I think that the biggest difference may lie with what I'll all "deep ignorance" -- significant ignorance about far more basic issues. When a person is ignorant about deeper, more basic questions about the nature of religion, belief, skepticism, and science, then it's impossible for them to "get it" with just atheism. First you would have to educate them to the point where they can understand far more simple issues before you can move on to atheism -- which, sadly enough, should qualify as a very simple issue itself.
John Rambo, who also calls himself "A Johnny Reb in Yankee World," had a few things to tweet about atheism the other day, but he didn't have much to say that was true or sensible. He did, however, reveal a few things about his thinking which raises serious questions about anyone with significant misunderstandings about atheism:
John Rambo: @AderalApocalyps Atheism is every bit the religion that theism is.
I guess if you don't understand what theism is, you'll never understand any attempt to explain what a-theism is. Theism, the belief that at least one god of some sort exists, obviously isn't any more of a religion than belief in angels or belief in an afterlife are, all by themselves, religions. They can all be parts of religions, of course, and sometimes they can be important parts of religions. But they can also exist independent of religion -- being a theist doesn't make you religious and being religious doesn't mean that one is a theist.
Fortunately, ignorance this deep is relatively uncommon. I see it far more than I'd like, but nevertheless people who make erroneous claims about atheism still usually recognize that theism, all by itself, does not qualify as a "religion." This is great because it's an important foundation for explaining why a-theism also, all by itself, doesn't amount to a "religion."
John Rambo: @SpiderSlayer If atheism were about a lack of belief, atheists would not proselytize so loudly and arrogantly, while citing false science.
This error is a bit more common: atheists critique religion and theism, which means they are arguing against adopting those beliefs, which means they are arguing that secular atheism makes more sense, which means they are "proselytizing." By this logic, anyone offering any sort of disagreement with or criticism of any idea, belief, claim, or system is "proselytizing."
No one thinks that criticism of an business plan, of a movie, or of a proposed law is "proselytizing," even though every criticism carries with it at least the implication that there is a better way of doing things. So why single out atheists? Perhaps it's because we're critiquing religions where proselytizing can be a way of life and adherents are unable to think outside that category when it comes to their religion. If promoting their religion is proselytizing, then criticism of their religion must also be proselytizing. Unfortunately for them, that logic doesn't work -- the conclusion doesn't even remotely follow from the premise.
There is also a second error being made in the above: John is assuming that any criticism of religion or theism is being made solely from the perspective of atheism and nothing else. If this were true, then he might have a point because mere disbelief in gods isn't much of a foundation for any serious, substantive critique of either theism or religion. That requires a more coherent philosophy or ideology and of course it's true that atheists have beliefs which are organized as a philosophy, ideology, world view, or belief system.
John's error, which many others make as well, is in thinking that whatever belief system an atheist has must be identified with atheism itself. He doesn't recognize that however important atheism might be to any particular philosophy, the two remain distinct. Some atheists will approach religious critique from a positivist perspective. Some will rely on humanism. Others are Objectivists. Some rely purely on science. All of this may be atheistic, but none of it is the same as atheism.
Imagine if atheists did the same, identifying every theistic religion with theism and refusing to acknowledge a difference between the two: Christianity is the same as theism, Islam is the same as theism, Hinduism is the same as theism, etc. All our thinking, reasoning, and criticism would become completely incoherent, unable to address anything real about any of these belief systems and even being unable to separate them. That's exactly what theists like John end up doing when they pretend that atheism and every or any atheistic philosophy are identical: completely incoherent thinking and invalid reasoning.
John Rambo: @AderalApocalyps You're the one who believes the universe created itself. You're inventing miracles for something you can't explain.
John Rambo: @AderalApocalyps Just to be clear, we know the universe was created somehow. The question is whether it was intentional or accidental.
John Rambo: @AderalApocalyps Atheism is the simpler explanation because atheism is the simpler explanation. Occam's razor. Got it.... It just seems to me that your evidence for atheism being a simpler explanation is that it's a simpler explanation. #Catch22
"He's been shot. The gun must have went off by itself. That's the simplest explanation. Occam's razor, you know."
Another failure with so many religious theists lies with basic logic. Here, we see John making two basic errors with logic: first he commits a logical fallacy then he tries to accuse another of exactly that same fallacy, but messes up badly. In the first two statements John creates a circular argument because insisting that we assume the universe was "created" requires assuming the truth of the conclusion he's arguing for -- namely, that there was a "creator."
