-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you ignore my point with the word homophobe? As usual, ignoring arguments are you?
RED-HERRING
The atheist realty sucks
Posts
Total:
140
-->
@Theweakeredge
...not to mention, your other resource literally agrees with me...
Let's compare,
What you said,
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
With what my "other resource" literally says,
"...a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus."
Your quote seems to suggest that an ATHEIST must deny the existence of all conceivable god($).
I'd be happy to know if I've misunderstood your intention somehow.
My counterpoint is that an ATHEIST may accept some conceivable god($) and only "lack belief" or "disbelieve" in a SPECIFIC "god" or set of "god($)" (and still qualify).
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you ignore one of the words in your own definition. Let's take another look at it shall we:
Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope; that is, a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus. Or a person can lack belief in the existence of any supernatural beings
ATHEISM CAN BE NARROW OR WIDE IN SCOPE and LACK BELIEF IN ANY SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
I was speaking of atheism on a whole, therefore regarding to the "wide" definition, you are for whatever reasoning confining it to a narrow atheist, also.... a particular divine being? How does that discount deistic gods? It doesn't.
-->
@3RU7AL
No! I was making an analogy, it is the SAME thing, just because one word with words inside of it had one meaning, that doesn't mean the new word retains that same meaning. Explain exactly how that's a red herring.
-->
@Theweakeredge
ATHEISM CAN BE NARROW OR WIDE IN SCOPE and LACK BELIEF IN ANY SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
You inexplicably changed the (OR) in the original citation to an (AND).
-->
@Theweakeredge
How does that discount deistic gods?
Your preference (please clarify) seems to be "ATHEIST = DISBELIEF IN ALL POSSIBLE GOD($)".
(IFF) this is true (THEN) this definition would necessarily EXCLUDE deistic god($) as well (thus the term "ADEIST").
Disbelieving in any and all conceivable DESISTIC (creator) god($) logically precludes the existence of any THEISTIC (rule making) god($).
-->
@Theweakeredge
No! I was making an analogy, it is the SAME thing, just because one word with words inside of it had one meaning, that doesn't mean the new word retains that same meaning.
I disagree with you on this particular point and at the same time I do NOT wish to sidetrack the TOPIC AT HAND by explaining why (I'm perfectly willing to pursue this and or any other topic you wish to discuss after the TOPIC AT HAND is either settled or abandoned).
THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A RED-HERRING.
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEIST =/= MATERIALISTso all the atheists are doing is that they look at what is and what isnt and physicks like if a rock
Everyone is materialist because we have to be to survive. What I mean is what atheists look at things one dimensionally and that is they look at only what is there or what science confirms is there. What they dont want to consider is outside that dimension like spiritualism.
-->
@Utanity
What they dont want to consider is outside that dimension like spiritualism.
There are tons of people (ATHEISTS) who don't believe in a sky-daddy but still believe in "spiritual energy".
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong, I got rid of your middle term and pointed out that it could mean either of these things, you discounted them entirely, that is you being dishonest. Again, you seem to miss the point, this is not going off-topic, I am talking about the definition of Atheist, and I am using the definition of homophobe to relate to it, you apparently do not know what off-topic or red herring means, because this is an analogy used to make you see reason. Just because the word "theist" is in Atheist, that does not discount the god referred to as theistic, just as in the word homophobic, the phobic does not mean they are scared of gay people, you are simply wrong here.
-->
@3RU7AL
There are tons of people (ATHEISTS) who don't believe in a sky-daddy but still believe in "spiritual energy".
True to say and I think these peoples are more like lost theists or lost souls because they want to believe something is out there but resist god because they want to be different. But in the end it is the true god that makes the true sents.
-->
@Theweakeredge
...and pointed out that it could mean either of these things,
So we agree?
I never suggested that an ATHEIST CANNOT disbelieve in all conceivable god($).
I'm only trying to point out that not ALL ATHEISTS disbelieve in all conceivable god($).
-->
@Theweakeredge
...that is you being dishonest.
This is an ad hominem attack.
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay? I never that they can't, I was saying in general, being an atheist meant that you didn't believe in any gods, you're actually incorrect too. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because your dishonest, I'm just pointing out that your dishonest, it is only an ad hominem if I declare your argument invalid because of your dishonesty. Besides, I could just say your argumentation is dishonest in general, then it can't even be a ad hominem
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm just pointing out that your dishonest,
This statement is beyond your epistemological limits.
AND any statement that is directed at the individual speaker (including speculating about motives and or general mental capacity and or physical and or genetic traits and or name calling) instead of addressing the actual logic of their argument is technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
"directed against a person, rather than against what that person says" - - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ad-hominem
-->
@Theweakeredge
I was saying in general, being an atheist meant that you didn't believe in any gods,
I agree that some people who call themselves "atheist" lack belief in "all god($)" but I've also encountered a fair number of people who call themselves "atheist" who more specifically lack belief in THEISTIC god($).
Lacking belief in "all god($)" is not incompatible with lacking belief in THEISTIC god($).
