What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Nope. I leave that to atheists, who seem to be obsessed with them.

We only bring them out when we play with theist or in your case agnostic. Have you ever met an agnostic other than yourself that believed in the possibilities of spaghetti monsters, elves, fairies and so forth. I will be honest with you it seems like something a dishonest person who makes money from theism might try to do in order to get an atheist to think differently.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The only strict criteria in describing a person as an atheist is that they don't believe in any gods.

This is so arbitrary, it is almost absurd. Why do you simply assert that the only strict criteria in describing a person as an atheist is that they don't believe in any gods.

I do not believe in any gods...and I most assuredly am not an atheist. I sometimes label myself an agnostic--but I could just as easily label myself a non-theist...or, as I often do, not label myself at all.

If you don't believe in gods, you are an atheist, Frank. That you choose to identify otherwise is noted, but the definition fits. It's not inaccurate to call you such, if you don't believe in gods. The idea of self-labeling is not of much concern to me.

Similarly, I'm rarely interested when I hear racists talk about how they don't consider themselves racists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you come to the assertion that the only strict criteria in describing a person as an atheist is that they don't believe in any gods?

Because that's the definition, Frank.

You've got some weird baggage on this word.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Given the chance to meet and discuss the language of this topic, I'm betting that the atheist you have in your head, would agree the wording I'm using is preferable.

Art, I am not sure I have any particular kind of atheist in mind. I recognize and acknowledge that atheists come in all sorts and flavors. In fact, I try to specify a position rather than use a word like “atheist” or “agnostic” when discussing these issues.

It seldom works…because the words come up and soon they are being used…and for certain there are times I use the words as short cuts to a position I want to comment on.

As for whether or not they would agree that the wording you are using is preferable, I think that might be influenced by what I am going to say in my next comment.

Quote:

Further, how many atheists fall into such a position is mostly due to how the topic is framed.

If I may, I would like to respectfully suggest that atheists tend to express their atheism differently depending less on how the topic is framed, but rather on where the topic is being discussed.

In my non-cyber life I know several atheists…and there is not a weak or soft atheist among them. In my cyber-life, my guess is that the VAST MAJORITY of them are weak or soft atheists…and a hard atheist like EdgarBlythe stands out like a sore thumb.

I suggest that if the question you mentioned in your earlier comment were put to atheists in an Internet discussion, they would indeed agree with your wording. But if put to atheists in a bar playing pool and drinking beer…the reaction to your wording might not be nearly so receptive.

I suspect I know why that is…and we can discuss that if you choose.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

We only bring them out when we play with theist or in your case agnostic. Have you ever met an agnostic other than yourself that believed in the possibilities of spaghetti monsters, elves, fairies and so forth. I will be honest with you it seems like something a dishonest person who makes money from theism might try to do in order to get an atheist to think differently.

As I said, you atheists seem to be obsessed with them.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

If you don't believe in gods, you are an atheist, Frank. That you choose to identify otherwise is noted, but the definition fits. It's not inaccurate to call you such, if you don't believe in gods. The idea of self-labeling is not of much concern to me.

Similarly, I'm rarely interested when I hear racists talk about how they don't consider themselves racists.

Is that written in the constitution, Art? Is it from the Bible?

I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist.

Quote:

Because that's the definition, Frank.

It is a possible definition…it is not THE definition, Art. It often is listed as one definition of atheist, Art, but I have never seen it as the only definition.

And it is a dictionary definition which merely tells us how the word is used…not what it actually means.

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST...and I am not an atheist.

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS DO NOT EXIST…and I am not a theist.

You are the one with baggage.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And it is a dictionary definition which merely tells us how the word is used…not what it actually means.

Would you be kind and show us this book that you use to know the meaning of words so that we can play the same game you are playing? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/stingrays01/Misc%20Picks%20and%20Avatars/MichaelJacksonEatingPopcorn.gif

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist

One for the money...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST...and I am not an atheist.

Two for the show...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS DO NOT EXIST…and I am not a theist.

Double negative. In all the years you've been discussing this topic, you've not come to learn the problem with stating things this way?

Frank, if you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. Caps lock doesn't change that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are the one with baggage.

Such as?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Double negative. In all the years you've been discussing this topic, you've not come to learn the problem with stating things this way?

They were not double negatives…they were two negatives, one in each clause.

Quote:

Frank, if you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist.

That is incorrect. I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist. I understand you would like me to be; it would improve the pool, but I am not an atheist.

Amazing that atheists are so afraid of the words, "I do not know." The contortions they endure to stay away from them are incredible.

1 Reply

I ain't never seen nothing like this nowhere before not ever.

I assume, or hope, that it is not typical of American discourse. Do you guys spend a lot of time in beauty parlours?

Why is lingerie not supernatural?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Double negative. In all the years you've been discussing this topic, you've not come to learn the problem with stating things this way?

They were not double negatives…they were two negatives, one in each clause.