In the second two statements, John reveals that he doesn't even understand what a "circular argument" is because he tries to accuse AderalAcpocalyps of a "catch-22" when "circular argument" is clearly what he means. John is trying to portray the application of Occam's Razor to the origin of the universe as a circular argument, but he just doesn't comprehend what he's saying. Atheism is a simpler explanation not "because it's a simpler explanation" (which would be circular) but because "simpler" or "more economical" is any explanation with fewer entities.
Since a universe without gods is a system with fewer entities than a universe with gods, the former is more economical and simpler. This doesn't mean that it's the correct model, of course, but that is the correct description of the options. People without any real understanding of basic logic won't understand that, though, and will be at serious disadvantage when it comes to discussing atheism or science.
John Rambo: @AderalApocalyps Atheism, like everything else, should be judged by listening to its advocates.
And how do you suppose we should judge religious theism after listening to John Rambo? What sort of judgement can we reasonably reach after witnessing so little comprehension of both basic facts and basic logic?
Actually, a far more important question is, I think, how atheists can possibly explain atheism -- which should be a simple concept -- to people whose grasp of even more basic issues is practically non-existent? Where can or should we start? How do we even get people to recognize that many basic issues which they assumed they understood they actually have completely wrong?
Poor John, eh? He’s exactly who Susan Jacoby targeted as the featured entree in her book, The age of American unreason”
The idea that the universe had to be “created” raises some questions.
There are only two kinds of entities, those which have a beginning and an end (like a piece of string) and those which are curved and closed upon itself and therefore have neither a beginning nor an end (like a ring or a sphere) and yet are finite.
When people used to believe that the Earth was flat, the question of its boundary (and what lay beyond it) was a popular one. However as soon as we found out that the surface of the Earth was curved and closed upon itself and therefore had no boundary, that question became moot and nobody today embarks on a search for its beginning or end.
Similarly, if the dimension of time also happens to be curved and closed upon itself then the universe too has no beginning or end and the question of its “creation” also becomes moot.
In fact, we never see anything being “created” but only transformed from one shape into another. Those who still insist that everything must be “created” must also then answer the question who created the creator and who created him (or her, or it), ad infinitum.
Attitude makes a huge difference.
Sometimes you just know someone has a chip on their shoulder by their attitude. They contact an atheist list, and come on strong telling atheists ALL ABOUT atheists and atheism. And the atheists on the list are scratching their heads wondering where this person is getting their info. If you try to correct such a person, you’re likely, unbelievably, to be told you’re wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about. To me, this would be like going to an NAACP meeting and telling everyone there what it means to be an African American (of which I am not one), and when they try to explain to me that I’m clueless, I just insist they’re wrong and I know what I’m talking about.
This person usually hits the list with introductions that start with phrases like, “I know atheists are very proud of…” or “All of us worship something…” or “Every religion, including atheism…” and they can’t be taught, because, they already know. This is a person who thinks that they’re going to take atheists to school and wow us all with something we’ve never heard. However, it’s hard to fathom they could be so stupid as to think they’re the first religious person to ever hurl misconceptions and strawmen at an atheist list.
The only good thing about these people is that for a little while they offer the fun of being publicly humiliated without recognizing that is what’s happening. They are very sure they look like intellectual giants. But it’s like watching Don Quixote attacking windmills. Ridiculous. Sad. Somehow entertaining. And perhaps a bit annoying once it gets tiresome. How long can you go on with a monologue—after all?
And when a person consistently tells you what you think and believe—and insists on arguing with his model of you—rather than _you_ and who _you_ are and what _you_ really think and believe…isn’t he ultimately just having a conversation with himself? In such a case, you’re not even a necessary component of the exchange—since there is only a one-way exchange. It’s like a used car salesman who keeps coming back to the minivan he wants to unload—no matter how often you explain you’re looking to buy an economy car. Oh, you don’t know what you want! Let me tell you what you want!
No, really. I know what I want. I know what I believe and don’t believe. I have a huge network of atheist friends. And I think I know a smidge about atheists and atheism. I am not the voice of every atheist. But I know enough to clear up more than a few misconceptions—but only if someone cares whether or not they’re wrong.
