Acquinas would never have had to write the Summa in the first place.

His logic was faulty, due to that error.

See this, for one of many arguments against his proofs:

https://medium.com/jakubferencik/arguments-for-gods-existence-debunked-cb656189653e

There was an @ character in it. At the link, there is an argument. It is not a very good one, but it suffices. The old arguments, all five of them, have been debunked many times.

Some believers e.g., Bob Dutko in Detroit, cite certain information as "proving" their beliefs. Dutko has a series of presentations (for sale, of course), proclaiming that he has "scientific, documented evidence' for claims like

- Christianity is the Only True Religion
- God's Existence
- The Bible is True

and a bunch of others, at 15 bucks apiece. Seems like if you have "scientific, documented evidence", let's say, that the Bible is true, then it would no longer be a matter of faith.

Huge subject; we could easily have an all day discussion about any one of the facets of the faith/logic intersection. Thanks for posting.

All have a faulty initial premise at their core. No evidence of existence of any such entity is available, by definition.

After all, such proof could easily lead to a Nobel Prize or two.

Religion is in fact based on emotion. Emotions are based on instinctual drives and cultural factors. Faith is a placeholder to fill in gaps where reason and evidence do not match the emotional decision. If people simply admitted that they are religious because of the emotional satisfaction it provides, then they wouldn't feel the need to prove their faith logically.

That's how I see it when I think about it. It's right up there with "love" on the hierarchy, it seems to me.

that overcomes all doubt, smashes through all evidence, and is direct pipeline to gifts from God. That's a pretty tall order for an emotion.

There is a belief that there are no gods, and rationalization as to how that unprovable belief is logical.

Both sides depend on belief, but only one side will admit it.

If you are an empiricist, you only believe in things that are sufficiently demonstrated through evidence. The logically consistent position is that elephants exist and God doesn't is that elephants can be empirically demonstrated.

And a position that cannot be proven or disproven requires belief no matter which position one holds.

That would seem to be pretty simple.

There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for unicorns. Is there something unclear about this? Do you believe in unicorns without evidence? If you don't believe in them, why not?

(BTW, I am actually agnostic, but I am presenting an atheist position for discussion purposes).

You claim that God exists. So, demonstrate the truth of that. I don't have to prove non-existence. You have to show that there is such a thing.

Read #13.

I think not. I do not defend other people's writings. Take it up with the author of that post, not with me.

And demanded of me what I freely admit cannot be done.

Why?

I replied to a post made by you. That it is in a subthread does not mean anything. I was addressing you.

An answer I have made many times previously. So was your question purely rhetorical?

For example, you say that atheism is a belief that gods do not exist. Many atheists have explained to you that you are incorrect in that definition, and that atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities due to there being no evidence of their existence.

Belief and disbelief are antonyms. They can not be used interchangeably. Theism is a belief. Atheism is the opposite of that belief. it is a disbelief. That's why there are two words. They mean different things.

two groups. I am not dividing atheism into any groups. I am an atheist. I belong to no groups of atheists. I disbelieve in the existence of deities and other such supernatural entities. I do not attach adjectives to my atheism.

Adjectives modify words. I don't use any adjectives to describe my personal philosophical understandings.

When I look for a definition, I consult a dictionary. Here's Merriam-Webster's primary definition of atheism:

atheism noun
athe·​ism | ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

allaboutphilosophy.org is not a dictionary. I consult dictionaries for definitions. You apparently consult other sources - sources which agree with you in some way.

Goodbye.

From an atheist.

That's why dictionaries are collaborative works. The definition for atheism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary I provided was discussed to make sure it was clear and accurate.

I don't care what the website you suggested says about the definition. Dictionaries are the authoritative sources when definitions are sought. Blogs are not.

Regardless of what definition they use, people believe certain things and do not believe other things. Arguing over definitions is not dialogue when it's used to obscure other people's actual opinions.

Anyone is free to define their own words, especially when they are not subject to critical review. Literacy is what separates language from gibberish.

