Many atheists might be closet Deists!

[oldbadger]

I must be thick.
It's taken far too long for me to arrive at this proposal.
And on enquiry I discover that the question has been shouted for yonks and yonks and I never saw it.

Quite simply, if you believe that there is a reason for the existence of everything, then how can you be a fundamental atheist? It just cannot be good science!


Here's a small selection of other ideas on the question.......



There is no such thing as a true atheist - Heaven Net

www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm
Here is why you are not really an atheist. ... If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search ...
Are There Really No Atheists? - Secular Web

infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/no_atheists.html
Some Christians maintain that there are no atheists. They believe, of course, that some people profess to be atheists. But according to them these people suffer ...

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that's ...
www.science20.com/.../scientists_discov ... _not_exist...
6 Jul 2014 - This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is .... While there is certainly growth in the number of bleak narratives being ...

[Bust Nak]

Clearly you misunderstand, that is just one of many different definitions - not in any way a 'standard'. How are you defining 'standard'?

Here is a standard definition for "standard:"

Standard, noun: something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Here is another:

Standard, adjective: used or accepted as normal or average.

Why can't one of many different definitions, all be standards, or all be part of a standard? How are you defining 'standard'?

Because disagreeing with me on this point is disagreeing with a basic fact of English.

So you keep insisting. Have you consider the alternative that what you called a basic fact, isn't factual?

Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief of gods, which encompass the definition atheism is the lack of belief of gods, plus the definition atheism is the disbelief of gods.

That statement is self refuting.

How so?

Yes, and you expressly accept it to be true.

Only half of it.

Well simply that no lexicon or dictionary even makes the claim to be authoratitive. It would be an outrageous claim. A point you even concede in the following...

That much I granted you, but why insist it implies there is no standard?

You accept my point and contest it at the same time, what am I to make of that?

Well, if I see someone accepting my premises, but rejecting my conclusion. I would see that as a challenge to the validity of my argument. I suggest that's how you should look at my post.

[parsivalshorse]

Clearly you misunderstand, that is just one of many different definitions - not in any way a 'standard'. How are you defining 'standard'?

Here is a standard definition for "standard:"

Standard, noun: something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Here is another:

Standard, adjective: used or accepted as normal or average.

Why can't one of many different definitions, all be standards, or all be part of a standard? How are you defining 'standard'?

Well obviously because if they all differ, there is no 'norm' or 'average'.

Because disagreeing with me on this point is disagreeing with a basic fact of English.

So you keep insisting. Have you consider the alternative that what you called a basic fact, isn't factual?

It is a basic fact of English. Sooner or later you will figure that out.

Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief of gods, which encompass the definition atheism is the lack of belief of gods, plus the definition atheism is the disbelief of gods.

That statement is self refuting.

How so?

Yes, and you expressly accept it to be true.

Only half of it.

Well simply that no lexicon or dictionary even makes the claim to be authoratitive. It would be an outrageous claim. A point you even concede in the following...

That much I granted you, but why insist it implies there is no standard?

Because it demonstrates that there is no 'norm'.

You accept my point and contest it at the same time, what am I to make of that?

Well, if I see someone accepting my premises, but rejecting my conclusion. I would see that as a challenge to the validity of my argument. I suggest that's how you should look at my post.

I only see a non-sequitur, not an argument sorry. What I see is that you accept the premis and then deny it. Hence my confusion.

[parsivalshorse]

Clearly you misunderstand, that is just one of many different definitions - not in any way a 'standard'. How are you defining 'standard'?

Here is a standard definition for "standard:"

Standard, noun: something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Here is another:

Standard, adjective: used or accepted as normal or average.

Why can't one of many different definitions, all be standards, or all be part of a standard? How are you defining 'standard'?

Well obviously because if they all differ, there is no 'norm' or 'average'. That there are many different definitions demonstrates in itself that there is no 'norm'

Because disagreeing with me on this point is disagreeing with a basic fact of English.

So you keep insisting. Have you consider the alternative that what you called a basic fact, isn't factual?

It is a basic fact of English. Sooner or later you will figure that out.

Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief of gods, which encompass the definition atheism is the lack of belief of gods, plus the definition atheism is the disbelief of gods.

That statement is self refuting.

How so?

Yes, and you expressly accept it to be true.

Only half of it.

Well simply that no lexicon or dictionary even makes the claim to be authoratitive. It would be an outrageous claim. A point you even concede in the following...

That much I granted you, but why insist it implies there is no standard?

Because it demonstrates that there is no 'norm'.

You accept my point and contest it at the same time, what am I to make of that?

Well, if I see someone accepting my premises, but rejecting my conclusion. I would see that as a challenge to the validity of my argument. I suggest that's how you should look at my post.

I only see a non-sequitur, not an argument sorry. You accept my premis expressly, then reject it.

You ask "why can't all of the many different definitions be 'standard'?" And that is transparently absurd. If they are all different? How can they also be 'standard'?

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 153 by Bust Nak]

Perhaps this will help.


Think of a 'pound'. As in a weight. A unit of weight.