Then you get, as Austin points out, some people who write in and actually _ask_ questions. Not pompous questions filled with attitude and presumption, that begin with ridiculous pompous phrases like, “Perhaps someone on this list can explain to me why it is that…” and read more like “I have a friend who is an atheist, and he said something I didn’t understand. Maybe you all can help me understand this…” Or they might start with an assumption, but be honest about it, “I don’t understand how atheists can say there is no god…” And you correct that and explain why some might make that assertion. And the person actually dialogues. And that can be engaging.
A good part of the problem is that fundamentalist religion spends a huge amount of time “studying” different religions and ideologies. This “study” isn’t actually study. It’s an inoculation against competing ideas in the form of reinforced strawmen. It’s like strawmen on steroids. Part of what began to crack my fundamentalist exterior was when I began to study other religions outside of my normal course of Bible study classes. In other words—on my own. There was a great deal of difference between what the texts of these religions expressed and what I’d been told they claimed.
I didn’t know what a “strawman” was back in those days. But I realized there was a discrepancy between what I was told X-group believed, and what X-group claimed they believed.
Still, the issue is that when a young person has been relentlessly taught: “This is what a Buddhist” believes, they think they actually know what a Buddhist believes. And if someone tells them otherwise, well, they’re wrong—because I took a class on Buddhism, and I know what Buddhists believe! In fact, I see my old fundamentalist self often in people I dialogue with who express a misconception. And I gave an example at this site before of a man who insisted I was saying X. I kept, over and over, saying “I’m not say X, I’m saying ABC.” And finally I stopped the dialogue and said, “You need to go back through this exchange and find the quote where I said X. Please provide that to me, and then we can continue. In your next reply, if you don’t show me a quote where I said X, then I’m not going to go on with this back and forth. I have never said X.”
In his next reply, he actually said something close to “You’re very tricky—you’re a clever debater!” because he couldn’t find anywhere I’d said X. And his conclusion, despite my many protests that I didn’t believe X and didn’t say X—was not that he had ignored me repeatedly—but that I had somehow “tricked” him into thinking I’d said X—when I never had. It never occurred to him that it was his own mind, damaged by indoctrination, that actually kept hearing X, where X was never said, and was even flatly denied.
lost count on how many times i’ve been called a communist
John Rambo certainly won’t be winning the Apologist of the Year award.
I never try to persuade or convert a blockhead. I would guess that blockheads make up aboout 20% of the population.
Atheism is pretty difficult to believe in light of the existence of everything in the universe(s) that we are able to see. While no absolute evidence will ever be available, circumstantial evidence provides a basis for some “thing(s)” instituting the physical laws and the particles that are bound by those laws. It seems, therefore, that the definition of agnosticism we offer up more accurately describes what is more readily believable.
The religions we humans have conjurred up is a different story altogether. There is no doubt that these have been created by mankind to satisfy its role in this universe. Most people cannot accept the ordinary life-cycle of livng things, i.e., birth-life-death. For those, it is necessary to believe that once created, some type of life has to be eternal. They’re taught that early on and accept it till death.
Atheism isn’t a system or ideology that one “believes.” It’s simply the absence of belief in gods.
Feel free to show how.
Feel free to show some.
Agnosticism also isn’t a system or ideology that one “believes.” It’s simply the absence of knowledge of the existence of any gods.
What’s more, it’s not mutually exclusive with atheism and theism, because they are about belief. Thus one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
What you’re saying is pretty much true. Agnosticism is :
agnosticism (ăgnŏs’tĭsĭzəm), form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Among prominent agnostics have been Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and T. H. Huxley (who coined the word agnostic in 1869). Immanuel Kant was an agnostic who argued that belief in divinity can rest only on faith. Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism, which asserts that there is no God.
For me, it is a descriptor for not being able to prove nor disprove whether creators exist. My own belief system, presently, is somewhat akin to Spinoza’s.
“in light of the existence of everything in the universe(s) that we are able to see”
I’m referring to what we’re learning from particle physics to astrophysics, and everything in between – the thermodynamic and conservational laws, evolutions of the species, etc. And these are descriptors as well. None of them can answer the question “why”such things exist under any circumstance, only how.
Religion is believing in the supernatural, so how could an atheist be religious?
Religion is believing in the supernatural, so how could an atheist be religious?
Religion need not necessarily a belief in the supernatural.
For example, one could be a member of group meditators that the culture deems necessary for harmonious relationship of all with no promises of any further reward. Nothing supernatural about that.
>Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism, which asserts that there is no God.
