|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 17:03:34 GMT
Exactly. And atheists believe this universe just appeared out of nowhere, and all of life was just random.
Atheists do not necessarily believe anything at all about randomness. They could hold any position on that. Science doesn't posit that things are random, by the way, and that should be obvious to anyone who has gone to grade school, even. Aside from that, EVERYONE believes either that extant things either always existed or they suddenly "appeared out of nowhere." There's no other option logically. That includes beliefs about God obviously. Either God always existed or He appeared out of nowhere. That exhausts the logical options.
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 14, 2018 18:52:30 GMT
Atheists do not necessarily believe anything at all about randomness. They could hold any position on that. Science doesn't posit that things are random, by the way, and that should be obvious to anyone who has gone to grade school, even. Aside from that, EVERYONE believes either that extant things either always existed or they suddenly "appeared out of nowhere." There's no other option logically. That includes beliefs about God obviously. Either God always existed or He appeared out of nowhere. That exhausts the logical options.
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
An atheist is just somebody who doesn't believe in any gods (or more narrowly: believes that there are no gods). That's how the term has always been used. Atheists can believe in afterlives, "higher intelligences" that aren't deities, and things that can't be perceived by the human senses. Many atheists do believe in such things. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 14, 2018 18:54:16 GMT
Atheists do not necessarily believe anything at all about randomness. They could hold any position on that. Science doesn't posit that things are random, by the way, and that should be obvious to anyone who has gone to grade school, even. Aside from that, EVERYONE believes either that extant things either always existed or they suddenly "appeared out of nowhere." There's no other option logically. That includes beliefs about God obviously. Either God always existed or He appeared out of nowhere. That exhausts the logical options.
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
It never changed, you just have a very piss poor understanding of what "atheist" actually means. That's what happens when you read about "atheism" from Christian apologetics sites. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 19:01:29 GMT
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
It never changed, you just have a very piss poor understanding of what "atheist" actually means. That's what happens when you read about "atheism" from Christian apologetics sites.
Well, that description does fit some atheists because I've heard people say they don't believe in anything beyond the five senses, and said they were atheists. So I guess they didn't know what they were either.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 19:02:16 GMT
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
An atheist is just somebody who doesn't believe in any gods (or more narrowly: believes that there are no gods). That's how the term has always been used. Atheists can believe in afterlives, "higher intelligences" that aren't deities, and things that can't be perceived by the human senses. Many atheists do believe in such things.
That sounds more like an agnostic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 19:02:27 GMT
Re ontological randomness, it would be an event where it's not determined by antecedent events (causes) if there indeed is an antecedent event, where there is more than one possible state we're talking about, and where there are no hidden determiners.
Exactly. And atheists believe this universe just appeared out of nowhere, and all of life was just random.
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 14, 2018 19:07:24 GMT
An atheist is just somebody who doesn't believe in any gods (or more narrowly: believes that there are no gods). That's how the term has always been used. Atheists can believe in afterlives, "higher intelligences" that aren't deities, and things that can't be perceived by the human senses. Many atheists do believe in such things.
That sounds more like an agnostic.
You can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theistic. Agnostic in itself is just means "I don't know". You can have the position of "I don't know if there's a god, but I don't particularly believe in one." That's all it means "Agnostic atheist" means. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 14, 2018 19:08:36 GMT
It never changed, you just have a very piss poor understanding of what "atheist" actually means. That's what happens when you read about "atheism" from Christian apologetics sites.
Well, that description does fit some atheists because I've heard people say they don't believe in anything beyond the five senses, and said they were atheists. So I guess they didn't know what they were either.
Yes many atheists do tend to be naturalists/materialist/etc. That still doesn't refute what I said though. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 14, 2018 19:08:42 GMT
An atheist is just somebody who doesn't believe in any gods (or more narrowly: believes that there are no gods). That's how the term has always been used. Atheists can believe in afterlives, "higher intelligences" that aren't deities, and things that can't be perceived by the human senses. Many atheists do believe in such things.
That sounds more like an agnostic.
In the context of the debate about god, "atheism" and "agnosticism" simply refer to one's views about god. Agnosticism is the view that it is unknowable whether or not god exists. Both atheists and agnostics can hold any views about things that aren't god. They can hold any views about afterlives, higher intelligences, and things that can't be perceived by the senses. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 19:08:50 GMT
Exactly. And atheists believe this universe just appeared out of nowhere, and all of life was just random.
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition.
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 14, 2018 19:10:35 GMT
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition.
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?
Materialists or naturalists. I'm not sure what the exact difference is between the two since they're used almost interchangeably. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 14, 2018 19:11:12 GMT
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition.
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?
