Aporeia
For purpose of my patience running thin, and this whole conversation getting really tedious, I'm going to do everyone a favor and put this in spoilers, and consolidate it because I don't feel like replying to each and every quip.
And because the spoiler tag is just too convenient for someone who's not supporting their argument, I won't be honoring them. Thinking you are doing people a "favor" doesn't necessarily mean you're actually doing them one. I've yet to see a single complaint about this exchange needing spoiler tags for other people's comfort.
You said
Quote:
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.
It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.
is what I have been trying to address the entire time. You assert that it becomes complicated to decide what is atheism and what is theism in certain situations. I disagree. You've made a claim, and that leaves it up to you to support what you've said. What you seem to think is that the definition of what a god is creates this "complicated" state of which you speak. I disagree. You have tried numerous times to define a god, which is besides the point to whether or not believing that said god is a god makes the believer a theist or an atheist.
Quote:
A god is some sort of being or object that is worshiped, generally because it holds supremacy over something.
They believe it's divine? Theist. The reason for believing that is irrelevant to the theist/atheist designation.
Quote:
This can be either figurative or literal, but even the figurative examples hold some sway.
They believe it's divine? Theist. A "figurative example" would not be a claim to actual divinity. Hence, that is irrelevant to the theist/atheist designation.
Quote:
Generally, gods are spirits, but sometimes it's money or entertainment, or some sort of consumable... occasionally, it's the self.
Now you are inserting the use of the word "god" as metaphor in an attempt to present a situation when a person who believes in a "god" is not a theist. This is intellectually dishonest, as using metaphor is not the same as claiming something is divine, unless you are literally asserting that people believe that currency is divine, in which case they're idiots but also theists if they actually think that bills and coins have power beyond that which they hold as legal tender.
Quote:
Anything can be a god, and to some belief systems (like pantheism), they are.
Pantheism, from the Greek roots
pan (all) and
theos (god), may be understood positively as the view that "god" is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of "god", or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers "god" as distinct from the universe. In other words "all is god" not "anything is a god".
Which makes them a theist. Absolutely nothing complicated about it.
Quote:
Nevertheless, just because someone believes in xbox doesn't mean they need call it a god just because someone else does, because that would get way out of hand.
If anybody is under the impression that the divine manifests through Xbox, and they believe that it is a god, they are not atheists. Nothing complicated.
Quote:
Ergo, it's most acceptable to use the word god to refer to either some sort of archetypal mythical figure, or an actual thing that the person using the word worships.
And those who believe in gods are what again? Oh right, not atheists.
Quote:
Major point being that if someone believes in, for example, Zeus, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in Zeus as a god.
Then your issue appears to be with the term "to believe in" by which I mean "belief in a deity, as in that which is divine" and you apparently mean "the words 'to', 'believe' and 'in' wherever they might occur" whereby you think you get to conflate it with other terms that have nothing to do with the concept of deity (that which is considered divine).
Quote:
There are other words that can be used to describe Zeus, and just because you can categorize him as a god does not mean others do.
Which is still spectacularly besides the point, because I am concerned with what
the persons themselves believe with respect to Zeus. If they believe he's a god, then they're theists. Nothing complicated.
Quote:
In line with this entire thread the entirety of the point is that someone can believe in "gods" and still be an atheist because SEMANTICS.
Yes, I am quite aware that you are conducting a semantic argument, and I know that means that it's complete and utter bullshit because you are conflating the idea of "belief in as a deity" with any situation you can come up with wherein the words "believe in" may be used, including any situation wherein the words "believe that" are more appropriate (such as your Zeus example, where to say "believe that Zeus was a being who existed, just not as a god" would be what is appropriate), and dragging in possibilities for the definition of what a god may or may not be, all of which is
illogical and
not proving s**t with respect to your positive assertion that there is something "complicated" about the categories "theist" and "atheist".
There isn't. You are just equivocating to make it appear as though there is, and I follow that fine. What engaging in a fallacious appeal to semantics does for you is nothing I want to know or even particularly care about. All I care about is how you're not presenting anything that logically supports this asserted "complication" other than a rather dull appeal to semantics, which are a violation of the law of identity.
