Is Theism arrogant?

But there is no such definition. And your idea that atheists don't oppose any god but big-g God is pretty silly on the face of it. By that definition, we're forced to conclude that everybody who holds to a non-Abrahamic religion is an "atheist". As an athiest I can assure you that you are quite incorrect. Denying all the supernatural garbage that people regularly promulgate still leaves plenty of room for natural existence and purpose, which is hardly even close to nihilism. Well, look. Words have meanings. Phrases, too. People say "we don't know either way" when they're faced with two positions and no way to come to any sort of conclusion, tentative or otherwise, about which one is probably right.They don't say it when there's one position that is probably right, and one that is probably wrong. If you meant something else when you said "don't know either way", then it's time for you to realize that you used language that didn't accurately capture your meaning. I can accept that. There's no logical basis for extending the ratio of results in the past into some kind of probabilistic conclusion about the future. It's reasonable to do so, and obviously people do that all the time, but I'm not aware of any logical basis that extends that rationale about the past into the future.And that doesn't even count all the times that people reason about the future based on the past without actually establishing any probabilities. But I think we're kind of off-topic about this. If you've got a refutation of Kant's Inductive Fallacy, I'd love to see you open a thread on it. I'm not interested in defending Kant, but I'm just saying that there's a pretty high bar already set in terms of trying to justify empiricism and induction via deductive logic. If you could meet that I'd be very impressed, not to mention grateful. That would be a very interesting thing to be shown. Well, obviously when we investigate the universe, we're more interested in what is actually true about it, not what is true based on our assumptions about it. Reasoning from assumptions is tautological, and doesn't really tell us anything. Reasoning from assumptions is only true as long as the assumptions are true. When it comes to the universe, we're more concerned about the truths that are true so long as the universe is true.It's the difference between finding something out and just making something up, in my opinion. Finding out what's true in the little game-world your assumptions create may be fun but it has limited applicability to the real world, which is not predicated on your assumptions but on the very nature of reality itself, whatever the hell that is.This is another thing that's getting off-topic, though. Maybe we should just stick with the atheism?

Nothing wrong with nihilism in my view. It is quite reasonable.

The question is, is it reasonable enough for you. I gather you don't think so.

Try here: God Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Might as well see this too: Atheism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comThe primary definitions here are the ones I'm using for the base of my arguments. Also, I said the generally accepted view of god. I certainly don't believe that this excludes all non-Abrahamic religions. Atheism could, however, include certain religions, especially when noting that atheism itself could be considered a religion. This is precisely what I disagree with. If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you are directly implying that you don't believe in a purpose. How could there possibly be a purpose to life if purpose is defined as the "reason for existence?" Maybe you would argue that our purpose was given to us by our creator, nature. However, without the supernatural, nature can certainly not have this or any intention. Sorry to confuse the point. As a computer programmer, I've been trained to break everything down literally because computers don't do what you meant to command. In any situation where I'm not certain of something, if someone asked if I knew I would say "I don't know (either way), but it is probably this...." I understand that certain phrases have connotations or insinuations that derive from it's usage rather than it's definition, but this is precisely what I've been trained to avoid. It might help that if in the future you treated what I said as if a robot rather than a person said it. Fair enough. Actually, after viewing Kant's synthesis, I think I might do just that. For whatever reason the philosophy of science fascinates me. I don't even have to read the rest of this to understand the problem. I believe that we can only make assumptions, and you believe that there can be actual truths. I can't reduce, prove, or disprove either or these assumptions, so it'd be pointless for me to offer a rebuttal. Also, you're right this is going off topic. It's just fun to argue with you because we disagree about so much and you're able to argue logically .

I don't know why you say that. If it wasn't reasonable, I would change my mind.

If it were reasonable enough there would be no reason to change your mind.Is Faith ever going to change her mind? Never. It is reasonable enough.Am I ever going to change my mind? Never. It is reasonable enoughAre you going to change your mind? Perhaps.It is not reasonable enough.
.
.
.
....is kind of what I meant{AbE} Do you know what repentance means? It means changing your mind)Edited by iano, : in parenthesisEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I try to figure things out. Is that so terrible?

Don't believe in the what? I don't know what the "supernatural" is, but I gather you think it's pretty well tied up with having a purpose, but I'm here to tell you that as far as I'm aware, the purpose of things has nothing to do with anything "supernatural." I don't know where your purpose comes from, but mine came from me. No "supernatural" required, whatever that is. I'm a computer programmer too, and I'm here to tell you that while the idea that it's possible to excise connotation out from some kind of purer, more precise language is seductive for people like us, it's also patently false. You can't ignore connotation in language because language is entirely connotation.It's not like a language like C, where some guys define the grammar and meaning (in EBNF or something) and then other people build the compilers and interpreters from those definitions. Human languages are spoken first and defined second. The people who write dictionaries simply observe speech and write down the meaning.What I'm trying to say is, I can't interpret your statements the way you wish I could. No one can. I think that reality is really real, if that's what you mean. The extent to which that reality is accessable to us is uncertain. I believe that truth exists; I don't know that I believe it can be known. Maybe we do start with some assumptions; I don't know. You might be the first one to think so. There's no need for the conversation to end, though. Plenty of threads here for us to talk about.

I don't know about this reasoning . Changing one's mind reflects more the open-mindedness or uncertainty of the person than the reasonability of their belief. To say that you'll never change your mind can be called arrogant and stubborn, or confident and self-willed depending on how you look at it, but reasonable? Any persuasion can be reasonable, accepted, and then rejected if you eventually find that it is inconsistent with one of your beliefs if your belief system is evolving.