They're hopelessly unqualified to actually lay out the atheist position, and they're not even disinterested brokers of definitions of the atheist position.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/common/aboutus.htm


All About Philosophy
ABOUT US

We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world.

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys.

This information is offered by AllAboutGOD.com, which is structured as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. If you would like to support our efforts, you can make a tax-deductible contribution here. Thanks!


Contact us here.

AllAboutGOD.com
PO Box 507
Peyton, Colorado 80831

AllAboutGOD.com

Your first cite was dishonest. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your second cite says you're wrong. Bloody brilliant, that.

And your third is generally regarded as an obsolete error from the time people like you had a say in what the word meant. You don't anymore.

So, no, you still have nothing but a lie about somebody else's position.

Serious question: Can you document even one atheist here who actually agrees with your erring definition of atheism?

Followup question: Has it never occurred to you at any point that this glaring omission might mean you're just pissing people off by slandering their position, and preferring to argue instead with a lie you've invented?

Bonus question: Is there any answer to that second question which reflects well on you?

put on for the benefit of the legion of adoring fans he says he has. He has told us more than once how they send him numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group.

I get a reply from somebody worthwhile, but because of the subthread structure I have to unblock the serial liar with the arrogance problem before I can read it.

I suppose doing things for the approval of his imaginary friends is something of a habit with him at this point. Honestly, I've pretty much concluded he lives under a bridge with the way he spams that bullshit lie about how he alone gets to mis-define the opposing viewpoint over the objections of people who actually hold it. It may be a tacit admission that he considers the actual atheist position unassailable, but if spamming that lie ain't either trolling or performance art...I'm not sure the alternative explanations are any more flattering.

That website is biased toward theism, just as guillaumeb is. It has altered the standard definition of atheism to suit its own purposes.

I'd like to thank guillaumeb for posting that link. Now we can see that he is deliberately using a non-objective definition for the word.

Feh!

So if it helps you, every time you see the word "atheist" on DU, just stick the word "weak" before it, or ask for clarification as to what to type of atheist they are.

MM takes exception to that. I do not.

Use the dictionary, Guy, not some Christian blog, when you want definitions of words.

Should people use definitions that don't match their beliefs? Would you let me define a Christian as someone who believes in Biblical literalism? That is a valid definition held by many, but I know it is not yours, so what use does it have in talking about your own beliefs?

Because it covers a very wide range of meanings that are easily confused with each other, and leads to misunderstandings. I try to interpret what people mean, rather than quibble over what they said. You seem to be trying to pin a position on MM and others that they do not actually hold.

The definition guillaumeb uses comes from a Christian website and is not an objective definition. It is biased toward theism.

is similar to ones I've seen elsewhere. I find it a useful distinction even though I understand you don't use it yourself.

The website is a Christian website, as show in the boldfaced statement. The same organization also has a website called allaboutcreation.org, which is a creationist website. I do not accept definitions of atheism from Christian sources. Such definitions have a distinct theistic bias. Look at a dictionary if you want objective definitions, not a religious website. For pete's sake!

Not me. It's a heavily biased source, not objective at all.

Here's the definition from the Oxford Dictionary - the most respected of English Language dictionaries:

Click on the links.

neither is your other dictionary. Above, I provided the definition from the Oxford Dictionary.

Revealing.

What gives you the right to throw courtesy out the window and presume you have any hope of successfully arguing with him about what he does and does not believe? You can't even clearly state what you yourself believe, let alone somebody whose position you refuse to understand.

No, he is qualified to say what he is. Not what every atheist is.

Ironically he posted a definition listing them as mutually exclusive.

The Collins dictionary, as it is currently constituted, is not one I consider to be very good. It was assembled in an unusual way, based on online references, rather than academic research. Its definitions are brief and it often does not delve into secondary and tertiary meanings of most words. I find that a serious fault in any dictionary.

