DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

Is it really, though, Darth? I absolutely do not believe it is.

Two people raised in the same town, from the same culture, of the same religious tradition, sharing the same purported deity don't even have the same views about what that deity is.

Multiply that by billions of individuals, hundreds of thousands of different traditions, by millions of different social and cultural upbringings, filtered through all those languages, and you just have an incoherent mess.

We pretend it's a true set because we've been taught it is, but it's really not when you start looking at it. It's not a true category at any level.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

You can find the concept of God as nebulous as you want, doesn't change that there are people who believe they exist and therefore people who don't.

There's very few people if any who believe 'they' exist. People don't believe in all gods, just their one, and their god belief is incompatible with other ones supposedly in that set. If there are mutually contradictory and incompatible components, how is it really a set?

Spearthrower wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

Is it really, though, Darth? I absolutely do not believe it is.

Two people raised in the same town, from the same culture, of the same religious tradition, sharing the same purported deity don't even have the same views about what that deity is.

Irrelevant they both believe a deity exist.
Just like Chinese and Russian communist are still communists, even if their views on what communism is and how it should work, differ.

Spearthrower wrote:Multiply that by billions of individuals, hundreds of thousands of different traditions, by millions of different social and cultural upbringings, filtered through all those languages, and you just have an incoherent mess.

And?
They still all have 1 thing in common: believing that one or more gods exist.

Spearthrower wrote:We pretend it's a true set because we've been taught it is, but it's really not when you start looking at it. It's not a true category at any level.

So you claim.

Spearthrower wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

You can find the concept of God as nebulous as you want, doesn't change that there are people who believe they exist and therefore people who don't.

There's very few people if any who believe 'they' exist. Individual beliefs are incompatible with other ones. If there are mutually contradictory and incompatible components, how is it a set?

Because it's not a complicated set. It's just one thing: the belief that at least one god exists.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

Is it really, though, Darth? I absolutely do not believe it is.

Two people raised in the same town, from the same culture, of the same religious tradition, sharing the same purported deity don't even have the same views about what that deity is.

Irrelevant they both believe a deity exist.

Again, what does the term 'deity' mean there? To one of those people it means one thing, to another it means something else. So to say the both believe a deity exists is to say nothing of any value when their beliefs can not be concurrent.

Thus I say it's far from irrelevant - in fact, it's about the most relevant thing non-believers can say about belief in gods.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Multiply that by billions of individuals, hundreds of thousands of different traditions, by millions of different social and cultural upbringings, filtered through all those languages, and you just have an incoherent mess.

And?
They still all have 1 thing in common: believing that one or more gods exist.

And yet there is nothing in common between their beliefs.

This is the sham that's been foisted off onto us by our categorical thinking, and by a society governed by theists which has spent considerably effort on legitimizing their beliefs.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:We pretend it's a true set because we've been taught it is, but it's really not when you start looking at it. It's not a true category at any level.

So you claim.

Yes, I do - thank you for acknowledging that. I doubt you actually disagree with me on it.

They don't have the same views on what they believe yes. Just that at the core they believe in a god or gods. That is all the word theist can tell you, other words are needed for full descriptions. That is what happens when you look at small one word groupings of people you find they don't all fit together perfectly but often there is one thing that matches.

If I told you I was Caucasian there isn't a whole lot that you could say about me. You could take some guesses but really the only thing you could say is that I had whitish skin. If I said that I was a progressive there is a few things you could guess about what I believed but you couldn't be 100 percent sure of most of it and my reasoning would need to be further explained. If I told you I believed in ghosts you couldn't be sure why or if I believed in the same ghosts as other people professing that same belief just that I must believe in a ghost.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

You can find the concept of God as nebulous as you want, doesn't change that there are people who believe they exist and therefore people who don't.

There's very few people if any who believe 'they' exist. Individual beliefs are incompatible with other ones. If there are mutually contradictory and incompatible components, how is it a set?

Because it's not a complicated set. It's just one thing: the belief that at least one god exists.

And all the people who are in this set believe in entirely different things. That wouldn't be seen as a set in any other field or area of human interest.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jie wrote:I see. Do you also hold that cold is the opposite of heat,

There is a spectrum. The same does not apply to belief.

A spectrum, as in the Dawkins scale we're discussing? The very reason for such a scale to exist is that seing belief as a binary position tells us almost nothing, which was my point.

Jie wrote:A lack of something does not denote opposition, just lack.

And? I never said atheism is opposition, I said it is the opposite, of theism.
Ie, the first having a belief in gods.
The rest don't. Not that they believe no gods exists, though they might.

I suspect we might have a different idea of what the word opposite means.

Jie wrote:Can you explain what the atheist label says about me, other than that I'm not a theist?

Can you explain to me what the term darkn tells me about a space, other than that there's no light?
Can you tell me what the term abstinence tells me about a persons sexlife, other than that they don't have one?
Can you tell me apolitical tells me about a person other than that they don't bother with politics?