Quote:
Of course it isn't your point. You don't have a point. You're one of those people that dissects posts into a billion pieces, ignores context clues, and finds offense in arbitrary things. You didn't reply to me to make a point, you replied because you like to rant, and this is your outlet. You've done a very poor job of hiding that.
And as soon as I give any credence whatsoever to people who think they can psychoanalyze me via posts online, I will be sure to let you know. Today is not that day. Your telling me what your opinion is of me is nothing that means anything of any worth to me, and I could not possibly care less how you feel about that.
You made a positive assertion of "complications" and your argument does not demonstrate any actual complication in the terms themselves.
All I see is that you have an inane ability to introduce extraneous complications via semantics, in a manner that is not particularly clever. The semantics you are introducing are not inherent to the terms "theist" and "atheist", therefore the argument falls. This is no failure on my part.
Quote:
You don't have a point. Moving on.
Handwaving isn't actually a refutation, though, is it?
Quote:
I don't care if you believe Zeus exists. I don't believe Zeus exists. I don't think anyone in this thread believes Zeus exists. None of that matters because this is a hypothetical situation, and the only kind of person that froths at the mouth at hypothetical constructions are those who weren't there to reason to begin with.
The only evidence of froth I am noticing here would be the substance of your argument, wherein the definition of froth is "worthless or insubstantial talk, ideas, or activities". It's a merry red herring to be sure, but you're still not providing evidence of a complication between "theism" and "atheism".
Quote:
You're ignoring the fact that the kind of individual I am describing is not a full believer.
according to the law of identity. It does not matter one bit if you think there is such a thing as a "full" believer. That's No True Scotsman nonsense.
Quote:
They have their own beliefs. Their own beliefs lead them to acknowledge existence of things that others call gods, but they do not call gods except for out of context or spite.
Irrelevant. Belief in deity = not atheist. Believing in things which they do not call gods is besides the point.
Quote:
They are not theists, and they do not worship.
Theist is defined as the belief that at least one deity exists. You do not need to worship to be a theist. There are billions of people who fit this description, and it is not at all complicated.
Quote:
It is the equivalent of one person believing their next door neighbor is perfectly normal person, and another person saying "no, that guy eats field mice." What you are talking about is the difference between a person believing their next door neighbor is perfectly normal, and another person thinking they don't ******** exist.
What I am saying is very simple: If you lack belief in any deities, you are an atheist. Whatever else you believe is irrelevant. If you hold the belief that at least one deity exists, you are a theist, even if you cannot adequately define that god. Strawmanning my point does not prove yours.
Quote:
I didn't come here to debate the existence of spirits. Nobody came here to do that. Asking me for proof isn't even a valid response to anything I said. I said other people have beliefs about X, you then ask for proof of X. Even if I COULD prove it to you, it would be COMPLETELY irrelevant to my argument because my argument doesn't rely on the existence of spirits, it relies on other people believing in spirits.
Holding the belief in spirits is not relevant at all to either theism or atheism, what is relevant is whether or not the people who believe in them see them as gods. You want to drag inane side issues into your argument? I get to be equally as inane about replying to them. Don't like that? Don't drag in anything inane. Demonstrate the complication between "theist" and "atheist" clearly and concisely and there will be nothing inane for me to say.
Quote:
The fact that you can't see that is dumbfounding.
Yea yea yea, all this handwaving and $2.50 might get you a cup of coffee, but it's not making your argument any better.
Quote:
Whoopdie doo. Is that any better?
Only if you want to appear to be a twelve year old. Was that your intent? You have succeeded. Bravo.
Quote:
They are relevant to the point. You are incapable of forming, or even staying on point in this thread, so the fact you can't keep up with it isn't my problem.
They fail to demonstrate any so-called "complication" arising between the terms "theist" and "atheist" other than those which you persist in dragging into the very uncomplicated definition of both via semantics. I am easily able to see that. Your apparent wish for me back off of it and agree that you're supporting the assertion when you're not doesn't affect me in the slightest. You're equivocating. I know it. That's your problem, not mine.
