| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Marakith" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2003 04:16:27 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
..\\arakith
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 05:46:18 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:50:04 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
Liking something is social convention? So there's no internal experience?
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists".
It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs, strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
This makes no sense. If I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in gods.
What "evidence" are you babbling about?
Jeffy apparantly thinks that proving that our beliefs are subjective
will let him claim that the object of *his* beliefs isn't.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
01 Nov 2003 01:15:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:46:18 -0500, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vq5t1rickmm6b@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:50:04 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
Liking something is social convention? So there's no internal experience?
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists".
It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs, strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
This makes no sense. If I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in gods.
What "evidence" are you babbling about?
Jeffy apparantly thinks that proving that our beliefs are subjective
will let him claim that the object of *his* beliefs isn't.
Jeffy and *think* are direct opposites.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 09:03:58 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:47 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.00.24.31.205479@eac.org...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:59:23 +0000, Bob White wrote:
No, atheism is not any kind of "statement," atheism is simply an absence
of
belief in the existence of gods.
Meaning in the sense of using the word "atheist," you are making a
statement about belief (even stating a lack of same is stating something
*about belief).
That's what Kev said: "Atheist is a statement about belief." And Jeff Young
insists people claim to be atheist, but can't prove it. And here is why I am
taking exception to that: Neither using the word 'atheist', nor stating
(verbalizing) anything at all, is in any way essential to having an absence
of belief in the existence of gods, right? One might go all his life being
a silent closet atheist and nobody would ever know it but him, because
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
No statements, assertions, or claims (statements standing in need of proof)
required that we know of, right? Or is there an official atheist "Apostles'
Creed" sort of thing of which I am not aware?
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html
Erm... want fries with those nits?
Using these word things makes statements. It's, you know, language and
stuff?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 12:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.15.03.57.416351@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:47 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.00.24.31.205479@eac.org...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:59:23 +0000, Bob White wrote:
No, atheism is not any kind of "statement," atheism is simply an
absence
of
belief in the existence of gods.
Meaning in the sense of using the word "atheist," you are making a
statement about belief (even stating a lack of same is stating
something
*about belief).
That's what Kev said: "Atheist is a statement about belief." And Jeff
Young
insists people claim to be atheist, but can't prove it. And here is why
I am
taking exception to that: Neither using the word 'atheist', nor stating
(verbalizing) anything at all, is in any way essential to having an
absence
of belief in the existence of gods, right? One might go all his life
being
a silent closet atheist and nobody would ever know it but him, because
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
No statements, assertions, or claims (statements standing in need of
proof)
required that we know of, right? Or is there an official atheist
"Apostles'
Creed" sort of thing of which I am not aware?
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html
Erm... want fries with those nits?
What nits? This goes to the heart of the matter. As you know, theists like
Young are always trying desperately to find some way to divert attention
away from their glaring inability to demonstrate any god, and trying to
shift the burden of proof to the non-believers.
Using these word things makes statements. It's, you know, language and
stuff?
But atheism is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), atheism is
simply an absence of belief in the existence of gods, right?
Non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove.
What are you saying, that Young is right, it is not the believers, but the
non-believers who have something to prove?
Don't you agree that Young is simply trying the typical theist ploy of
creating a diversion away from that which is genuinely under discussion, his
glaring inability to demonstrate any evidence to support his "God"
proposition, the fallacy of diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 12:10:45 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.15.03.57.416351@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:47 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.00.24.31.205479@eac.org...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:59:23 +0000, Bob White wrote:
No, atheism is not any kind of "statement," atheism is simply an
absence
of
belief in the existence of gods.
Meaning in the sense of using the word "atheist," you are making a
statement about belief (even stating a lack of same is stating
something
*about belief).
That's what Kev said: "Atheist is a statement about belief." And Jeff
Young
insists people claim to be atheist, but can't prove it. And here is why
I am
taking exception to that: Neither using the word 'atheist', nor stating
(verbalizing) anything at all, is in any way essential to having an
absence
of belief in the existence of gods, right? One might go all his life
being
a silent closet atheist and nobody would ever know it but him, because
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
No statements, assertions, or claims (statements standing in need of
proof)
required that we know of, right? Or is there an official atheist
"Apostles'
Creed" sort of thing of which I am not aware?
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html
Erm... want fries with those nits?
What nits? This goes to the heart of the matter. As you know, theists like
Young are always trying desperately to find some way to divert attention
away from their glaring inability to demonstrate any god, and trying to
shift the burden of proof to the non-believers.
Using these word things makes statements. It's, you know, language and
stuff?
But atheism is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), atheism is
simply an absence of belief in the existence of gods, right?
Non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove.
What are you saying, that Young is right, it is not the believers, but the
non-believers who have something to prove?
Don't you agree that Young is simply trying the typical theist ploy of
creating a diversion away from that which is genuinely under discussion, his
glaring inability to demonstrate any evidence to support his "God"
proposition, the fallacy of diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 04:28:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:10:45 +0000, Bob White wrote:
What are you saying, that Young is right...
Jeffy be right? Not in *this universe.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
28 Oct 2003 11:37:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:34:40 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
Yes. Where knowledge is essentially one to one with evidence in this
context.
According to Huxley. It is a belief in *anything* without evidence.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley:
"This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is
essential to Agnosticism. That it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
Be careful about the difference between "belief in" (your words) and
"claim about the truth of" (Huxley's words).
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avend
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
29 Oct 2003 03:22:36 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:34:40 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
Yes. Where knowledge is essentially one to one with evidence in this
context.
According to Huxley. It is a belief in *anything* without evidence.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley:
"This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all
that is essential to Agnosticism. That it is wrong for a man to say
that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless
he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
Be careful about the difference between "belief in" (your words) and
"claim about the truth of" (Huxley's words).
Well, yes, but I don't think it really matters in the big scheme of
things. I think this is really splitting hairs a bit.
The prose above is "..say that he is certain...", so Huxley's words are
not actually "claim". I don't see how one can rationally distinguish "I
say Bush is an idiot" from "I believe Bush is an idiot". In this English
context, it would be daft to say something like this if one did not also
believe it. Of course, if one is studying pure logic than statements are
made abstractly with no assumption of their absolute truth, but I don't
think that this really applies in this case.
If one replaces "say" with either "believes" or "claim", I don't see
that anything really changes in the intent of quote, for practical
purposes.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
29 Oct 2003 09:02:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:22:36 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
The prose above is "..say that he is certain...", so Huxley's words are
not actually "claim". I don't see how one can rationally distinguish "I
say Bush is an idiot" from "I believe Bush is an idiot".
The difference is between "I believe this god exists" and "I *believe
in* (worship) this god".
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