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you not notice the wording, instead, I did attack your argument. Thus, this can't be applied to my argument in general, as you are incorrect here: It is an ad hominem is used against a person making an argument, insulting them instead of addressing the argument, I neither ignored your argument nor insulted you. I was pointing out that you were being dishonest by ignoring the actual reasoning behind a claim, then ad hoc claiming it to be a fallacy, whenever it is no such thing. Not to mention I am talking on the BROAD sphere of atheists, using the actual definition, and no where does the definition limit the "goddage" to only theistic, you are assuming so because you are correlating the definition and the base word arbitarily. You have no actual proof that this is what people are referring to in a broad stroke.
-->
@Theweakeredge
...insulting them instead of addressing the argument,
Sure, a fraction of what you wrote was in response to the topic-at-hand.
AND the part were you accuse me of dishonesty (dragging my motives into your attack) is insulting (I mean, do you think it's a compliment?).
I haven't been dishonest at any point.
I may misunderstand your words.
I may overlook something you think is important.
But I've never done any of those things INTENTIONALLY.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have no actual proof that this is what people are referring to
Please explain how the following excerpt fails to meet your standards of "proof"?
Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope; that is, a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus. Or a person can lack belief in the existence of any supernatural beings. [1] [OXFORD BIBLIOGRAPHIES.COM]
Welcome to Oxford Bibliographies
Developed cooperatively with scholars and librarians worldwide, Oxford Bibliographies offers exclusive, authoritative research guides. Combining the best features of an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia, this cutting-edge resource directs researchers to the best available scholarship across a wide variety of subjects.
-->
@3RU7AL
You cut out another part of my sentence, you have no proof that this was what people are referring to in a BROAD stroke, the number of times you have cut off context from an argument in order to make your rebuttal seem more solid, makes it, at least to me, seem very likely to be intentional. I suppose it could be seen as insulting, but to me it just clears the air. "This is what is happening" not to mention, a fraction? Unlike you I address your entire point. Either way, your "proof" proves my point! It does not prove yours, not only does that not exclude theistic gods, but there is literally part of it that says, "In a wide sense" therefore speaking of most often. The part you misconstrew not only doesn't prove your point, but it is only applied narrowly!
-->
@Theweakeredge
You cut out another part of my sentence, you have no proof that this was what people are referring to in a BROAD stroke,
Your logical fallacy is,
MOVING THE GOAL-POSTS
We began this conversation discussing what qualifies as an ATHEIST.
Is it a lack-of-belief in all conceivable god($) (OR) can it be simply a lack-of-belief in a category of god($)?
At some point along the way you ADDED the qualifier "BROAD" to the topic-at-hand, namely the specific word, "ATHEIST" (standing alone without a qualifier).
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, and from context, it is very apparent that I am talking about Atheists in general, not to mention, NONE of your evidence points to what you are trying to prove, and you ignored that part. That is you assuming something. Quick nitpick also, Moving the goalpost is an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy.
-->
@Theweakeredge
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading a.k.a. "moving the goal posts".
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, and from context, it is very apparent that I am talking about Atheists in general,
Very apparent to you.
I appreciate your efforts to clarify your viewpoint.
-->
@3RU7AL
Mm, special pleading and moving the goal post are slightly different in what they are referring to, (note: there was no previously agreed upon goal, you have something you interpret as that goal, as do I, clearly we see them as different), but yeah, no problem. I have made my position clearer.
-->
@Theweakeredge
not to mention, NONE of your evidence points to what you are trying to prove,
I'm not trying to "prove" anything.
I'm simply stating facts.
It is a fact that the word itself, "ATHEIST" quite literally means, "not-a-theist".
I never intended to suggest that colloquially it CANNOT be used to suggest "a lack-of-belief in all conceivable god($)".
The key point I'm trying to make is that NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "ATHEISTS" BELIEVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Trying to force a "one-size-fits-all" procrustean definition on any group of people inevitably falls prey to the BROAD BRUSH fallacy.
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no "colloquial" I'm speaking of, I am using the definition of atheist. You are actually using the colloquial interpretation, as I mentioned with my example of homophobe (which is using the structure of one word to relate to another word, which is the key in analyzing your approach to what atheist means, hence, not at all a red herring and is very relevant to the conversation at hand) just because base words and suffixes can combine to mean something, that does not mean the new word follows suit, this is one of the most commonly criticized parts of the english language actually (that and how context can make certain grammatically incorrect sentences actually correct over the proper sort). So, looking at the definition you have provided, what part of this excludes deistic gods from the definition? I see nothing of the sort.
-->
@3RU7AL
Hence
"a-theist"
means something different from
"atheist"
If you were to simply apply the prefix "a" to the word "theist" you would get "not a theist" but atheist is not just that, as is evidence by the definition of the word, it is something completely new. Meant to describe someone who lacks a belief in god(s) or actively disbelieves these notions. You inserted the word theistic.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, looking at the definition you have provided, what part of this excludes deistic gods from the definition? I see nothing of the sort.
For example, even though "not-a-THEIST" is not the same as "not-a-DEIST" (a person can be "not-a-THEIST" and still call themselves a DEIST).
AND a person can ALSO be BOTH "not-a-THEIST" AND "not-a-DEIST" (because they are not mutually exclusive categories).
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is no "colloquial" I'm speaking of, I am using the definition of atheist.
A dictionary is simply a codification of colloquial word usage.
Why do you think lexicographers keep publishing new dictionaries?
Why can't we ALL simply use The Original Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1892 (?)