What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@failures art,

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do the atheists insist the default must be "atheism?"

Quote:
Because it is.

C'mon, Art. Tell us the "why" for this. We all know what it is...and we all know it can be shot down.

So...just state it...and I'll shoot it down.

Then maybe we can have a real discussion about labels.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Frank can call himself an "agnostic," but if he doesn't believe in any gods, he can't deny that calling him an "atheist" is perfectly accurate.

Don't only can I deny it....I AM DOING SO.

I have been doing so for several posts now.
[/quote]
I am very aware of your denial.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you say that anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist? Where does that come from?

I like this passage from wikipedia:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]"

You fit both the broad, and inclusive definition based only on statements you've made here.

You've said: "I don't believe in gods..."
This is a rejection of the belief in gods, and also makes clear that no gods feature amongst the things you believe in.

Nothing about this says anything about "knowing."

A
R
T

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

There's a definition for agnostic atheists which might fit Frank, but that's for him to determine.

This is the definition that fits based on his statements. If the shoes fit, and they're on his feet, he can't claim to be barefooted. Pointing this out is not muddling.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

failures art wrote:
I'm saying we're all agnostics.

I have friends and neighbours who would tell you that you are completely wrong about that. They believe in god/gods/God and they know what they believe in.

We'll let's get specific here.

Are they agnostic theists? I.e. - They don't know if gods exist, but believe.
Or do they claim to have special knowledge of gods existences, and thus believe in them?

"Knowing what you believe" and "knowing something exists" are different claims.

I only meant to say that from what I've read in this thread all the posters profess agnostic claims to knowledge on gods. The belief thereafter ranges from poster to poster.

Spademaster is the only person on A2K who claims a non-agnostic position that I know of. He actually claims to be a "high holy prophet."

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Okay, Art, since you obviously are not going to do it, I guess I will have to.

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

http://able2know.org/topic/189772-16#post-4975368

You cannot arrive at that using the etymological derivation. The only way that can come into play is if the nonsense argument used by some atheists is accepted. That nonsense argument is: atheism is derived from “a” = “without” added to “theism” = “belief in a god”…making atheism “without a belief in a god.”

But that is an absurdity. Etymological dictionaries show that the word “atheism” arrived in the English language BEFORE theism. It WAS NOT derived in that way at all.

It truly does not mean “without a belief in a god”…although I acknowledge it IS used that way, particularly by atheists intent on not suffering the consequences of acknowledging that atheism, at its core, is a belief.

Atheism really is the belief that there are no gods. As previously mentioned, the word itself comes to us from the Greek through the French and means “without god.” Yeah, I know about weak and strong atheists...but c'mon, we all recognize where the reality is in this. This has precious little to do with simply not believing there is a god...and a lot to do with "believing" there are no gods.

The Wikipedia definition you offered may well have been written by an atheist with that thought in mind.

Under any circumstances, the foundation for atheism being the default (all children are atheists until they reject atheism) is pathetic and completely unnecessary. If you want to be known as an atheist…call yourself an atheist. To suggest that you have the right to tell me what I must label myself…or that I have an obligation to accept it is beneath you, Art. Don’t do it…and do not get so involved in this thing that you end up asserting that all newborns are atheists. It does not become you.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

It is clear that this is your belief, and it matches mine to some degree, but again I see this as a belief, not knowledge.

I don't think we know enough about the world/universe/minds yet to present that as fact.

Okay, then where do you disagree? We enter the world with what kind of knowledge, and what kind of list?

All I'm saying is that if we frame belief in what's not crossed off, verses what is written down, there is very little meaningful distinction since the list is literally infinite.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Spademaster is the only person on A2K who claims a non-agnostic position that I know of. He actually claims to be a "high holy prophet."

Someday you have got to introduce yourself to EdgarBlythe!

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Okay, then where do you disagree? We enter the world with what kind of knowledge, and what kind of list?

All I'm saying is that if we frame belief in what's not crossed off, verses what is written down, there is very little meaningful distinction since the list is literally infinite.

Art, give up on this. Arguing that newborns are default atheists is an absurdity. And the only reason it is being done is to preserve the fiction that the only thing needed to be deemed an atheist is a lack of belief in gods!

2 Replies

@failures art,

They claim to know and they believe.