Now say there are twenty different notions of what a 'pound' is....all different. Some say a 'pound' is what a whale weighs, others say that a 'pound' is about what a mouse weighs.

All of those differing notions could not be described as a 'standard' could they?

To have a 'standard' measure of a pound, you need ONE universally accepted measure.

[Bust Nak]

they all differ, there is no 'norm' or 'average'.

Sure there are, I gave you two, why don't they count? Is it not normal to define standard as "something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations?" Is it not also normal to define standard as "something used or accepted as normal or average?"

It is a basic fact of English. Sooner or later you will figure that out.

So you keep insisting. You still haven't told me if you considered the alternative that what you called a basic fact, isn't factual. Could you entertain the notion that what you are claiming, isn't factual?

Because it demonstrates that there is no 'norm'.

How so? What made the norms I provide not 'norm?' Are you now going debating the definition for 'norm?'

I only see a non-sequitur, not an argument sorry. What I see is that you accept the premis and then deny it. Hence my confusion.

Perhaps a second, more careful reading might be required? I am not sure where you got the idea that I accept the premise and then deny it from? I did no such thing, I accepted your premise and denied the conclusion, charging you with a non-sequitur. Defend your claim that if there is no central authority then there is no standard.

Think of a 'pound'. As in a weight. A unit of weight.

Now say there are twenty different notions of what a 'pound' is....all different. Some say a 'pound' is what a whale weighs, others say that a 'pound' is about what a mouse weighs.

Okay.

All of those differing notions could not be described as a 'standard' could they?

All of them? No. Some of them can be described as a standard though. Here are some notions of 'pound' that are considered standard: A pound is 16 ounce; A pound is 0.0714286 stone; A pound is 0.453592 kg.

To have a 'standard' measure of a pound, you need ONE universally accepted measure.

Or multiple commonly accepted measures? Imperial and metric systems? Centigrade and Fahrenheit? Long and short scales? Electricity sockets? Driving on left or right side of the road?

[tugofwarstrum]

[Replying to post 1 by oldbadger]

I'm sorry but by definition an Atheist doesn't believe in a god, by describing things through science and empirical data they do not believe in a god nor do they create one. good try though.

[oldbadger]

I'm sorry but by definition an Atheist doesn't believe in a god, by describing things through science and empirical data they do not believe in a god nor do they create one. good try though.

Definition?
Please give us the one definition of an Atheist.
Can't wait.

[parsivalshorse]

they all differ, there is no 'norm' or 'average'.

Sure there are, I gave you two, why don't they count? Is it not normal to define standard as "something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations?" Is it not also normal to define standard as "something used or accepted as normal or average?"

It is a basic fact of English. Sooner or later you will figure that out.

So you keep insisting. You still haven't told me if you considered the alternative that what you called a basic fact, isn't factual. Could you entertain the notion that what you are claiming, isn't factual?

Because it demonstrates that there is no 'norm'.

How so? What made the norms I provide not 'norm?' Are you now going debating the definition for 'norm?'

I only see a non-sequitur, not an argument sorry. What I see is that you accept the premis and then deny it. Hence my confusion.

Perhaps a second, more careful reading might be required? I am not sure where you got the idea that I accept the premise and then deny it from? I did no such thing, I accepted your premise and denied the conclusion, charging you with a non-sequitur. Defend your claim that if there is no central authority then there is no standard.

Think of a 'pound'. As in a weight. A unit of weight.

Now say there are twenty different notions of what a 'pound' is....all different. Some say a 'pound' is what a whale weighs, others say that a 'pound' is about what a mouse weighs.

Okay.

All of those differing notions could not be described as a 'standard' could they?

All of them? No. Some of them can be described as a standard though. Here are some notions of 'pound' that are considered standard: A pound is 16 ounce; A pound is 0.0714286 stone; A pound is 0.453592 kg.

To have a 'standard' measure of a pound, you need ONE universally accepted measure.

Or multiple commonly accepted measures? Imperial and metric systems? Centigrade and Fahrenheit? Long and short scales? Electricity sockets? Driving on left or right side of the road?

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of your argument whatsoever. I have addressed your objections multiple times - but you seem to have a talent for obfuscation. Let's leave it there.

[Zzyzx]

.

Definition?
Please give us the one definition of an Atheist.
Can't wait.

The most basic definition of Atheism is "without belief in deities" -- with deity defined as: a god or goddess; divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity; the estate or rank of a god: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deities

Is that somehow in error?

Qualifying terms can be added by some.

[parsivalshorse]

.

Definition?
Please give us the one definition of an Atheist.
Can't wait.

The most basic definition of Atheism is "without belief in deities" -- with deity defined as: a god or goddess; divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity; the estate or rank of a god: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deities

Is that somehow in error?

Qualifying terms can be added by some.

What about all of the other different definitions? In what way are they less 'basic'?

How about: Atheist: A person who does not believe in God.

Isn't that even more 'basic'?

Or: Atheist: A person who is not a theist.

Why do you imagine that the dictionary.com definition is somehow the most 'basic'? How does it get to be the authority over the Cambridge, Oxford, Merriam Webster etc dictionaries? Reading the cite itself dictionary.com does not claim to be authoritative.