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]

When you propose to do the impossible, it is perfectly appropriate to question your proposal. This is a discussion forum after all.

Sure, but that is moot. When I am not propose to do something, it is not appropriate to question me as if I was proposing it.

No, that is a fundamental misconception. Dictionaries do not document standard definitions, they docuent common usages.

And that's the sticking point isn't it? The whole thing revolve around your denial that standard definitions means the same thing common usages. Hence my original remark to you a couple of days ago - you are just arguing what the word 'standard' means, made all the more weird since a central point of your argument is that words can have different meaning.

But English speakers define the word in countless different ways. There is no standard definition in English.

That just means there are countless different definitions. The most common ones are considered standard.

Because an unenforcible, unauthorised standard is pointless.

Is it? That's an odd claim given that we English speakers have managed just fine without an centralised authority enforcing the standard.

You gave two different definitions, and claim both are the standard - that is absurd. It is contradictory.

So tell me, which of the two I gave you, isn't commonly used?

You are denying your own claims as I contest them. There is no such thing as a standard definition of atheism. You propose two different definitions of many and claim BOTH are the standard definition. You are countering your own position and claiming to be getting misrepresented at the same time.

That's only because you have some strange presupposition that parallel standards cannot exist along side each other. Don't try and pin your presuppositions on me, such is a straw man argument.

By what measure are the two definitions you gave the standard?

By how commonly it is used in that way.

Upon what authority? (You said yours, but now deny it, then claim to be giving straight answers.)

The record will show that I did not say it was upon my authority. I made it very clear there was no authority. We English speakers as a whole, gets to mould the language as we use it.

You cite two 'standard' definitions of atheism.

That I did.

Upon what authority do you dictate which definitions are 'standard' and which are not? (Besides your poll here).

None. There is no authority to dictate which definitions are standard. Definitions simply become standard with use.

And how can you then ensure people apply only the two definitions you insist are the standard ones?

By pointing out to people, that's not how the word is commonly used currently.

[Elijah John]

Sorry, but you seem to be just playing the fool.

Moderator Warning


This is a personal attack, use of the word "seem" in this case is a thin disguise and does not excuse it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Dictionary of Spiritual Terms
Theos
Short Description: god
Long Description: god; the term sometimes is used in a wide and loose sense; ‘everything if full of gods’ (panta plere theon), according to Thales; the cosmos may be regarded as a theophany – the manifestation of the One (likened to the supreme transcendent Sun) and the divine Nous that constitute the different levels of divine presence concealed by the screens or veils ( parapetasmata); in ancient Greece, speaking of theos or theoi, one posits an absolute point of reference for everything that has impact, validity, and permanence, while indistinct influences which affect man directly can be called daimon; for Plato and Plotinus, nous, the universal soul, the stars, and also the human soul are divine; thus there are invisible and visible gods, arranged in a hierarchy of henads which follows the arrangement of nine hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides; theoi are the first principles, henads (as protos theoi), intellects and divine souls, but the supreme God is the ineffable One, or the Good; in some respects, theos is an equivalent of the Egyptian neter; neteru are the gods, the first principles, divine powers, manifestations – both transcendent and immanent. http://www.dictionaryofspiritualterms.c ... spx?ID=359

To be an atheist is to be WITHOUT a belief in any of this.

[Elijah John]

May I ask yet again how you propose to enforce it?

At the risk of censorship, I have to say - that is a delusion of grandeur on a truly herculean scale.

Moderator Final Warning

Not censorship, but rather a final warning for that personal attack. If you want to stay with us, please mend your ways.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, "I atheist Yahweh." Not an elegant sentence,[

Indeed. Extremely bad grammar as any school teacher will be able to tell you. If it's legitimate, you should be able to produce a dictionary that has it expressed as a verb. Bet you can't.

Also as pointed out the correct word would be "atheize".

Dictionaries record usages, they are not authoritative. I have told you that many times. There is no global dictator of English. It is a living language, in which meanings constantly change.

Please provide proof that "atheist" can be used as a verb. If you can't do that then please do the honourable thing and withdraw that claim.