Quote:
Which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with anything I'm arguing.
It's a clear description of exactly how you are equivocating. "To believe in" (as a deity) is not the same as "to believe in" (meaning have trust for) or "to believe that" (something is a certain way). There is where the equivocation lies. Handwaving isn't going to make it go away, and neither is hiding it under spoiler tags.
Quote:
Do idioms not exist where you come from?
Are you under the impression that presenting an idiom demonstrates the complication you asserted? Approach begets response.
Ah, I see now that you meant to appear to be nine years old instead of twelve. My bad. It might helpful if you decided on one state of immaturity to appeal to, for the sake of consistency, that is if you are able.
Quote:
Do you ACTUALLY have to say this?
As long as you introduce inane blather, you will receive replies worthy of inane blather.
Quote:
What point are you trying to make? This statement does nothing but make combat where none was before.
Approach begets response is the point.
Quote:
I never said you had gods. Quotations mean nothing to you.
If you want to throw red herrings all over the place, no, they don't. Talk about this complication and we'll have a real discussion. Engage in semantic deviations from the actual words themselves and we won't.
Quote:
I reiterate, you don't have a point.
More hand-waving. Useless.
Quote:
This is proof of the above statement. If you had no interest in what I'm talking about, you would never have replied to me if you had any point to make. Either you have no point, or you do care.
My interest is in your assertion that some complication exists on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence. The fact that you do not seem to know that the defining quality of both terms is "belief in deities" is glaringly obvious, and that is where my point lies.
See it and acknowledge it or don't. That is what I do not care about, because my arguments are for those who read them and not necessarily the benefit of the person I am engaged with, and the reasons I choose to reply happen to be my prerogative when it comes to posting in these forums.
Quote:
They do fit in the discussion. The entire discussion I brought to the table was based entirely on these concepts. The whole discussion I brought up was that the subject gets complicated because of these things. You don't understand this. You aren't willing to see a semantic argument. You have no reason to be here because you are contributing nothing.
I see your semantic argument clearly. I refuse to accept a semantic argument as evidence to support an assertion because it's
a logical fallacy. Therefore it follows that I give yours no credence whatsoever. There is no "situation" to be "complicated" between something so simple as "the person who lacks belief in any god is an atheist" and "the person who believes in at least one god is a theist".
Whatever else they may believe is irrelevant. Other types of belief are irrelevant. Reverence is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
So, you can make pointless little quips, but I can't?
Approach begets response. Learn it. Know it.
Quote:
It's not a god if you don't believe in it as a god.
Which has nothing to do with supporting the assertion that the categorizations of "theism" and "atheism" become complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence. Whether or not it is or is not a god by virtue of belief is besides the point. If you believe in it is a god, then you are a theist. If you do not believe in it as a god but believe in something else as a god, you are still a theist. If you believe in anything at all as a god, you are a theist and if you lack belief in anything as a god, you are an atheist.
NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS COMPLICATED.
That is a
RED HERRING.
Quote:
You are looking for a point, and you don't have one because you never grasped it. My point is way, way over there, at the beginning of my post, and you missed it.
I am still waiting for you to engage in an actual rational argument in support of the above assertion. Your handwaving is at best mildly amusing.
Quote:
What is it like to be so pointless? I really want to know, because I've never experienced it on your magnitude.
I wouldn't know, because I am not the one who claimed that anything becomes complicated between the defining factors of what an atheist is and what a theist is, that was you, and you're the one who foolishly entered into a semantic argument then admitted to it publicly, when that's illogical by definition and clearly demonstrates that you don't have a point that you're able to support.
You must have very thick skin not to mind publicly admitting you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest, which is a good thing to have on the internet. That means you won't be on ignore because that's actually rather entertaining to me, much like watching a worm twist on my hook. Continue to impersonate a person who is nine all you want, I like to laugh.
If you want to actually back the ******** up and address the assertion you made pages ago without all the egotistical posturing, I'm good with that too.
