Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

[Uber Genius]

When I say that I have a lack of belief in gods, I'm not avoiding the burden of proof, because I don't take a position on whether a god exists or not. It may be possible for a god to exist, and by extension it may be that a god actually does exist. Since I have seen no good evidence that a god exists, I don't believe one does. Similarly, I've seen no evidence that a god can't exist.

So now you are describing yourself as what has been historically defined as an agnostic.

So this is my point, even though you don't claim, "There is no God or gods," you are boxed into being labeled incorrectly.

Focus on the definition and not the label...

Labels are only fallacious if they are trying to move people away from accepting a claim based on the negative aspects of the label (e.g. Guilt by association, or ad hominem, snob appeal, poisoning the wells, fox populum) all try and influence people to infer something without regard to premises and arguments.

We don't want to conflate definitions with labels.

Got to go, my atheist cat is throwing up on my atheist carpet again.

 

[Uber Genius]

(meaning I don't take it personally and have no emotional vested interest in it enough to try to sway a person either way most times)

Yes. We are all in the same boat, in terms of our epistemically limits.

"I don't have a dog in the hunt," is how I phrase the apathy part.

Here's something to consider: someone can only trick you if you are naïve.. Just don't be naïve.. become curious and naivete goes away most times.. that way you won't have to fear someone tricking you. Be

So this is why I posted this and many other threads.

There is one thing true of the external world and we all have limited understanding currently. By gathering the data (conceptual and experiential) we can improve our inferences as to what is and is not true of that world.

Sam Harris is a calm debator. But his vitreol for all things religious begs the question. His moral argument assumes that flourishing is equal to moral good. This equivocation needs better justification than he accomplishes in his book. But I do like his style...the opposite of someone like Larry Krauss.

Best of luck.

 

[Uber Genius]

It isn't to me, and (I think) all the atheists on this website. And all the atheists that I know. And all the atheists that write blogs that I read. And all the atheists that post to YouTube that I watch.[\QUOTE]

But you can define atheism as anything you want. Just be aware that when I refer to myself as an atheist, it means that I lack a belief in a god, not that I believe that a god does not exist.

So do you want to continue on, or are you going to be hung up on semantic games designed to provide you with straw men you can knock down?

No straw man...you may have to look that fallacy up, oh that's right you don't care for definitions.

I am exposing NEW ATHEIST SEMANTIC GAMES!

I AM DOING THAT WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSIONAL ATHEIST PHILOSOPHERS.

If you want to make up your own language, be my guest.

You have mislabeled "atheism" so that all things that exist other that theists are atheists. This is why we don't use "lack of belief.," as a descriptor.

Your response...misrepresent my claim as a semantic game. Opps.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No straw man...you may have to look that fallacy up, oh that's write you don't care for definitions.

I am exposing NEW ATHEIST SEMANTIC GAMES!

I AM DOING THAT WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSIONAL ATHEIST PHILOSOPHERS.

If you want to make up your own language, be my guest.

You have mislabeled "atheism" so that all things that exist other that theists are atheists. This is why we don't use "lack of belief.," as a descriptor.

Your response...misrepresent my claim as a semantic game. Opps.

It's your claim that I've mislabeled myself (and every other atheist I know). For your claim to be true, you have to show that the general usage of the word "atheist" is what you say it is, and not what I say it is. Since language changes, the etymology of any word is pointless to discuss. The only true definition of a word is its general usage.

I can probably find countless recent examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who lacks a belief in a god".

Can you find countless examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who believes no god exists"?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So now my friends that are agnostic have just become "atheists."

As have my pets, and furniture, and babies.

You know that if you are going to say that, you also must call your furniture "agnostic." You have to call your chair "uncertain." Your table is "uncommitted." Personally, I don't think all that is necessary.

Agnostic is a term that often just means somebody who is unwilling to commit to a position. It can be used in conjunction with theist or atheist.

 

[Uber Genius]

This thread is a bit weird to me not sure why the term matters so much...

If the term atheist really meant "believers in god" years ago by some famous atheists it wouldn't change the reason many reject the claim that god exists...

Maybe you need to call it something else to accept the claim is rejected

If you need to call us "rejectors"
Call us "nope nope"

The reason behind the rejection of the claim is still the same

Not sure why you are confused here.