BTW, nouns are not adjectives. Nouns are naming words. Adjectives are descriptive words used to describe nouns.

Well yes, and 'atheism' is both. Many words can be used as both nouns and adjectives.

Just not possible. Please write a sentence that shows "atheism" or "atheist" as an adjective.

Ok; I live in an atheist society.

You've used it as a noun, not an adjective.

What would be an adjective would be something like

"I live in a violent society"
"I live in a messy society"
"I live in a confused society".

[oldbadger]

Dictionary of Spiritual Terms
Theos
Short Description: god
Long Description: god; the term sometimes is used in a wide and loose sense; ‘everything if full of gods’ (panta plere theon), according to Thales; the cosmos may be regarded as a theophany – the manifestation of the One (likened to the supreme transcendent Sun) and the divine Nous that constitute the different levels of divine presence concealed by the screens or veils ( parapetasmata); in ancient Greece, speaking of theos or theoi, one posits an absolute point of reference for everything that has impact, validity, and permanence, while indistinct influences which affect man directly can be called daimon; for Plato and Plotinus, nous, the universal soul, the stars, and also the human soul are divine; thus there are invisible and visible gods, arranged in a hierarchy of henads which follows the arrangement of nine hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides; theoi are the first principles, henads (as protos theoi), intellects and divine souls, but the supreme God is the ineffable One, or the Good; in some respects, theos is an equivalent of the Egyptian neter; neteru are the gods, the first principles, divine powers, manifestations – both transcendent and immanent. http://www.dictionaryofspiritualterms.c ... spx?ID=359

To be an atheist is to be WITHOUT a belief in any of this.

This ^^ I can understand, that an atheist would not accept belief in the above.But this description should really be posted on another current thread about Theism. You have posted it on a thread about Deism.

I have always understood (from Atheistic Deists) that atheists can and do accept Deism. Do you see my point?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Dictionary of Spiritual Terms
Theos
Short Description: god
Long Description: god; the term sometimes is used in a wide and loose sense; ‘everything if full of gods’ (panta plere theon), according to Thales; the cosmos may be regarded as a theophany – the manifestation of the One (likened to the supreme transcendent Sun) and the divine Nous that constitute the different levels of divine presence concealed by the screens or veils ( parapetasmata); in ancient Greece, speaking of theos or theoi, one posits an absolute point of reference for everything that has impact, validity, and permanence, while indistinct influences which affect man directly can be called daimon; for Plato and Plotinus, nous, the universal soul, the stars, and also the human soul are divine; thus there are invisible and visible gods, arranged in a hierarchy of henads which follows the arrangement of nine hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides; theoi are the first principles, henads (as protos theoi), intellects and divine souls, but the supreme God is the ineffable One, or the Good; in some respects, theos is an equivalent of the Egyptian neter; neteru are the gods, the first principles, divine powers, manifestations – both transcendent and immanent. http://www.dictionaryofspiritualterms.c ... spx?ID=359

To be an atheist is to be WITHOUT a belief in any of this.

This ^^ I can understand, that an atheist would not accept belief in the above.But this description should really be posted on another current thread about Theism. You have posted it on a thread about Deism.

I have always understood (from Atheistic Deists) that atheists can and do accept Deism. Do you see my point?

Atheists reject "atheistic" deists as true atheists, based on the above definition of Theos. And that WAS my point. My Chinese friends who do not believe in a specified creator Being, but who do fully believe in ghosts and ancestor spirits have little in common with atheists who have no such beliefs at all.

[parsivalshorse]

When you propose to do the impossible, it is perfectly appropriate to question your proposal. This is a discussion forum after all.

Sure, but that is moot. When I am not propose to do something, it is not appropriate to question me as if I was proposing it.

No, that is a fundamental misconception. Dictionaries do not document standard definitions, they docuent common usages.

And that's the sticking point isn't it? The whole thing revolve around your denial that standard definitions means the same thing common usages.

What? Why would I deny that? If you are using the term 'standard definition' to mean 'common usage', then we have no po8nt of disagreement. You would be conceding my argument, so why would I deny it?