It seems that we're in agreement that all these things are refering to what something is not, or does not do, and that they tell us nothing else.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And? I never said atheism is opposition, I said it is the opposite, of theism.
Ie, the first having a belief in gods.

The rest don't. Not that they believe no gods exists, though they might.

But as I've stated repeatedly, one needs to exercise care and attention with respect to what one means by the "opposite" of theism. One needs to distinguish between regarding the assertions of supernaturalists as false, and regarding supernaturalist methods as unfit for purpose. Atheism in its rigorous formulation is best viewed as the latter, not the former, because [1] regarding atheism as the former, leaves open the usual vulnerability to tiresome and duplicitous supernaturalist misrepresentation of atheism, as purportedly being the "anti-matter" version of supernaturalism, and based upon the same uncritical approach to assertions; [2] by questioning the entire supernaturalist method, a rigorous conception of atheism is immune to the above misrepresentation, because it not only implies diligent examination of the assertions under consideration, but leaves open the possibility that some of those assertions may, upon suitable analysis, be found not to be false, at least in principle. It kills off the duplicitous "you deny my god" trope at source.

By concentrating instead, upon exposing supernaturalism as a failure to apply proper discoursive methods to mythological assertions, and insisting that those proper discoursive methods be applied, a rigorous conception of atheism not only destroys duplicitous strawman caricatures at source, but provides a framework of utility value that forces those assertions to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

You can find the concept of God as nebulous as you want, doesn't change that there are people who believe they exist and therefore people who don't.

There's very few people if any who believe 'they' exist. Individual beliefs are incompatible with other ones. If there are mutually contradictory and incompatible components, how is it a set?

Because it's not a complicated set. It's just one thing: the belief that at least one god exists.

This presumes that the concept of "god" is itself sufficiently well defined to stand as a set membership criterion. I've already covered some problems with this in a previous post. If the members of this purported set have not even engaged in enough thought, to ask themselves elementary questions about whether their view of god-type entities is actually meaningful, and can actually be coupled to a real, existing entity in a substantive manner, then the set of supernaturalists as you define them above, would include people that many self-identified supernaturalists would exclude from the set.

A far more useful definition, one that admits of an elementary objective test, would be to define the set in terms of whether or not its members treat one or more mythological assertions as fact. This is far easier to ascertain.

THWOTH wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:...

If it is a proper god it is by definition imaginary and a category error

Theists have been making a virtue out of God being indefinable for years.

I understand the Koran asserts that believers must believe Allah is the bees knees. Doesn't this cause immediate problems about believers asking anything?

Jie wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jie wrote:I see. Do you also hold that cold is the opposite of heat,

There is a spectrum. The same does not apply to belief.

A spectrum, as in the Dawkins scale we're discussing?

Your laughter is premature. Dawkins spectrum is withing atheism, not from theism to atheism.
Nor do I particularly care for it btw.

Jie wrote: The very reason for such a scale to exist is that seing belief as a binary position tells us almost nothing, which was my point.

And as I've pointed out before, it's irrelevant that it tells little else. We still have words/terms for such things.
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to use it and think it's useless, doesn't change that it does refer to something and is therefore applicable.

Jie wrote:

Jie wrote:Can you explain what the atheist label says about me, other than that I'm not a theist?

Can you explain to me what the term darkn tells me about a space, other than that there's no light?
Can you tell me what the term abstinence tells me about a persons sexlife, other than that they don't have one?
Can you tell me apolitical tells me about a person other than that they don't bother with politics?

It seems that we're in agreement that all these things are refering to what something is not, or does not do, and that they tell us nothing else.

Yet we still have these terms and use them when they apply.

Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And? I never said atheism is opposition, I said it is the opposite, of theism.
Ie, the first having a belief in gods.

The rest don't. Not that they believe no gods exists, though they might.

But as I've stated repeatedly, one needs to exercise care and attention with respect to what one means by the "opposite" of theism. One needs to distinguish between regarding the assertions of supernaturalists as false, and regarding supernaturalist methods as unfit for purpose.

I already pointed out to you that the position that faith is unreliable/undesirable as a path to knowledge, already has it's own name: apistevism.

And twisting the definition of terms will happen regardless of how you define it. One only has to look at terms like evolution for example.

Calilasseia wrote: By concentrating instead, upon exposing supernaturalism as a failure to apply proper discoursive methods to mythological assertions, and insisting that those proper discoursive methods be applied, a rigorous conception of atheism not only destroys duplicitous strawman caricatures at source, but provides a framework of utility value that forces those assertions to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

Again, what you're describing already has a name: apistevism.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Theist is clearly a thing Spearthrower. We agree that what people claim to believe in makes little sense for many reasons but that doesn't stop there from being a group who all assert a believe in a god or gods.

You can find the concept of God as nebulous as you want, doesn't change that there are people who believe they exist and therefore people who don't.