The purpose I'm talking about is the reason that life was created. Hammers are created for the purpose of hammering, computers are created for the purpose of computing, and so life is created for the purpose of...living? We have a purpose in mind for each tool we make, but what purpose was in mind when life was created? Without a supernatural entity, there couldn't be any purpose because there can't be anything in "mind" so to speak.Obviously we can give ourselves a purpose, just as we could use a hammer for cooking, but the purpose I'm referring to is derived from the intention of the creator. That is what I meant when I referred to the "purpose of life." Unfortunately, our language isn't precise enough to define the difference of these types of purposes, which makes your argument technically correct. However, the purpose I'm referring to is described in many religions and theories, so I thought it’d be relevant. You obviously haven't met my brother (that savant bastard is even worse than I am)...but I'm not sure where this is going. I'll let you have the last word, but I'd like to say a few things:(1)I precisely disagree that languages are spoken first. When a word is introduced (such as fish, cat, and floccinaucinihilipilification :cool, it must be defined as something. As languages evolve, words must change or expand in meaning to evolve with them, which is where I believe the connotations and nuances can take hold. This of course does not happen to all words.(2) To "not know either way" is something that I believe can be traced to its exact logical meaning, regardless of the exact meaning to each word. If you can't say that you "don't know either way," then logically it would imply that you would "know one way or the other." I'm asking nothing more than to take the precise logical definition of my logical ascertains. I would agree that you can't take the precise definition of each word because not every word carries this type of precision, but grammar certainly has a pretty solid structure to it.(3) I'd like to avoid connotation in online discussions whenever possible because connotation is particular to location. This would of course imply that I don't believe that language is entirely connotation.(4) This is just a little irrelevant side-note: I looked at Kant's synthesis of empiricism and rationalism and found that I completely agree with his approach, so I won’t be refuting it in any way. I might, however, start a thread on it because I find it pretty interesting.

I think your mistake is that you privilege that purpose over other purposes. If I purchase a hammer, my purpose for doing so supercedes the purpose of the creator of that hammer. The purpose that the Craftsman Tool corp had in mind is less important than whatever purpose I had in mind when I bought their product.Similarly, since the purpose I determined for myself - me, who is the "owner" of myself - is privileged over the purpose of my creators - my two parents - the fact that there's no supernatural god creator doesn't matter. I have just as much purpose without as with. Another mistake you make is that this kind of purpose is still self-assigned. People adopt religion by choice. People have always determined their own purpose, and then, paradoxically, assigned the origin of that purpose to some higher power. It doesn't change the fact that people cleave to religions voluntarily, and therefore, are selecting their own purposes.For humans, there is no other purpose beyond that which we select for ourselves. Even the people who believe in God's purpose for their lives are selecting their own purposes, and then putting those purposes in the mouth of their chosen god-figure. As a student of languages, I assure you the opposite is true. Neologisms arise in context, almost universally. The definition follows usage. It does not preceed it. Neologisms are nearly universally coined at the immediate instant that they need to appear in a sentence, and only later is a "formal" definition laid out. Almost every new word follows this pattern.The writers of dictionaries do not proscribe definitions - they describe them. The job of a dictionary is not to be the authoritative source on what words mean - contrary to their main mode of employ, I realize - but to represent a snapshot of how words are used by the people that speak them, at that time. That is how dictionaries change over time - they are led by changes in language. I think you're chasing shadows with this. Don't put yourself in a position where you're using terms like "logical meaning", because you'll be asked to put forth the formal logical reasoning you employed to arrive at that conclusion. Right. And I'm telling you that, in English (which is what we are speaking), the phrase you used indicates complete uncertainty about which of two contradictory positions is true. The phrase absolutely never denotes that the speaker believes that one position is better-supported than another, but perfect certainty cannot be reached.To the extent that words and phrases mean anything at all, the phrase you used simply doesn't mean that. To "not know either way" is to express complete uncertainty. You will not be able to do this. To compound your problem, connotation is not particular only to location; it's particular to individual.Yes, that makes effective communication between two persons a non-trivial problem. Welcome to life in the real world. You might research the various ways that persons who wish to be understood attempt to overcome the imprecisions of communicating in a flexible, changing human language. Tip: it's not by pretending that connotation and idiom are non-existent. With the caveat that I don't know much about philosophy because I find it rather boring, and almost entirely antithetical to actually getting work done, I invite you to do so. I should be most interested.

One more thing - I don't want to get sidetracked by going back and forth about what you said vs what you meant. You're the only one who knows what you meant. I'm the only one who knows how I interpreted what you said.Trying to impeach the other on these positions is obviously fruitless. I'm not in a position to dictate to you what you meant to say; you're not in a position to judge my interpretation of your words.I'm eager for us to reach a mutual acceptance that miscommunication occured, because I don't want to lose sight of your original point. I'm happy to discuss language and communication in general with you but I can't imagine anything more boring than going back and forth about what a specific word or phrase is "supposed" to mean. Can you?

No problem there. I've noticed that with every response, another quote has been added and debated making it difficult to keep track of the original point. Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I wasn't even close to being ready to admit any fault in any of my arguments, so this would probably only get worse. I think we should just start over, and I'll try to learn from this so that it doesn't get as bad again. I don't know if you saw my number of posts, but it'll probably be a while before I can completely understand the consequences of taking shortcuts in describing my position.

And they call Christians arrogant???
Of course, we humans on this dustspeck know that this entire universe becomes the purpose we select for it!

Topic closed out of respect for author.