Hence my original remark to you a couple of days ago - you are just arguing what the word 'standard' means, made all the more weird since a central point of your argument is that words can have different meaning.

But English speakers define the word in countless different ways. There is no standard definition in English.

That just means there are countless different definitions. The most common ones are considered standard.

Says who?

Because an unenforcible, unauthorised standard is pointless.

Is it? That's an odd claim given that we English speakers have managed just fine without an centralised authority enforcing the standard.

LOL You mean 'standards', plural. There is no standard by your own admission. Only MANY, MANY 'standards'.

You gave two different definitions, and claim both are the standard - that is absurd. It is contradictory.

So tell me, which of the two I gave you, isn't commonly used?

They are both commonly used.

You are denying your own claims as I contest them. There is no such thing as a standard definition of atheism. You propose two different definitions of many and claim BOTH are the standard definition. You are countering your own position and claiming to be getting misrepresented at the same time.

That's only because you have some strange presupposition that parallel standards cannot exist along side each other. Don't try and pin your presuppositions on me, such is a straw man argument.

By what measure are the two definitions you gave the standard?

By how commonly it is used in that way.

Upon what authority? (You said yours, but now deny it, then claim to be giving straight answers.)

The record will show that I did not say it was upon my authority. I made it very clear there was no authority. We English speakers as a whole, gets to mould the language as we use it.

You cite two 'standard' definitions of atheism.

That I did.

Upon what authority do you dictate which definitions are 'standard' and which are not? (Besides your poll here).

None. There is no authority to dictate which definitions are standard. Definitions simply become standard with use.

And how can you then ensure people apply only the two definitions you insist are the standard ones?

By pointing out to people, that's not how the word is commonly used currently.

How would you know what usage they are applying to be able to point that out?

[parsivalshorse]

Dictionary of Spiritual Terms
Theos
Short Description: god
Long Description: god; the term sometimes is used in a wide and loose sense; ‘everything if full of gods’ (panta plere theon), according to Thales; the cosmos may be regarded as a theophany – the manifestation of the One (likened to the supreme transcendent Sun) and the divine Nous that constitute the different levels of divine presence concealed by the screens or veils ( parapetasmata); in ancient Greece, speaking of theos or theoi, one posits an absolute point of reference for everything that has impact, validity, and permanence, while indistinct influences which affect man directly can be called daimon; for Plato and Plotinus, nous, the universal soul, the stars, and also the human soul are divine; thus there are invisible and visible gods, arranged in a hierarchy of henads which follows the arrangement of nine hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides; theoi are the first principles, henads (as protos theoi), intellects and divine souls, but the supreme God is the ineffable One, or the Good; in some respects, theos is an equivalent of the Egyptian neter; neteru are the gods, the first principles, divine powers, manifestations – both transcendent and immanent. http://www.dictionaryofspiritualterms.c ... spx?ID=359

To be an atheist is to be WITHOUT a belief in any of this.

This ^^ I can understand, that an atheist would not accept belief in the above.But this description should really be posted on another current thread about Theism. You have posted it on a thread about Deism.

I have always understood (from Atheistic Deists) that atheists can and do accept Deism. Do you see my point?

Atheists reject "atheistic" deists as true atheists, based on the above definition of Theos. And that WAS my point. My Chinese friends who do not believe in a specified creator Being, but who do fully believe in ghosts and ancestor spirits have little in common with atheists who have no such beliefs at all.

Funny you should say that because most of the Chinese people I know see Chinese traditional philosophies as atheist. Atheists have all manner of such beliefs - 'atheism' precludes only a belief in God. It does not relate to any other claims.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to parsivalshorse]

Funny you should say that because most of the Chinese people I know see Chinese traditional philosophies as atheist. Atheists have all manner of such beliefs - 'atheism' precludes only a belief in God. It does not relate to any other claims.

Certainly some Chinese traditional philosophies are without overt theological implications. I personally subscribe to the philosophy that it is wrong to kill, lie or steal. But that neither makes me a theist or a deist.