I have a few dictionaries around the house. I have an earlier Collins, which I consider to be primarily a children's dictionary. It's not one I consult. Normally, these days, I use online dictionaries, but I do consult my old Oxford Dictionary of the English Language (compact edition), despite the fact that it requires a magnifying glass to read. One came with the two volume set. I consider it to be the most authoritative dictionary of English.

But, I don't review dictionaries, except on a casual basis.

I also don't use religious websites to find definitions of words. They almost always exhibit biases in their definitions, as did the one you cited.

As recently as a century or two, atheism was defined as everything that didn’t Include belief in an interventionist god which is a much bigger tent than how anyone defines it today. Deists were commonly referred to as atheists.

to descriptive for the most part, in an attempt to avoid biases. Older definitions of the word "atheist" reflected the religious attitudes of the the times they were created, and imposed negative connotations on the definition. Some of those persist even today. The Collins dictionary definition offered by guillaumeb is a good example.

The etymology of the word says it all. It simply means "without theism." It's a very simple word, and easy to understand. But, religious biases made it a word that had connotations attached to it that do not belong to it.

They just defined the word as it made sense to theists which is in terms of belief as if someone has to make a decision one way or another.

Gil isn't the only religionist I've seen insist on a definition which requires belief, even though this is the least literate. Naturally this makes the most sense to them as they can frame both sides as requiring belief and therefore equally valid. The best part is both sides aren't equally valid regardless. Theism makes extraordinary claims. Atheism, regardless of their subliterate definition, does not. So no matter how you frame it, they are intellectually bankrupt.

The Collins dictionary is published in England. The version Gil referenced is the abridged version for American US English. In other words, it's primary purpose is to serve as a reference for UK English speakers parsing US English. If you go to their version for their native version of English, you'll find atheism defined nearly exactly the same way virtually all US dictionary publishers define it, which is a bit ironic. At any rate, if your objective is to be something less than fully literate here in the US, using an abridged dictionary published in the UK for American English syntax is a great start.

It reminds me of a story from my time at an total immersion Russian language school. Fairly early in the courses, we were asked to write an essay in Russian, explaining what our life goals were. My essay was about my hope of becoming a hobo. I thought a little humor was in order.

Since it was early days in learning Russian, I had to resort to an English/Russian dictionary. The word "hobo" was not in that dictionary, so I looked up "bum," which was. So, I began my essay with a sentence that said: "I want to be a bum (zadnitsa). The rest of the essay was about the benefits of being a zadnitsa. I thought it was very clever.

Not so fast, though. The instructor who assigned the essay, which we had to read aloud in class, broke into peals of laughter when I read the first sentence. "Not Nice, Airman!" she said. "Not Nice!" She moved on to the next student's essay.

After class, I consulted a Russian/English dictionary to see what the problem was. I should have done that earlier. It turned out that the word, "zadnitsa" means "buttocks" in English. The problem was that my English/Russian dictionary was a British edition. It was a valuable lesson about dictionaries and translations. I really didn't mean to write" "I wan't to be an ass." But, the fault was mine. I should have remembered the British meaning of "bum."

I rewrote the essay, which got an "A" grade, but the teacher was still amused.

Translations of ancient documents are inevitably riddled with them. Part of this is due to human error and part of this is just due to ignorance of where and when something was written which is extremely important as language inevitably changes over space and time, particularly so in an age where the vast majority of people are illiterate and literary publications are rare. If you think about how much our language has changed in the last 400 years between US and England in a relatively modern age, multiply that by many times over a longer span and throw in a few conversions to other languages.

That's why I got a kick out of Gil convincing himself that he is deriving very subtle meanings from creation myths as if he or anyone else has any idea what the original authors actually meant.

It's funny that so many people rely on a translation of the Bible into the English of 1611. The same people cannot understand what is happening in a Shakespeare play written at about the same time. They are confused and need explanations of what is said. Yet, they cling to a book that uses language they do not use or fully understand.

There are many contradictions connected with religious beliefs. Many of them have to do with ancient texts and old translations of those texts. Who knows what it all really means, after all?

