods of rubber in no time.

Claims can be ordinary or extraordinary.... and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraoridnary the evidence required (if we are to be rational)... as you know I'm sure. However vague the proposition is, once a definition for something is given and you ask yourself if there is evidence of it.... the more extraordinary the claim the more evidence you expect and the less probable it is to be true... unless enough evidence can be provided.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='80040' dateline='1278964974']

If the Easter Bunny is not defined you
Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

[quote=PR]Go on then and chase those figments of your own imagination.

I think what I said stands and you didn't refute it. Not that I'd expect you too since it's kind of tautological!: Definitions just have to be defined, that's obvious. Who does the defining and what definitions are "reasonable" is a value judgement, not a factual one, and a matter of personal preference. Subjective, not objective.

EvF