Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.

> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY

Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
Well stated.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Strict theism is logically incoherent.  Jacob had personal visits from God on a number of occasions.
There beside him stood the LORD and said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying" (Genesis 28:13).
It's too bad Jacob didn't have a smart phone.
Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
It's too bad Jacob didn't have a smart phone.
good point
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
OMG, do you think that is why we don't have people saying that they stood next to God or talked to him in a burning bush?
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
pics or it didn't happen
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible 
  • This statement is manifestly false.  Here is a popular bit of communication in the English language that deliberately obscures any clear notion of semantic intent and uses outright impossible juxtapositions to communicate mood and feeling with maximal error and miscommunication.

I Am The Walrus
By John Lennon

I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together
See how they run
Like pigs from a gun
See how they fly
I’m crying
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
Corporation tee shirt
Stupid bloody Tuesday
Man, you been a naughty boy
You let your face grow long
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen, (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Mister city p’liceman sitting pretty
Little p’licemen in a row
See how they fly
Like Lucy in the sky
See how they run
I’m crying
I’m crying, I’m crying, I’m crying
Yellow matter custard
Dripping from a dead dog’s eye
Crabalocker fishwife pornographic priestess
Boy you been a naughty girl
You let your knickers down
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Sitting in an English
Garden waiting for the sun
If the sun don’t come
You get a tan from standing in the English rain
I am the eggman
They are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob g’ goo goo g’ joob
Expert texpert choking smokers
Don’t you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile
Like pigs in a sty, see how they snied
I’m crying
Semolina pilchards
Climbing up the Eiffel Tower
Element’ry penguin singing Hare Krishna
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Goo goo g’ joob
G’ goo goo g’ joob
Goo goo g’ joob, goo goo g’ goo g’ goo goo g’ joob joob
Joob joob…

  • Terms of Service agreements deliberately use obscure, redundant, obfuscating language to discourage users from having a clear idea of what they are agreeing to.
  • The King James Version of the Bible deliberately rejects the most accurate translations of Koine Greek ins pursuit of maximizing propaganda and poesis.
  • If precision is what we're after, can't we eliminate all the words that are spelled the same but mean different things first?  bark vs bark, for example.
  • Precise communication of monosemous words is NOT the only purpose of language and thank god this is less true of  modern English than any other language ever.

(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
Dangerous stuff, the removal of words (censorship) to serve the mandate of logical coherence.  Who will make sure the language police are themselves pure in reason, I wonder, and not ideologically motivated to control our thoughts by paring down polysemy in our language?

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed
  • If theism can mean many diametrically opposed things and remain valid and useful, then 3RU7AL has disproved his first proposition: "that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible"
 (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and
  • A description of the way things currently stand.
as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
  • Why?  Why can't we just use the word that best fits our intent?
  • Inclusivity is not by itself a virtue in every usage.  PRIMATE is more inclusive than HUMAN but people would likely object to being called PRIMATE all the time.
  • This notion of ranking words into PRIMARY and non-PRIMARY uses strikes me as thought control-  an attempt to manipulate present usage to better suit some ideological agenda.  What is that ideological agenda?


#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Nope atheists have been lumping theists together for a long time I have no problem lumping you all together in one big group. 
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

OMG, would that group be The Most Smart and Good Looking People?
#10
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is a belief in the way that not eating oatmeal is a breakfast. 
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Poly is an atheist in regards to the flying spaghetti monster. I'm not angry with her either. I find this entities existence to be highly unlikely as well. 

Love you poly. Solidarity!
#12
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Why would I believe in something that's meant to specifically mock people who don't think like me. That's the atheist position. You make it very clear what kind of person you are. And like all atheists when speaking to women you can't help but bring some sexual overtone to it. You whole- heartedly reinforce the stereotype. And if I do the same I'm fine with that.
#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why would you try to sexualize me and the platonic love I feel for you? That's unfair poly.

Also why would I assume a religion wasn't true just because someone meant it as mockery any more than I would assume one was real just because someone takes it very seriously? Neither is actually a measure of the probability of the beliefs truth value.

#14
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I can only assume you are the way you are because of how your parents raised you. I was raised by atheist that's why I am the way I am.
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I was raised by omni theists who believed that one all powerful being was the basis of all religion and that all religion was therefore equally valid. I still agree with them on the last point even to this day.

They would inform you, if they were writing this rather than me, that you have absolutely every right to your faith. It would probably come off as pretty condescending. At least I find that other theists tend to take it this way. My mother is never wrong if you know what I mean. I may or may not have picked up some of her bad habits. 
#16
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't need you or your parents approval or acknowledgment about my rights. Condescending is being way too generous with what you are. 
#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't need you or your parents approval or acknowledgment about my rights.
The only rights we have are those we choose to afford each other. I am nevertheless uncertain how I could change your beliefs even if I wanted to. Only you can change your beliefs and you never do it on purpose. 
Condescending is being way too generous with what you are. 
I understand that you would rather see atheists as insincere. You are not alone in that. I hope one day we can have a dialogue in which you do not feel the need to demonize me for your own psychological comfort. It makes you very hostile and I'm here to argue not fight. I hoped the same with Ethang though I'm uncertain bow if I will ever communicate with them again and the chances that they wouldn't feel the need to point out how morally bankrupt and dishonest they think I am and to be sure I know they take my attempts at being polite and expressing enjoyment in the enterprise of dialogue as insincere to the point of being snide.

I'm not sure what I could say to convince Ethang and I'm not sure what to say to convince you. Nevertheless I respect you as a person and a woman and would like to afford you all reasonable human rights if it were up to me.
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Poly is as Poly does.

Their goal is to always find fault with others.

Seeking conciliation is futile, and demeans your good self in the process.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is simply one of the many ways that data can be organised and stored within an organic human computer.

Atheist is simply one of the many words that is used to describe a human organic structure....One that houses an organic computer and organises certain data in a particular way.

Belief is another set of organised data, often relative to the above organic systems and their variable sequencing and storing of data.
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
It does not demean me to treat poly with respect regardless of her treatment of myself. After all she can't hurt me. Not on this medium. 
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Atheism is a belief in the way that not eating oatmeal is a breakfast. 
bingo
Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible 
  • This statement is manifestly false.
it's part of a conditional statement

can we agree that the primary function of a dictionary is to reduce miscommunication between humans ?

can we agree that the primary function of a dictionary is to reduce miscommunication between humans ?

can we agree that the primary function of a dictionary is to reduce miscommunication between humans ?
#23
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Poor POS atheists treat everyone like crap and wonder why they get treated that way. LOL. 
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well no one can accuse you of not speaking your mind. 

I have no broad sweeping statements about theists to fire off in return.

I find that, as is the case with atheists, the entirety of the group is so diverse that no such sweeping statement applies to all of you. 

#25
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
It's okay you can lie to make yourself look better we know you guys do it all the time it's okay.
Topic's author
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
do you believe a gnostic deist qualifies as an "atheist" ?
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Christian atheism is a form of Christianity that rejects the theistic claims of Christianity, but draws its beliefs and practices from Jesus' life and/or teachings as recorded in the New Testament Gospels and other sources.
Christian atheism takes many forms:

#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You mean humans? Yes yes we do. Most often and effectively to ourselves. We are all the heroes of our own story. Except maybe none of us are.
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Christian atheism
very interesting

sounds like, 

Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection

The third president had a secret: his carefully edited version of the New Testament.

#30
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Re: the Jefferson bible 

One wonders if that white Male slave holder left the bits about slaves and wives being obedient even to cruel masters and rapist husbands. Those are not passages  that concern the supernatural after all.