Doctrine and dogma of all religions also changes over time, particularly in respect to morality. It just takes longer because you have large groups of people who are clinging to myths written during a time when people didn't know where the sun went at night and were selling their children into slavery.

Bravo.

Incidentally, from your second link:

noun
1.
a person who does not believe in God or gods

Otherwise it's essentially going with "agnostic" for what many would call a "weak atheist."

I claim that lack of evidence is a form of proof. It's an ordinary standard that we use all the time, or should use.

Did Hillary Clinton ever commit a crime? Well, she has been thoroughly investigated and no evidence to indict has been found. This is sufficient for reasonable observers to conclude no crime was committed. Others believe she did commit crimes, lack of evidence notwithstanding. Need we treat both claims as equally true and unprovable?

Clinton was accused of specific things that have not been proven. And investigation has disproven the accusations.

On another topic, MM has asked me why I insert myself into sub-threads. So there is a tiny bit of irony here.

Finally, lack of evidence is not proof. It is simply a lack of evidence.

If lack of evidence is not proof, then no investigation can ever disprove anything, because there is always the possibility that something occurred without leaving evidence. Clinton still could have committed a crime and covered it up well. But I don't hold this position and few people do in ordinary life, aside from politically motivated attacks and the like.

You flatly refuse to make specific claims about your own beliefs, preferring instead to spam specific errors about others' beliefs and lack thereof.

But there are many, many, theists who do make specific claims about what their deity is, what it did, what it does, and so forth.

For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears

There was an investigation and the allegations of divine intervention have been disproved. It's a good analogy.

I define my own, not yours. I define my own approach to Christianity. I never claim that my approach is the definitive one.

And, more importantly, I recognize that philosophical beliefs are often unprovable.

If you are an atheist, or an agnostic, or a theist, it is up to you to personally define it. But definitions that reference all 3 positions, theism, atheism, and agnosticism, as belief based are not biased against anyone.

As to whether philosophical beliefs are unprovable, that is itself a separate discussion. Philosophers differ on that question, so you can't take it as a given to "recognize." Rather you'd have to argue it as a general position. For me, it depends heavily on what constitutes "proof" and that itself is highly variable, depending on what field of inquiry you are talking about.

But to define a belief as being anything but an unprovable belief, or opinion if you prefer, is illogical.

It depends on your definition of belief, opinion, and above all, proof. First we have to agree on what those things are, then chose a standard of proof, then we can talk about what logically flows from those. Each of those things has multiple dictionary definitions as well as specialized meanings for various professions.

If we don't have agreement on the specifics of those things, then we are just talking in circles.

But in discussing the existence,or non-existence, of a heretofore unproven entity, if neither side has proof of their own position, it is simply philosophical opinion.

As do lawyers, mathematicians, engineers, historians, economists, theologians, and ordinary people. Philosophers may choose any standard they wish, but they should, at a minimum, provide justification.

There is also a difference between proof, evidence, and justification, although they are often used interchangeably. If we are going to talk about them, we need to be precise.

Theists make extraordinary claims. Atheists do not.

about the entity he calls The Creator™ The Creator™ is known to some in this group as Sparky because, as Gil has said, The Creator™ is "the one who figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang."

Really? All that ado about a tiny amount of uncertainty?

Oh, well. That's not much to hang one's hat on, really.

If The Creator™ "figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang" as Gil said, then doesn't that make Sparky a figurative creator? Why would a real creator figuratively create anything?

Gil assured us that he believes The Creator™ is a real entity.

I have a different theory about all this, but it's one I can't write about here and continue to post.

So, my fingers are sealed.

Please don't write anything that would cause you to cease posting here.

I won't.

I will have to have a definition of terms before I would even be able to say if I think it exists or not. Your question is actually kind of interesting as it seems to presuppose that God is special in that you can't prove it exists, but from a logic standpoint it isn't possible to prove that anything imaginable doesn't exist.

What you're describing is antitheism, and there is a burden of proof associated with that. Atheism is different.