This is another strawman. This is only part of the definition of atheism. Lots of people who want to critique atheism parse the definition–and make sure to use only this half. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of any gods, OR belief that there is no god. To be an atheist, it is not required to believe there is no god–only to not believe there is a god. Certainly a person who believes there is no god also does not believe in the existence of a god. But a person can not believe in the existence of a god and reject the belief that no god exists. Looking up “atheist” or “atheism” in more than one source (that backs a particular agenda) is not only helpful, but more honest.
Meanwhile, it is ridiculous for a person to assert that the existence of nonexistence of god cannot logically be proved or disproved. Many models of god are self-contradictory–and therefore, logically impossible–and therefore, logically disproved. Other models are useless, such as deist or pantheist claims. Any claim that cannot be falsified has zero bearing on anything we’d be able to practially assert as “reality” or “existence.”
If it does not manifest to human beings in any verifiable or falsifiable way–how is it different than “nothing” to us? If we can’t differenciate item-X from nothing–how is it useful, helpful, or even discuss-able (if that can be a word)? How can we discuss any item beyond examination? We’d be making up garbage out of pure and total ignorance–which is fantasy and ignorant speculation in it’s purest form. Such a thing–while it might “be”–to humanity, would be “nonexistent.” To claim it exists without manifestation is to assert things not need manifest in order to be accounted as part of the set of existent items.
This guts the term “exist” by making it impossible to differentiate between what exists and what does not–short of logically contradictory items–since it discounts our only means of verifying existence: demonstrating manifestation of some sort.
Hey! This is “AderalApocalyps” from the discussion in question! I was very surprised to see this! I wonder if John will have anything to say about it. I find that he sometimes has the tendency to mischaracterize my positions on issues and stuff… boo-hoo… *tear* (for example)
I just still can’t believe he tried to bring up his academic background during that discussion, as if that made a difference as to whether or not he was making good arguments (if you’re reading this, then it’s not “talking behind your back,” is it? I guess I probably never told you this directly, but I was planning on it… oh well…)
“being a theist doesn’t make you religious and being religious doesn’t mean that one is a theist.”
This is, of course, exactly what I said. My comments were responses to other comments, and taking them out of context will no doubt change their meaning. Regardless, the important thing is that we agree that atheism doesn’t make one non-religious. Thanks for agreeing with me.
“John is assuming that any criticism of religion or theism is being made solely from the perspective of atheism and nothing else.”
I never said anything of the sort. You chose to read that assumption into my words.
“Imagine if atheists did the same, identifying every theistic religion with theism and refusing to acknowledge a difference between the two: Christianity is the same as theism, Islam is the same as theism, Hinduism is the same as theism, etc.”
I don’t have to imagine it. I hear this quite a lot. And yes, it is rather incoherent.
“Since a universe without gods is a system with fewer entities than a universe with gods, the former is more economical and simpler.”
Twitter, as you may or may not be aware, confines a Tweet to 140 characters, which often distorts the message and certainly creates a very informal tone of communication. I suppose it would be fair to hold every statement you make when out drinking with friends to the highest standards of science. But I’m sure you would never hold yourself to the standard you set for others.
Regardless, “entities” is not part of the definition for simplicity. If this were true, it would be “simpler” if all other people were figments of my imagination. What is simpler relies on a broader definition than that, and pertains to explaining all factors with as few extraneous assumptions as possible. I’m glad for this opportunity to correct your lack of knowledge about this.
It’s probably inevitable for Christians to encounter myths, misunderstandings, and misconceptions about Christianity and Christians. Of course I try to clear up these errors by explaining some basic facts about what Christianity is and is not, but just how effective are these explanations? Sometimes they quickly clear up problems and the other person “gets it” almost right away. Other times we go ’round and ’round without making any progress. What’s the difference?
I think that the biggest difference may lie with what I’ll all “deep ignorance” — significant ignorance about far more basic issues. When a person is ignorant about deeper, more basic questions about the nature of religion, belief, skepticism, and science, then it’s impossible for them to “get it” with just Christianity. First you would have to educate them to the point where they can understand far more simple issues before you can move on to Christianity — which, sadly enough, should qualify as a very simple issue itself.
Actually, a far more important question is, I think, how Christians can possibly explain Christianity — which should be a simple concept — to people whose grasp of even more basic issues is practically non-existent? Where can or should we start? How do we even get people to recognize that many basic issues which they assumed they understood they actually have completely wrong?
The way you manage to turn nothing but arrogant declarations into “logic” makes me wonder how you manage to dress yourself in the morning without causing yourself great injury.