P - God Exists "theism"

Not P ~ "a - theism" or not/no theism

Nothing remotely complex here.

But asserting "lack of belief" is a doxastic rather than an epistemic claim.

the idea that we can just put the words "lack the belief," and then not have to defend the claim is what I'm getting at.

It is philosophically naïve.

It conflates atheism and agnosticism.

And it makes every person an atheist until such a time as they begin to hold theistic beliefs.

These facts aren't obscure in the least. That is the "weird" thing about people taking up these ideas en mas.

 

[Uber Genius]

It's your claim that I've mislabeled myself (and every other atheist I know). For your claim to be true, you have to show that the general usage of the word "atheist" is what you say it is, and not what I say it is. Since language changes, the etymology of any word is pointless to discuss. The only true definition of a word is its general usage.

I can probably find countless recent examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who lacks a belief in a god".

Can you find countless examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who believes no god exists"?

Again as I have repeatedly stated and you have dodged,

Your definition conflates those who believe in no God "a - theism" "no" "God" with "a - gnostic" "no" "knowledge"

Oh I'm sorry ...

Agnostic must be defined as those who lack the belief in knowledge. Under your Dawkins new atheism speak.

Under you definition every child is an atheist!

One class on philosophy is all I ask.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not sure why you are confused here.

P - God Exists "theism"

Not P ~ "a - theism" or not/no theism

Nothing remotely complex here.

But asserting "lack of belief" is a doxastic rather than an epistemic claim.

the idea that we can just put the words "lack the belief," and then not have to defend the claim is what I'm getting at.

It is philosophically naïve.

It conflates atheism and agnosticism.

And it makes every person an atheist until such a time as they begin to hold theistic beliefs.

These facts aren't obscure in the least. That is the "weird" thing about people taking up these ideas en mas.

"theism" isn't defined as "a god exists", it's defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods"

a (without) • theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods)

But again, etymology means nothing. General usage is everything. And when are you going to give up this pointless exercise and deal with the fact that atheists identify as those without a belief in a god?

 

[Khalliqa]

Deleted because I realized I was giving this too much of my energy. Carry on

 

[Uber Genius]

It's your claim that I've mislabeled myself (and every other atheist I know). For your claim to be true, you have to show that the general usage of the word "atheist" is what you say it is, and not what I say it is. Since language changes, the etymology of any word is pointless to discuss. The only true definition of a word is its general usage.

I can probably find countless recent examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who lacks a belief in a god".

Can you find countless examples of people defining "atheist" as a "person who believes no god exists"?

Misses the point as you keep trying to do.

How do you differentiate a agnostic from an atheist on your conflated definition? No dodges just an answer.

How is it that all children are not defined as "atheists," given your definition?

Cats lack the belief in gods, they must, on your definition be atheists.

And a-Gnostics in stead of being defined as no knowledge must, to be consistent, LACK THE BELEIF IN KNOWLEDGE.

answer those questions.

This is the "absurd" "disgraceful" "reasoning" that atheist philosophers are objecting o about the new atheists.

Instead of defending inane claims in order to avoid justification why not invest 1/10th the energy in defending positive claims? This is what historic atheists like Voltaire, or Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Hume, Russell, Flew, Smith, Oppy, Sobel, Ruse, Mackey have done.

Answer the 4 questions and stop wasting our time.

 

[Uber Genius]

Deleted because I realized I was giving this too much of my energy. Carry on

Defining terms in such a way to conflate or equivocate their properties is "staining a gnat?"

Wow. Think you are missing the point.

Calling all children atheists, people who have not formed a positive belief one way the other, atheist is just calling a shade of lavender eggplant?

That doesn't seem even close to analogous (false analogy), my challenge here is engaging people about philosophical claims, who have not had that training.

When I try and help them make better atheistic arguments instead I get engaged with dodges, fallacy and rhetorical games.

Best of luck.

 

[Khalliqa]

@Uber Genius I was trying to disengage and I think you quoted my revision. Sorry about that.

 

[Uber Genius]

Agnostic is a term that often just means somebody who is unwilling to commit to a position. It can be used in conjunction with theist or atheist.

Thais for the chart. It attempts to clarify what other have tried to conflate.