A person makes a claim. Onus is on them to prove it. For certain claims, it's not a big deal. You're claiming you got a new dog over the weekend is one of them. Doesn't really have an effect on my life. A theist tells me that there's a god, and I need to submit my life to it is different. As a modern theist, I do not know if there is a god or not, but I know I haven't been shown good proof there is one. It doesn't make any sense for me to make all the major life changes necessary to becoming a believer because one person wants me to accept his or her god claims over everyone else's. What you cal belief should really be labeled as faith, and I know that there is no belief that you can't come to based on faith alone. My belief is I can't be sure, but there's no reason to think so until shown proof. That's inherently more logical.

TlalocW

I do not claim that the Creator exists, I say that I believe that the Creator exists.

I am not asking anyone to share that belief.

But for anyone to say that the atheistic position is the more logical one is an illogical assertion because it cannot be proven. An agnostic, on the other hand, admits to uncertainty.

These are unique jellybeans that cannot be counted. Perhaps like Schrodinger's Cat, if you open the container, the wave form collapses, and the jelly beans disappear.

Someone with some sort of theism related to jellybeans says, "I believe the number of jellybeans is even."
The jellybean atheist says, "I have no reason to believe that."
Another jellybean theist who shares the same religion as the first but believes even numbers of jellybeans are an abomination says, "The number is odd."
The jellybean atheist says, "I have no reason to believe that."
Both theists are upset with the atheist because if he doesn't believe the other's claim, the atheist should be on his side then.
The atheist says, "I have no reason to believe the number is even or that the number is odd (though one must be true)."

Who is being the most logical?

TlalocW

Atheism and theism both require that the person accept as true that which cannot be proven or disproven. Each belief requires faith. A faith that the person arriving at the belief arrived at the position after careful thought.


And that is the entirety of it. The atheist can demand proof, but demanding proof ignores the fact that neither position is provable.

You have asserted this as a "fact" many times but you provided no evidence to support your claim.

So I will modify my statement to read "heretofore unprovable" positions.

Also, "heretofore unprovable" is both a significant departure from what you've been seeing as long as I've participated in this group, and an oxymoron. "Unprovable" implies that it's proven that something can't be done. IF you haven't proven that something can't happen, then it could happen in the future. All we could know is that it hasn't happened yet. So you would have to change it to "heretofore unproven." And also provide evidence for why existing proofs either way are inadequate.

And I have always said that my belief is unprovable. Always.

And depending on what you mean by "proof" atheists may not agree their own beliefs are unproven. They don't even agree they have a belief, so what constitutes a belief also has to be agreed upon.

And what if the jellybeans have already been eaten?

And what if they're actually pickles?

And what if there's no jar?

And whose word do we have that jellybeans even exist, anyway?

Theists make extraordinary claims. Atheists do not.

But regardless the counter position isn’t equal. I realize belief in supernatural myths requires the suspension of reason, but I don’t think it should require abandoning it entirely.

You've been told this is bullshit over and over again, gil, but you keep insisting that YOU get to define atheism for atheists.

I don't have "a belief that there are no gods," I simply haven't seen enough evidence to accept anyone's claim that there are.

There's a difference, but either you are incapable of seeing it, or you are willfully choosing not to in order to deliberately portray others in a false manner.

I think I know which it is.

That is for individual atheists to define.

But I am defining both positions as equally unprovable, thus based on a belief in the validity of the position.

You are telling me what my atheism is.

I'm telling you you're wrong.

But you don't care, because you're THAT kind of Christian.

Do you care?

And only the former successfully.

Screw it. Back on ignore. All you do is spam this same lie again and again. It's rude for the sake of being rude, and brings absolutely nothing to the table.

And substitute what another misread?

Speaking of rudeness.....

You're on a roll. Keep going.

In fact, my dog has done exactly that to a neighborhood cat, who finds my dog's behavior both interesting and confusing. But that doesn't mean a cat is a dog. And there are many cats who would take strong exception to my dog's definition.