There's very few people if any who believe 'they' exist. Individual beliefs are incompatible with other ones. If there are mutually contradictory and incompatible components, how is it a set?

Because it's not a complicated set. It's just one thing: the belief that at least one god exists.

This presumes that the concept of "god" is itself sufficiently well defined to stand as a set membership criterion. I've already covered some problems with this in a previous post. If the members of this purported set have not even engaged in enough thought, to ask themselves elementary questions about whether their view of god-type entities is actually meaningful, and can actually be coupled to a real, existing entity in a substantive manner, then the set of supernaturalists as you define them above, would include people that many self-identified supernaturalists would exclude from the set.

A far more useful definition, one that admits of an elementary objective test, would be to define the set in terms of whether or not its members treat one or more mythological assertions as fact. This is far easier to ascertain.[/quote]
The fact still remains there are people who call themselves theists and as a result people who do not belong to that group.

Spearthrower wrote:The opposite of something that is not a thing is.... what?

A thing.

If God exists sHe must be a thing of some type or kind; sHe must be something rather than nothing (some-thing rather than no-thing), something with uniquely godly properties and attributes. Come on theists, what kind of thing is God?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jie wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jie wrote:I see. Do you also hold that cold is the opposite of heat,

There is a spectrum. The same does not apply to belief.

A spectrum, as in the Dawkins scale we're discussing?

Your laughter is premature. Dawkins spectrum is withing atheism, not from theism to atheism.

Is it, though? I invite you to go back to the opening post where it is displayed, and take a close look at items one through three.

Jie wrote: The very reason for such a scale to exist is that seing belief as a binary position tells us almost nothing, which was my point.

And as I've pointed out before, it's irrelevant that it tells little else. We still have words/terms for such things.
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to use it and think it's useless, doesn't change that it does refer to something and is therefore applicable.

Um... you may have lost track of who is saying what here. While I think the label is of little utility, I accept its use. If I recall correctly, my exact words were "As for the atheist label, I will accept it in the sense that belief is binary, but it seems to me that as such, it's just not a very good or useful label."

Jie wrote:

Jie wrote:Can you explain what the atheist label says about me, other than that I'm not a theist?

Can you explain to me what the term darkn tells me about a space, other than that there's no light?
Can you tell me what the term abstinence tells me about a persons sexlife, other than that they don't have one?
Can you tell me apolitical tells me about a person other than that they don't bother with politics?

It seems that we're in agreement that all these things are refering to what something is not, or does not do, and that they tell us nothing else.

Yet we still have these terms and use them when they apply.

A fact which I have never disputed.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, what you're describing already has a name: apistevism.

Thanks - never even heard of the term.... but that's not surprising really:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submis ... Apistevist

Apistevist New Word Suggestion

Submitted By: Daved Wachsman

Approval Status: Under Review
Flag as inappropriate

Definition of Apistevist

A person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense

I'm still going for skeptical empiricist. It's not just religious forms of purportedly knowing things that I reject, but any and all ontological claims or epistemologies which are not, or cannot be based on empirical evidence. They make up a true set for me, and I would feel comfortable placing my own position as the diametric contradiction to that set. That's something I can believe in!

Personally I like the 'naturalist' tag. Not in the sense of a bearded Victorian with a butterfly net, but is the sense of it standing in opposition to 'supernaturalist.'

THWOTH wrote:Personally I like the 'naturalist' tag. Not in the sense of a bearded Victorian with a butterfly net, but is the sense of it standing in opposition to 'supernaturalist.'

In forms where you're obliged to write an answer to religion - I've even had forms which specified that 'none' was unacceptable, I write 'nature'.

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Personally I like the 'naturalist' tag. Not in the sense of a bearded Victorian with a butterfly net, but is the sense of it standing in opposition to 'supernaturalist.'

In forms where you're obliged to write an answer to religion - I've even had forms which specified that 'none' was unacceptable, I write 'nature'.

Similarly, in circumstances where I'm obliged to state my ethnicity I generally write 'human'. I know that's a bit unfair on my wider hominid brethren, but you has to draw a line somewhere right?

Spearthrower wrote:We pretend it's a true set because we've been taught it is, but it's really not when you start looking at it. It's not a true category at any level.

Strictly speaking no collection of people is a set, but inasmuch as any collection (abstract or otherwise) of humans is, theist is. It might not be any more useful than the "set" of a-black-hair-ists or the "set" of a-field-hockey-watchers is, but it's no more of a challenge logically or structurally.

By all means reject the label if people are mislead by it more than guided, though, I've no idea why anyone would care that you do.

Spearthrower wrote:And all the people who are in this set believe in entirely different things. That wouldn't be seen as a set in any other field or area of human interest.

I think the suggestion is that religion is of particular significance historically and anthropologically, right up to the present day, isn't it? That in terms of analysing human behaviours, cultural activities and artwork it's a specially useful lens.