Historically, and we see how much effort has gone into changing terms by this discussion, there were people claiming to know God exists, people who claimed that God doesn't exist, and people who claimed they didn't know (weak agnosticism) and those who claimed no one could know (strong agnosticism).

However, agnostic was historically separate from atheism or theism.

It seems that we have gotten down a rabbit trail due to lack of knowledge of philosophical claims and their defense. This ignorance has led to conflation of terms.

"A" Greek for "no"
"Gnostic" Greek for knowledge

So this is more of a doxastic scale that attempts to differentiate between knowledge and strength of belief.

 

[Uber Genius]

You've been given a chart that describes the common usage of the words "gnostic" "agnostic" "theist" and "atheist". It'

Conflates strength of beliefs with knowledge claims.

I have a degree in Philosophy.

Lol. Philosophers start by defining terms and differentiating properties so as to clarify propositions. You conflate terms so as to equivocate not differentiate.

All children are atheists.

All agnostics are now atheists.

Atheism historically defined is one of many religious beliefs . It is differentiated from pantheism, panenthianism, polytheism, agnosticism, and perhaps fideism.

You don't get to subsume (conflate and equivocate) by redefining it as all non-theists.

Now please join the discussion I started with positive claims for whatever view you hold.

Please don't equivocate but explicate your view.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Conflates strength of beliefs with knowledge claims.

It describes common usage of words.

Lol. Philosophers start by defining terms and differentiating properties so as to clarify propositions. You conflate terms so as to equivocate not differentiate.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm describing common usage. The chart very clearly shows how these words are being commonly used today.

All children are atheists.

Since some children are theists, this is demonstrably incorrect.

All agnostics are now atheists.

Since the chart shows a clear distinction between agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist now in common usage, this is demonstrably incorrect.

Atheism historically defined is one of many religious beliefs . It is differentiated from pantheism, panenthianism, polytheism, agnosticism, and perhaps fideism.

Now please join the discussion I started with positive claims for whatever view you hold.

Please don't equivocate but explicate your view.

My view is that I haven't accepted any theistic claim as to the existence of gods.

Now, you can either accept that and move on, or you can continue to needlessly complain about the use of language.

 

[Uber Genius]

It describes common usage of words.

Any person with a philosophy class let alone a degree would recognize that defining something as a lack of attributes rather than stating the attributes tends to conflate.

Agnostic lacks the belief in God as does my 2 year old child, as does A person claiming they are 99% sure there is no God.

Common usage changes, that is why specific attributes are called out. Common usage never matters in a philosophical argument!

One person defends proposition a and another defends b or not a!

The first thing one dos in a philosophical argument is define terms not conflate them,

They don't take a vote!

Known as vox populi fallacy!

The chart very clearly shows h

The chart is a measure of strength of beliefs and again is ahistorical.

I gave the historical definition.

Since some children are theists, this is demonstrably incorrect.

I should have stuck with babies. All babies on your definition lack the belief in God and are therefore atheists.

Absurd.

My view is that I haven't accepted any theistic claim as to the existence of gods.

Perfect. You are what history has called an agnostic.

No, I dont mean you lack the belief in knowledge. Or even knowledge in God (strong agnosticism).

And finely after so much chatter we get to a distinction. Far from claiming there is no God as many do, you make the statement, "I don't know."

Congratulations. I'm agnostic about which interpretation of QM has the most explanatory value.

I'm agnostic about whether we can ever solve our medical healthcare cost and availability problem.

I'm completely agnostic as to whether there is an effective political system.

I was talking to a friend who is a astrophysicist and claims to have discovered a star.

With regards to that star

1- The star exists

2- I don't know if the star exists

3 - No one can know that the star exists

4- The star doesn't exist.

Multiple choice question:

A. There are 4 separate claims

B. There 6 claims (the chart view with blended doxastic variations)

C. There are only two claims

On the new atheists "lack of belief" misdefinition, points 2,3,&4 are conflated (equivocated)


This is why I am continuing down this path to make distinctions.

The right answer is obvious, but I continue to get people claiming some other number than 4.

The whole world of atheist entities may vote "c" but it is still nonsense, just a word game made up by a foolish Oxford don ignorant of philosophical claims.

