Since atheism is a belief

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think your confusion here is that you think definitions prove something. They do not. Definitions are nothing more than useful labels we use to communicate. If you wish to have your own definition of what the word 'atheist' means then well and good, it wont change any facts. It will however be a source of confusion if you use it in conversation with som ...[text shortened]... 'you are an atheist therefore you must match my definition of atheist, therefore you are a,b,c'.

Definitions don't define reality, they reflect reality. Our definitions need to be as error free and precise as possible or they may distort our perception of reality.

The supernatural is all that is not natural. All that is not part of nature and our universe.

Your definitions let you group together a group of people that make a specific claim about the supernatural and a group of people that say you can't make claims about the supernatural. Your definitions let you group together another group of people that make a counter claim about the supernatural and the same group of people that say you can't make claims about the supernatural. My definitions separate all these groups.

Which definitions, better reflect, reality?

Originally posted by
As twhitehead says, I wasn't trying to prove anything.

I was giving a/my/our definition of atheism/theism and all the variants thereof.

You can choose to accept this definition, or not.

But it's the one I/we will be using and you will come into conflict with me/us every time you use it differently.

You asked how I label and group and define atheism/theism and I gave you exactly that answer.

There really isn't anything more to add/discuss.

Yes googlefudge but I am trying to prove something, and I trying to do it using your diagram.

Originally posted by JerryH
Definitions don't define reality, they reflect reality. Our definitions need to be as error free and precise as possible or they may distort our perception of reality.

The supernatural is all that is not natural. All that is not part of nature and our universe.

Your definitions let you group together a group of people that make a specific claim about ...[text shortened]... tural. My definitions separate all these groups.

Which definitions, better reflect, reality?

Our definitions [and yours] also group together people who are vegetarians and believe
that eating meat is immoral and those who like to chow down on a hamburger every night.

So obviously both of our definitions are wrong...

Oh no! wait, those things have nothing to do with the reasons for the groupings,
and are thus completely irrelevant.


Theism and atheism are about whether or not you believe in the existence of gods.

A persons beliefs about the supernatural are completely and utterly irrelevant.

It's entirely possible to be a theist and believe in an entirely natural god and not believe in
the supernatural, and to be an atheist and not believe in gods and do believe in the supernatural.

But that's all irrelevant because these words atheist and theist have nothing to do with belief
in the supernatural, and everything to do with whether a person does or does not believe in a
god or gods.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly, an agnostic theist is someone who claims that one cannot know whether there is a God but chooses to believe that there is one. It is a seemingly irrational position, but then humans are somewhat irrational creatures - and theism seems to really bring that out in people.

Regarding your views on the supernatural, I think you have made some good ...[text shortened]... ut the existence of supernatural entities, you should be absolutely sure that they do not exist.

So are you saying that no definitions can ever be or can't be proven best?

Originally posted by JerryH
Yes googlefudge but I am trying to prove something, and I trying to do it using your diagram.

You are trying to make theism/atheism about your weird definition of and preoccupation
with the supernatural.

You will never get anywhere with that no-matter how long you try because that is not what
we all understand those words to be about.

My diagram explains very neatly what those words actually mean.

take it or leave it.

Originally posted by JerryH
So are you saying that no definitions can ever be or can't be proven best?

Definitions can be more or less useful, or be better reflections of how people actually use the terms.

But definitions [meaning of words] are not something you 'prove'. they are something you 'define'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Definitions can be more or less useful, or be better reflections of how people actually use the terms.

But definitions [meaning of words] are not something you 'prove'. they are something you 'define'.

So to you prove and proven best mean the same thing?

Originally posted by JerryH
So to you prove and proven best mean the same thing?

No. they don't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Our definitions [and yours] also group together people who are vegetarians and believe
that eating meat is immoral and those who like to chow down on a hamburger every night.

So obviously both of our definitions are wrong...

Oh no! wait, those things have nothing to do with the reasons for the groupings,
and are thus completely irrelevant.

...[text shortened]... natural, and everything to do with whether a person does or does not believe in a
god or gods.

"Theism and atheism are about whether or not you believe in the existence of gods.
A persons beliefs about the supernatural are completely and utterly irrelevant."

For us at the very least googlefudge, doesn't your above reduce to: Theism and atheism are about whether or not you believe in the existence of something supernatural. A persons beliefs about the supernatural are completely and utterly irrelevant?

Originally posted by JerryH
"Theism and atheism are about whether or not you believe in the existence of gods.
A persons beliefs about the supernatural are completely and utterly irrelevant."

For us at the very least googlefudge, doesn't your above reduce to: Theism and atheism are about whether or not you believe in the existence of something supernatural. A persons beliefs about the supernatural are completely and utterly irrelevant?

NO, they don't.

As I said, depending on how you define the supernatural, there are those who believe in entirely 'natural' gods.


I don't know what your obsession with 'the supernatural' is all about.

But your status as an atheist or theist is determined entirely and solely by whether you believe in a god or not.


That's it. period, end of story.

If you want terms for someone who believes in the supernatural [or not] then either look them up [if they exist already]
or invent them and try to popularise them.

But that's not what theism and atheism are about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Our definitions [and yours] also group together people who are vegetarians and believe
that eating meat is immoral and those who like to chow down on a hamburger every night.

So obviously both of our definitions are wrong...

Oh no! wait, those things have nothing to do with the reasons for the groupings,
and are thus completely irrelevant.

...[text shortened]... natural, and everything to do with whether a person does or does not believe in a
god or gods.

If we were discussing vegetarianism and your definitions were causing you to group hamburgers and celery.

We, you and I, are discussing the supernatural when we talk about God.

Originally posted by googlefudge
NO, they don't.

As I said, depending on how you define the supernatural, there are those who believe in entirely 'natural' gods.


I don't know what your obsession with 'the supernatural' is all about.

But your status as an atheist or theist is determined entirely and solely by whether you believe in a god or not.


That's it. period, end of ...[text shortened]...
or invent them and try to popularise them.

But that's not what theism and atheism are about.

Is God not a supernatural being to you?

Originally posted by JerryH
Is God not a supernatural being to you?

IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

I regard gods as fictional beings, whether they are 'supernatural' or not... well now that
really will depend on the god in question and how you define supernatural.

It's completely irrelevant however to whether or not I BELIEVE that gods exist.


There are people who believe in gods. they are called theists.

There are people who don't believe in gods. they are called atheists.


Why anyone has a problem with that is beyond me.

This is a non issue, these words have a definition, I have given it to you.

If you don't like it. tough.

Originally posted by JerryH
If we were discussing vegetarianism and your definitions were causing you to group hamburgers and celery.

We, you and I, are discussing the supernatural when we talk about God.

No, we are not, we are discussing belief in gods.

Whether they are supernatural or not.

Originally posted by googlefudge
IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

I regard gods as fictional beings, whether they are 'supernatural' or not... well now that
really will depend on the god in question and how you define supernatural.

It's completely irrelevant however to whether or not I BELIEVE that gods exist.


There are people who believe in gods. they are cal ...[text shortened]... on issue, these words have a definition, I have given it to you.

If you don't like it. tough.

If gods are not supernatural, if they are part of nature, then they are not fictional. If they are part of nature then they can be see, tested, confirmed, and understood.