Only if we ignore your words, which state that theism is a religion. If theism is a religion, then being a theist means being religious.
Only if we ignore your words, which are quite clear that atheists’ criticism of religion must come from their atheism. If you didn’t assert that position, then there would be no contradiction between atheists’ criticizing religion “loudly and arrogantly” and atheism merely being a lack of belief in gods.
Then you should be able to cite some examples.
I am aware of it, just as I am aware of the fact that you don’t understand Occam’s Razor. Still.
No, but it is part of the definition of Occam’s Razor: do not multiple entities unnecessarily. Curious, it was Occam’s Razor that was that subject of conversation.
Give the total absence of demonstrable knowledge on your part of basic logic and philosophy, I imagine that you always fail in these attempts.
I have to tell you that your little turn-around would have come off as clever and witty had you been able to establish the presence of some “deep ignorance” about the nature of Christianity and basic logic here – you know, like I did on your part with atheism and basic logic. Instead, it just comes across as desperate.
If what I wrote was nothing but arrogant declarations rather than logic, then it would be possible to point out the logical flaws in my writing. Instead, you just try to claim that your own words mean the opposite of what they clearly state.
“Only if we ignore your words, which state that theism is a religion. If theism is a religion, then being a theist means being religious.”
You don’t have to ignore my words, you just have to put them back into the context they were taken out of. The bigger point is that we agree that atheism is not inherently non-religious.
“Only if we ignore your words, which are quite clear that atheists’ criticism of religion must come from their atheism.”
This is quickly getting even stupider than I thought possible. You caught something like half of a conversation with a long history behind it and you presume to know exactly what I was trying to communicate when you have no clue whatsoever. It’s called “context”.
“I am aware of it, just as I am aware of the fact that you don’t understand Occam’s Razor. Still.”
Oh, ouch. I’m so hurt to be insulted by you. Please stop.
“No, but it is part of the definition of Occam’s Razor: do not multiple entities unnecessarily.”
You do realize that “unnecessarily” means that you presume as many as necessary?
“Give the total absence of demonstrable knowledge on your part of basic logic and philosophy, I aiming that you always fail in these attempts.”
If I were like you, I would mock your incredibly poor grammar here, and suggest that all atheists are stupid because one time you couldn’t put a sentence together correctly. Instead, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that internet communication is generally not held to the standards of a rigorous scientific process, and that real communication involves attempting to understand what is being communicated.
“If what I wrote was nothing but arrogant declarations rather than logic, then it would be possible to point out the logical flaws in my writing. Instead, you just try to claim that your own words mean the opposite of what they clearly state.”
I admit it. I was so offended by the sheer stupidity of what you wrote that I allowed myself to become sarcastic. I apologize for that. Hopefully the fact that I pointed out that the context of a sentence plays an important role in its meaning clears that situation up. I’m glad I had the opportunity to enlighten you about yet another basic rule of communication.
I’ll tell you what. I’m always eager to learn something new. Since you apparently know everything, why not tell me some of the “basic issues” which you seem to think I have wrong? I would love to be enlightened. I would be so happy to learn something new, that I’m willing to endure your completely unfounded arrogance just for the slim chance that you know something I don’t.
Full disclosure: I do not for a second believe that you are capable of teaching me anything about philosophy or logic. But you can either back up your talk with something substantial or you can sit back and let your acolytes tell you what a smart person you are for not rising to the challenge.
Enlighten me. If you think you can.
You’ve twice now referenced a “context” which somehow magically transforms your words into something other than a statement that theism is inherently religious — but you never actually quote that context.
Only if you ignore my words, which were about the person not atheism.
And yet, we never hear from what this “context” is which somehow causes your words to mean something other than their normal definitions.
Yes. You do realize that the word “entities” appeared there, right? Perhaps you forgot that I was responding to your odd concern that the word “entities” didn’t appear in the definition of “simplicity.” It might be helpful if you stuck with that subject rather than twisting off in a new direction again.
Hopefully the fact that you failed to provide a relevant and meaning-altering context will enlighten everyone about the quality of your concerns.
And yet, I don’t think I’ve seen you discuss politics or religion with people who disagree without sarcasm and personal attacks. So either you walk around feeling perpetually offended when those subjects come up or you are being disingenuous about needing to feel offended in order to engage in personal attacks. Either way, your failure to point out any genuine, substantive problems in the above certainly indicates that it’s not about feeling “offended” by “stupidity.”