(have you really missed all the knowing believers that post/have posted at A2k?)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry, I read the gender wrong. I have a hard time believing this incapacitates your ability to address the content of the post.

This however, did get messy. So I apologize, and will fix:
"It's a matter of what she is presented, and if she chooses to believe."

A
R
T

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

They claim to know and they believe.

(have you really missed all the knowing believers that post/have posted at A2k?)

Based on the above, they definitely are not agnostics.

As for A2K, I suspect that many may feel that way, but I can only personally recall one poster saying it explicitly. The theists I've chatted with here, even the fervent ones, accept that they do not know for sure. This is where the topic of faith; belief without knowledge.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Okay, then where do you disagree? We enter the world with what kind of knowledge, and what kind of list?

All I'm saying is that if we frame belief in what's not crossed off, verses what is written down, there is very little meaningful distinction since the list is literally infinite.

Art, give up on this.

Your concession is accepted.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Arguing that newborns are default atheists is an absurdity.

Absurd, because you say so. Not because you're applying any real criteria.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And the only reason it is being done is to preserve the fiction that the only thing needed to be deemed an atheist is a lack of belief in gods!

Definitions matter Frank.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Arguing that newborns are default atheists is an absurdity.

Everybody who leaves the sexual question out, for whatever reason, is effectively newborn no matter how old they are.

Christians and Jews were considered atheists by the Classical pagans.

If you all have different definitions of these sorts of words you are all correct in your separate opinions. How could you not be? That's why you are getting nowhere.

On the sexual question the feet are on the ground regarding belief in the supernatural. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic gets.

You all must get a kick out of typing words out and sending them off.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

As for A2K, I suspect that many may feel that way, but I can only personally recall one poster saying it explicitly. The theists I've chatted with here, even the fervent ones, accept that they do not know for sure. This is where the topic of faith; belief without knowledge.

And EdgarBlythe knows that there are no gods.

Amazing...one site...and we have people here who KNOW there is a GOD and others who KNOW there are no gods.

And to make matters worse, we have people who KNOW the evidence (it is all around us) strongly favors the existence of a GOD, almost to the point of certainty...and others who KNOW the evidence strongly favors that there are no gods, almost to the point of certainty.

What is an agnostic who says, "I really don't know and I can't make a meaningful guess" to do???

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Direct question: If I said I believe in at least one god, could I call myself an "atheist?"

What would such a declaration say about me?

C'mon Frank. Bite. What harm could come?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Definitions matter Frank.

They do, indeed, I will acknowledge that.

But if the "definition" relies on a completely incorrect assumption, perhaps that definition becomes worthless.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Direct question: If I said I believe in at least one god, could I call myself an "atheist?"

What would such a declaration say about me?

C'mon Frank. Bite. What harm could come?

Yes, you could. But I will accept that you were being careless and actually meant, "Could I logically call myself an atheist?" or "Would it make sense for me to call myself an atheist?"...in which case, I would answer:

No, you could not...and No, it would not.

Carry on the with your "reasoning."

0 Replies

The idea of reincarnation might be considered supernatural. Out of all our beliefs about what might come after death, the eventuality of nothing included, I find the idea of reincarnation to be the most appealing. Justifying this belief isn't really important to me. I know it's a belief, and that we cannot know, but that is also true of the belief that nothing will happen after death. So when it comes down to it, the belief in reincarnation requires no more or less justification than the belief that nothing follows death.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I couldn't edit the previous post. I noticed that I'd not included the last line of my reasoning, which was only to say that the belief that nothing happens after death is often considered the "rational" option that requires no justification. That is, of course, a misconception similar to the one often held by some Christians that the existence of God is self evident or beyond any possible doubt.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz, you are absolutely correct.

ANYTHING said about what happens after death (other than the obvious corruption of the physical body) is a guess or a belief. The guess of “reincarnation” is as “valid” as “you just die and everything ends” or “you go to Heaven or Hell.”

And you are also correct that Judeo-Christian theistic guesses and atheistic guesses tend to be given more respect and credence than something like “reincarnation.”

I can understand the theistic position in that regard, but any atheists who elevate his/her guesses about what happens above other guesses (NOT ALL DO) are probably a bit out of focus.

4 Replies

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know