I didn't say you did a triple negative.

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS DO NOT EXIST…and I am not a theist.

Oh Frank, precious. The problem here isn't in so much the multiple negatives, but it is in that you're stating what you don't believe instead of stating what you do believe. It's unnecessarily complicated. The statement of not believing a non-belief is just silly.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank, if you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist.

That is incorrect. I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist. I understand you would like me to be; it would improve the pool, but I am not an atheist.

It matters to me not to add you to the "pool" and if you'd "improve" it. What matters is that words mean things. People who don't beliefs don't include gods, are atheists for better or for worse of the pool.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Amazing that atheists are so afraid of the words, "I do not know." The contortions they endure to stay away from them are incredible.

I'm not afraid of the words. I know where to apply them.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS DO NOT EXIST…and I am not a theist.

Oh Frank, precious. The problem here isn't in so much the multiple negatives, but it is in that you're stating what you don't believe instead of stating what you do believe.

I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist.

I also do not believe there are no gods…and I am not a theist.

I do not do any believing…so I cannot talk about what I believe. That must be something quite new for you, Art...someone who does not do believing. Sorry you have to deal with it...and especially sorry you are having so much difficulty doing so.

Quote:

It's unnecessarily complicated. The statement of not believing a non-belief is just silly.

Only to someone who wants it to be silly. It says something very important to anyone with an open mind.

But what IS silly here is the fact that this all has to do with me saying, “I do not know if gods exist.”

Quote:

It matters to me not to add you to the "pool" and if you'd "improve" it. What matters is that words mean things. People who don't beliefs don't include gods, are atheists for better or for worse of the pool.

If you say so…but you do seem determined to make me into an atheist. I am insisting I am not...and you are insisting that I am.

Quote:

I'm not afraid of the words. I know where to apply them.

I am applying them in a fine way. That seems to bother you. You seem really bothered and annoyed that I acknowledge that I do not know…what I do not know.

Interesting.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But what IS silly here is the fact that this all has to do with me saying, “I do not know if gods exist.”

That is not what I am concerned about because it is psychological "normal" for people not to know if gods exist. Its is more likely for people to believe that a God does exist though.
What concerns me is that you think that unicorns, fairies and so forth might exist. That is not psychological.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I tend to agree with Frank on this point. We used to debate the issue of the credibility of agnosticism. I stressed that I was a passive atheist, as opposed to an aggressive one. I simply turned away from professions of theism, because they made no sense to me; I could not bother to oppose them. Today I think my attitude is best described by the clumsy terms, "default non-theist" vs. "ideological atheist" (the latter would include Dawkins and the late Hitchens).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Sam Harris once mused about the future of atheism. He called this "post-theism." I thought that was pretty good. I still think the term "atheist" has a good use even with this.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Contrary to Cyracuz' silly claim, in my experrience. most atheists are not aggressive. The most of atheists i have known don't attack anyone. People like Hitchins and Dawkins, in my opinion, simply alienate people without accomplishing anything. Atheists aren't out to convert anyone, except for the strident, militant atheists, who, as i've said just alienate people.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Contrary to Cyracuz' silly claim, in my experrience. most atheists are not aggressive.

Which claim is that? I think I made quite a few.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Sam Harris once mused about the future of atheism. He called this "post-theism." I thought that was pretty good. I still think the term "atheist" has a good use even with this.

"Post-theism". I like that. Atheism is, after all, a reaction to theism being forced on us for so long. When we call all belief systems that don't include deities atheism or non-theism, that implies that theism is the "default position". In my case that is just not true. I have always rejected ideas of gods, even when I was in grade school. It caused a lot of trouble back then...

0 Replies

Perhaps we are coming to an agreement of some sort that the use of terms as labels can be a problem in and of itself.

The labels are just a shortcut...but if they are not of the "one size fits all"...perhaps not using a label and simply stating a position is better.

In my case, I have stated over and over (as has been called to my attention):

I do not know if there are gods; I do not know that there are no gods; I do not see evidence upon which I can base a meaningful guess.

That essentially is what I am defending in this conversation.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know if there are gods; I do not know that there are no gods; I do not see evidence upon which I can base a meaningful guess.

Sounds like a reasonable standpoint.

I have often asked the question of how we can even justify the question of gods. What makes us think that it has any relation to reality whatsoever? For all we know (and I think it is likely) gods are merely creations of human imagination. It may be rather presumptuous and self-inflating to expect the concept to have any relation to the universe just because we thought of it. God worship is narcissism!

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I have often asked the question of how we can even justify the question of gods.

Good point...made by several people.

Here is what I come up with when it occurs to me:

I have absolutely no problem asking the question: "Could what we consider the universe actually just be a particle in an experiment being conducted by beings in a much larger portion of the megaverse?"

Any question has value; any consideration has value.

If it is necessary for one to conceive of "thinking about the possible existence of gods" as considering the problem outside the box...then that makes sense to me.

2 Replies

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know