People who believe that there is nothing non-physical or non-material would be called "physicalists" or "materialists". Many atheists are not physicalists/materialists. I'm an atheist, and I'm not a physicalist/materialist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 19:54:04 GMT
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition.
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?
Materialists. Materialists are necessarily atheists. But atheists are not necessarily materialists. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 20:28:28 GMT
Atheists do not necessarily believe anything at all about randomness. They could hold any position on that. Science doesn't posit that things are random, by the way, and that should be obvious to anyone who has gone to grade school, even. Aside from that, EVERYONE believes either that extant things either always existed or they suddenly "appeared out of nowhere." There's no other option logically. That includes beliefs about God obviously. Either God always existed or He appeared out of nowhere. That exhausts the logical options.
Then I guess the definition of 'atheist' has changed. I always thought it meant someone who had no beliefs in an afterlife, higher intelligence, or anything outside of the five senses or beyond a few inches from their nose.
Atheism simply refers to a lack of a belief in a deity. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 20:34:43 GMT
Liar. It’s not that the definition has changed, it’s that you’re too ignorant to know the real definition.
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?Physicalists or materialists. "Physicalist" is usually the preferred term in contemporary literature, partially as a result of the popularity of "materialist" in Marxist literature, a la Marx's dialectical materialism, historical materialism, etc. That led to a shift away from "materialism" when focusing on a strictly ontological context, since many physicalists are not at all Marxists. I'm a physicalist who isn't a Marxist for example. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 14, 2018 21:16:44 GMT
Okay, then what do you call people who don't believe in anything non-physical/material?
Materialists. Materialists are necessarily atheists. But atheists are not necessarily materialists. It's true that almost all materialists are atheists, though I'm not sure that materialism entails atheism. Why shouldn't god be a material being? Two questions: (1) what is it for something to be material/physical? (2) what is the nature of god? Don't take my word for this since I'm no expert on his views, but I'm pretty sure Thomas Hobbes for example held a materialist view of god. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 14, 2018 21:22:00 GMT
Last time I had heard this argument (the one OP made) was during those freewill vs Determinism debates on old RFS board during the dying days of IMDB. Unfortunately, there's whole lot of nonsense travelling around youtube and other sites. Speaking of nonsense, maybe you missed this bit of comedy gold while you were away.  imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/86655/when-jesus-flesh-drink-bloodespecially hereWell this thread itself is a comic gold now! I especially enjoyed the part where poor atheists were asked to generate proof of something not happening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 21:50:44 GMT
Materialists. Materialists are necessarily atheists. But atheists are not necessarily materialists. It's true that almost all materialists are atheists, though I'm not sure that materialism entails atheism. Why shouldn't god be a material being? Two questions: (1) what is it for something to be material/physical? (2) what is the nature of god? Don't take my word for this since I'm no expert on his views, but I'm pretty sure Thomas Hobbes for example held a materialist view of god. God is a vaguely defined word, and I’m sure someone somewhere defines him as a physical being, but it would be a very exceptional definition that did so. I’m not a fan of objecting to arguments against god statements that rely on invoking obscure definitions of the word. It rings of “you shouldn’t be an atheist because I define god as a banana and you believe in bananas don’t yo?” But if you like, just read that as “the conventional conception of god”. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jul 14, 2018 21:58:08 GMT
It's true that almost all materialists are atheists, though I'm not sure that materialism entails atheism. Why shouldn't god be a material being? Two questions: (1) what is it for something to be material/physical? (2) what is the nature of god? Don't take my word for this since I'm no expert on his views, but I'm pretty sure Thomas Hobbes for example held a materialist view of god. God is a vaguely defined word, and I’m sure someone somewhere defines him as a physical being, but it would be a very exceptional definition that did so. I’m not a fan of objecting to arguments against god statements that rely on invoking obscure definitions of the word. It rings of “you shouldn’t be an atheist because I define god as a banana and you believe in bananas don’t yo?” But if you like, just read that as “the conventional conception of god”. My point isn't that some people use the word "god" in unusual ways. Let's take the standard definition of god as the omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal creator of the universe. We can even suppose that this god has set down rules for human conduct, as in whatever religious text is taken to be authoritative. Why shouldn't this god be a material being? What is it for something to be material? Well, lots of different answers to this have been proposed. One popular answer that was given by Descartes is that to be material is to have extension in space - i.e. length, breadth, thickness. I see no reason why god (per the standard conception) shouldn't have spatial extension, in which case it would be a material being on Descartes's view. Of course, maybe you disagree with Descartes's conception of matter, hence why I asked what it is for something to be material. |
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jul 21, 2018 0:35:58 GMT
Pineapple spaghetti home elephant insurance
|
|