I already did point out some of the matters you’re ignorant of above: your inability to accurately define theism or atheism, your inability to separate atheism from atheistic philosophies, your inability to correctly identify basic logical fallacies like “circular argument” and your failure to understand what Occam’s Razor is about. By appearing here, you add something new: an inability or unwillingness to directly address clear problems found in the presentation of your case. Oh, and I guess there is also: a failure to comprehend that the complaint that something has been taken “out of context” is empty and baseless without providing the relevant context and an explanation of how it changes things in a way that matters.
“You’ve twice now referenced a “context” which somehow magically transforms your words into something other than a statement that theism is inherently religious — but you never actually quote that context.”
My statement was that Atheism was “as religious” as Theism, which was in response to a statement that Atheism was not religious. Of course, we both agree that Atheism is not inherently non-religious, so at least there’s some common ground.
“Only if you ignore my words, which were about the person not atheism.”
This is stupid. All beliefs are inherently personal. Discussion of Theism or religion should be held to the same standard as discussion of Atheism. You make broad, sweeping statements about other people’s beliefs, but now you want to claim that there are no broad, sweeping claims about Atheism. That’s a ridiculous standard. We use words in order to communicate and all labels are generalizations. Don’t try to create a unique standard for your own personal beliefs.
“You do realize that the word “entities” appeared there, right? Perhaps you forgot that I was responding to your odd concern that the word “entities” didn’t appear in the definition of “simplicity.” It might be helpful if you stuck with that subject rather than twisting off in a new direction again.”
This is getting really stupid. Allow me to explain why you’re an idiot:
Suppose that we were sitting in the park while you lamented to me that you couldn’t satisfy your girlfriend. Suddenly someone walks up and claims that they sprang into existence without a mother. I say that’s utterly ridiculous, but you say, “Makes sense to me. I just believe in one less person than you do. Don’t needlessly mutliply entities. Occam’s Razor!” You then proceed to call me an idiot and mock my belief that the person more than likely had a mother.
You clearly have no understanding of Occam’s Razor, philosophy, or logic in general.
“And yet, I don’t think I’ve seen you discuss politics or religion with people who disagree without sarcasm and personal attacks.”
Because you know me so well.
“Your inability to accurately define theism or atheism,”
You’re referring to my inability to accept your self-contradictory definition of Atheism. Would it make sense if I started defining words however I wanted?
This has gotten utterly ridiculous. I’m satisfied that any reasonable third party would agree that I’ve demonstrated that you’re completely about a wide range of things. That’s enough for me.
Have a great time patting yourself on the back for being so awesomely intelligent that you’re completely incomprehensible to reasonable people. I’m done.
1. Atheism and theism not a proper nouns and thus shouldn’t be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
2. The statement you were responding to was correct: atheism isn’t religious. Theism also isn’t inherently religious. Both can be part of religions, but neither are religions or religious on their own.
Only to someone incapable of distinguishing between a person and some belief or position they might have. Just because a person is religious doesn’t mean that every position of theirs is also religious.
For your “explanation” to be relevant, there would have to be some connection between it and your false statements about Occam’s Razor.
Since you’ve forgotten, and don’t seem interested in investing the effort necessary to scroll up to view the context — perhaps because the concept of context matters more to you than any actual context, as demonstrated by your refusal to provide any actual context to support your accusations that you were taken out of context — allow me to quote how and why you get Occam’s Razor wrong: “John is trying to portray the application of Occam’s Razor to the origin of the universe as a circular argument, but he just doesn’t comprehend what he’s saying. Atheism is a simpler explanation not “because it’s a simpler explanation” (which would be circular) but because “simpler” or “more economical” is any explanation with fewer entities.”
No, I’m referring to the dictionary definition of atheism. Everyone already knows you unwilling or unable to accept this by the mere fact that you incorrectly capitalize it.
You already do by capitalizing atheism. And theism.
Only if by “reasonable” you mean “ignorant,” which would be consistent with your defining words in whatever manner is most convenient at any given moment. We can see that your redefinition of basic words is simply a matter of momentary convenience by the fact that you don’t consistently mis-capitalize atheism and theism. You only started doing it after I pointed out (again) that you can’t define them correctly. Suddenly, you start capitalizing them incorrectly, apparently as part of an effort to incorrectly define them in all new ways.
I wasn’t aware that you had “started” in any relevant or meaningful way.