Disclaimer: I am not stating atheism is wrong because of its association to people like Dawkins. In fact I haven't stated that atheism is wrong.

I am just trying to cull the nonsense from well-reasoned arguments...without success. So far.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Any person with a philosophy class let alone a degree would recognize that defining something as a lack of attributes rather than stating the attributes tends to conflate.

Point to any link on any Philosophy website or reference any work by any Philosopher that states that defining a particular word based on a lack of a particular attribute is problematic.

Agnostic lacks the belief in God as does my 2 year old child, as does A person claiming they are 99% sure there is no God.

The common use of "agnostic" deals with knowledge rather than belief.

Common usage changes, that is why specific attributes are called out. Common usage never matters in a philosophical argument!

Of course common usage matters in an argument. You can't communicate with anyone if you've defined words outside of common usage. And you can't discuss philosophy with anyone you can't communicate with.

One person defends proposition a and another defends b or not a!

An atheist who says "I don't believe in a god" isn't engaging in an argument. They don't have a proposition to defend.

The first thing one dos in a philosophical argument is define terms not conflate them,

They don't take a vote!

Known as vox populi fallacy!

This is in no way an argument from popularity fallacy. Words mean whatever the population deems them to mean. They're dependent on consensus in order to facilitate communication. An appeal to popularity in this case is a necessity, not a fallacy.

The chart is a measure of strength of beliefs and again is ahistorical.

I gave the historical definition.

Then you're committing an etymological fallacy.

I should have stuck with babies. All babies on your definition lack the belief in God and are therefore atheists.

Absurd.

What's absurd is how pedantic you're being. If you really need me to specify it this way:

Atheist - A being with the capacity to consciously accept or reject claims who has consciously rejected all theistic claims presented to them.

Now that that's out of the way...

Perfect. You are what history has called an agnostic.

I'm what we now call an agnostic atheist. I could not care less - as no one should - what history would call me.

And finely after so much chatter we get to a distinction. Far from claiming there is no God as many do, you make the statement, "I don't know."

I've implied this from the very beginning.

Now, if you have some idea that "new atheists" believe there is no god (as in any possible god) and that's the purpose of this thread, then I'll need to see some evidence of this.

 

[Uber Genius]

Imagine for a moment we wanted to describe a wabzigit.

We start by describing its properties.

We would not describe the properties it lacks!

Why?

Simple the properties are always a fraction of the near infinite negation of said properties.

Wabzigits have no beliefs.

Therefore they lack the belief in God.

Therefore they are atheists.

But since I am pulling the same new atheist trick I define theism as the lack of belief that there is no God.

Wabzigits meet that lack of belief as well as again they hold no beliefs

Therefore Wabzigits are both atheists and theists.

But the law of non-contradiction says that can't hold.

One philosophy 101 class eliminates this whole goat rodeo red herring we been having.

By the way, this post is brought to you by the number "2" and the letter "a" both of which lack the belief in God and are therefore atheists, according to new atheist "common usage" anyways!

 

[zippy2006]

Wabzigits have no beliefs.

Therefore they lack the belief in God.

Therefore they are atheists.

But since I am pulling the same new atheist trick I define theism as the lack of belief that there is no God.

Wabzigits meet that lack of belief as well as again they hold no beliefs

Therefore Wabzigits are both atheists and theists.

But the law of non-contradiction says that can't hold.

Actually it would only transgress the law of non-contradiction if atheism and theism are defined in contradictory ways. But you did not define them in contradictory ways. You said atheism is the lack of belief in God, and theism is the lack of belief that there is no God. According to these definitions, not only could a Wabzigit be an atheist and a theist at the same time, but a living, breathing agnostic would also be both an atheist and a theist at the same time.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually it would only transgress the law of non-contradiction if atheism and theism are defined in contradictory ways. But you did not define them in contradictory ways. You said atheism is the lack of belief in God, and theism is the lack of belief that there is no God. According to these definitions, not only could a Wabzigit be an atheist and a theist at the same time, but a living, breathing agnostic would also be both an atheist and a theist at the same time.

The trouble is his definition for "theist" doesn't really work, does it? A double-negative doesn't always equal a positive like in math. For instance, if I were to say "God is not impotent" it is not the same as saying "God is omnipotent".