Can atheists convert theists?

[Purple Rabbit]

---

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

---

Crucial in this discussion is the distinction between cognitivity or meaningfullness of a proposition and truth of a proposition in the real world. The theological non-cognitivist makes a sharp distinction between the two and argues that only a cognitive proposition can be evaluated. With cognitive is meant meaningfullness as in reducible to empirical factual knowledge, intelligible, comprehensible, well-formedness, and internally consistent.

To stress the difference consider the following statement: Every uydkhdujdk is a lkdldjnldjl.

This claim is not cognitive because both uydkhdujdk and lkdldjnldjl are non-dictionary words that lack definition. The claim can be made cognitive however by supplying a well-formed intelligible definition. It is clear that a definition such as “ a uydkhdujdk is a car” will do and that a definition such as “ a uydkhdujdk is a hdhdhh” will not.
Please observe that we are not assessing the truth of the claim yet, we’re simply evaluating the structure and meaningfullness of the statement being made. The evaluation whether the statement is true is quite another matter.

In the case of a proposition on the existence of god this distinction is crucial since there are more notions of god than humans on the planet. That fact alone is reason enough to demand a meaningfull (set of) definition(s) along with the proposition that god exists from the proposer of the claim. Since the statement made is one about existence, the definition amongst other things should make clear how this entity called god can be distinguished from other phenomena that we might encounter in reality. I already gave you an example where the definition seems to simply relabel existing phenomena. Furthermore the definition should make clear up front which attributes/capabilities are present, how its existence in reality can be perceived and whether the entity is a personal (as displaying any personal character and preferences) one or impersonal one. For each attribute given it should be made clear what these attributes are and by what they are bounded. The combination of attributes should not lead to logical contradictions. Though these are fairly common criterions from the logical perspective, of course these are my criterions to judge cognitivity on. You don’t have to comply to them. But this is not uncommon reasoning for both theological non-cognitivists and other atheists. Any theistic or atheistic position ultimately is a personal choice. In fact the fairly common argument that omnipotence and benevolence don't add up in a meaningfull way in my view really is an argument that principally attacks the meaningfullnes of the claim not it's truth. And not making a choice on cognitivity of the statement is a choice also. So you can choose to guess the definition of god that is referred, but that comes at a price. It’s a Trojan horse for common not well formulated notions of god.

I am not stating that the only way to be an atheist is to be a theological non-cognitivist. I don’t deny you your atheism at all. As I’ve explained before I am OK with the short hand general label “atheist” for theological non-cognitivist. Theological non-cognitivism simply is another reason for lack of belief in deities. It states that no meaningfull proposition has been presented at all and it refuses to validate propositions that are not meaningfull. A theological non-cognitivist is an atheist, but not every atheist is a theological non-cognitivist because not every atheist rejects the notion of god on basis of meaningfullness of the proposition.

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?

To me it indeed matters how god is defined. And imo the definition should be given by the believer not guessed by the one who is asked to evaluate the claim. Making no assumptions up front is exactly the reason why one should proceed in this way.