Is Your Skeptometer Consistent ?

Originally posted by sonship
[b] The design argument or at least the watchmaker variation of it has a strong initial appeal. But I think it is a mistake on the part of the theist to put design into contrast with random chance (the Boing 747 variant). The design argument works better when it is acknowledged that things sometime happen in the natural world in an ordered way. The chemistr ...[text shortened]... s late. I'll think on that one latter.
Oh, thanks for your thoughts on that part of the video.

OK thanks too. I don't see much point in turning this into a rehash of the ID and/or fine tuning argument so will just leave it there.

Originally posted by redbadger
BACK OF DA NET

Actually no, not back of the net, in fact not in the net at all. Both you and sonship appear to have misunderstood KazetNagora's post. Atheists do not BELIEVE that supernatural beings are involved in the creation of the universe. That is not the same as believing that no supernatural beings were involved in the creation of the universe (although some, but by no means all, atheists also take this stance). It is not a claim that is being made, it's nothing more than the definition of atheism.

Originally posted by sonship

[b] Atheism doesn't make any claims, so there is nothing to be skeptical about, and no possible "argument for atheism" exists.

Is that which you have written a claim made by Atheism ?

If so you just shot yourself in the foot.[/b]

It's not a claim. If one finds oneself unconvinced by the available evidence in the existence of a supreme supernatural being, then one is by definition an atheist.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It's not a claim. If one finds oneself unconvinced by the available evidence in the existence of a supreme supernatural being, then one is by definition an atheist.

I heard of a term that was new to me the other day. It was from a friend of my wife who does
not believe in God. She called herself a non-theist instead of an atheist, because she said
she is not against theism, she just rejects it.

Anyone else ever heard of this, and if not, what do you think?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I heard of a term that was new to me the other day. It was from a friend of my wife who does
not believe in God. She called herself a non-theist instead of an atheist, because she said
she is not against theism, she just rejects it.

Anyone else ever heard of this, and if not, what do you think?

The Christian PR machine is very good at convincing people that atheist means
something different from a person who lacks a belief that a god or gods exist.

Thus people coming up with all kinds of different terms to explain themselves without
using the 'A-word' is very common. Self proclaimed 'agnostics' do it all the time.

non-theist is another common example.

If that's what she wants to call herself that's fine, but she is an atheist. [literal translation, not-theist].

An ANTI-theist is someone who is against theism... Such a person [I am one] would typically also
be an atheist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The Christian PR machine is very good at convincing people that atheist means
something different from a person who lacks a belief that a god or gods exist.

Thus people coming up with all kinds of different terms to explain themselves without
using the 'A-word' is very common. Self proclaimed 'agnostics' do it all the time.

non-theist is anoth ...[text shortened]... someone who is against theism... Such a person [I am one] would typically also
be an atheist.

I had never heard of the term before, which is why I asked you guys.
It was not a Christian PR machine tactic...just a query.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I heard of a term that was new to me the other day. It was from a friend of my wife who does
not believe in God. She called herself a non-theist instead of an atheist, because she said
she is not against theism, she just rejects it.

Anyone else ever heard of this, and if not, what do you think?

I've been referring to myself on this forum as a non-theist for years, but I don't connect that with "rejecting" theism. It reports on the fact that when I introspect, I find no belief in any being I would call Theos or God. Shorthand for that, in my case, is that I'm not a theist; I'm a non-theist.Her mileage may vary. While it makes sense to ask people what their self-designation means, it doesn't make sense to assume there usage is the only meaning people have for it.

Now someone is going to say that means I reject theism. So we could get into what "reject" means. Is it "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste" as google suggests?

After all, when I decide not to see a movie or enter a tournament, it doesn't mean I "reject" that movie or tournament. Not in my parlance, anyway.

Originally posted by JS357
Now someone is going to say that means I reject theism. So we could get into what "reject" means.

OK. "Reject" in this context, I think, refers to being unable to subscribe to a belief because one is not convinced of its verity or of the significance attached to it by the believer.

But the word is often spun by theists to imply that the option (receiving an actual 'gift of grace', for example) is perceived and acknowledged as existing. But one cannot choose to subscribe to it in any genuine sense if it is not credible; so, if both option A and B are perceived as being authentic and credible, then deciding against one of those options would constitute "rejecting" it, in a more conventional sense.

So, in short, in terms of believers and non-believers, the former use the notion of "rejection" to describe what is in fact an "inability" in the latter.

Originally posted by JS357
I've been referring to myself on this forum as a non-theist for years, but I don't connect that with "rejecting" theism. It reports on the fact that when I introspect, I find no belief in any being I would call Theos or God. Shorthand for that, in my case, is that I'm not a theist; I'm a non-theist.Her mileage may vary. While it makes sense to ask people what ...[text shortened]... r a tournament, it doesn't mean I "reject" that movie or tournament. Not in my parlance, anyway.

Thank you, well said.

Originally posted by FMF
OK. "Reject" in this context, I think, refers to being unable to subscribe to a belief because one is not convinced of its verity or of the significance attached to it by the believer.

But the word is often spun by theists to imply that the option (receiving an actual 'gift of grace', for example) is perceived and acknowledged as existing. But one cannot cho ...[text shortened]... e former use the notion of "rejection" to describe what is in fact an "inability" in the latter.

Well, another POV (my natural inclination, perhaps just the meaning I was taught) is that to reject is to deem UNtrue. I could adjust this, if there was a consensus among theists that when they say something like "you reject theism" they only mean, as you say, "you are unable to subscribe to a belief because one is not convinced of its verity or of the significance attached to it by the believer." But we shall see.

I predict that I have almost killed this thread.🙂